4 - Energy Analysis Tools PDF

4
You are viewing a preview. Your final book, as well as your digital desk copy, will include pristine files directly from the publishers.
Energy Analysis Tools

Instructor
4.1 Introduction Proof
To analyze energy consumption and estimate the cost-effectiveness of energy conservation measures, an
auditor can use myriad calculation methods and simulation tools. The existing energy analysis methods
vary widely in complexity and accuracy. To select the appropriate energy analysis method, the auditor
should consider several factors including speed, cost, versatility, reproducibility, sensitivity, accuracy,
Instructor
and ease of use (Sonderegger, 1985). There are hundreds of energy analysis tools and methods that are
Proof
used worldwide to predict the potential savings of energy conservation measures. In the United States,
the DOE provides an up-to-date listing of selected building energy software (DOE, 2009).
Generally, the existing energy analysis tools can be classified into either forward or inverse meth-
ods. In the forward approach as depicted in Figure 4.1, the energy predictions are based on a physical
description of the building systems such as geometry, location, construction details, and HVAC system
type and operation. Most of the existing detailed energy simulation tools such as DOE-2, TRNSYS, and
EnergyPlus follow the forward modeling approach. In the inverse approach illustrated in Figure 4.2,
the energy analysis model attempts to deduce representative building parameters [such as the building
Instructor
load coefficient (BLC), the building base-load, or the building time constant] using existing energy use,
Proof
weather, and relevant performance data. In general, the inverse models are less complex to formulate
than the forward models. However, the flexibility of inverse models is typically limited by the formula-
tion of the representative building parameters and the accuracy of the building performance data. Most
of the existing inverse models rely on regression analysis [such as the variable-base degree-day models
(Fels, 1986), the change-point model (Kissock, Reddy, and Claridge, 1998)] tools, or the connectionist
approach (Kreider et al., 1997) to identify the building parameters.
It should be noted that tools based on the forward or inverse approaches are suitable for other applica-
tions. Among the common applications are verification of energy savings actually incurred from energy
Instructor
conservation measures (for more details about this application, the reader is referred to Chapter 16),
Proof
diagnosis of equipment malfunctions, and efficiency testing of building energy systems.
Energy analysis tools can also be classified based on their ability to capture the dynamic behavior
of building energy systems. Thus, energy analysis tools can use either steady-state or dynamic model-
ing approaches. In general, the steady-state models are sufficient to analyze seasonal or annual build-
ing energy performance. However, dynamic models may be required to assess the transient effects of
building energy systems such as those encountered for thermal energy storage systems and optimal start
controls.
In this chapter, selected energy analysis tools commonly used in the United States and Europe are
described.
You are viewing These Your
a preview. toolsfinal
are grouped intoasthree
book, as well your categories:
digital desk copy, will include pristine files directly from the publishers.
• Ratio-based methods, which are preaudit analysis approaches that rely on building energy/cost
densities to quickly evaluate building performance.
Traceable User Identifier: e9cf122e85c3db39818b6157256f5d5a - 192.168.80.254 - 08/10/2016 06:29:53

4-1
4-2 Energy Audit of Building Systems: An Engineering Approach, Second Edition
Location
Building Geometry Building

description Forward Model
energy use
HVAC type
FIGURE 4.1 Basic approach of a typical forward energy analysis model.
Energy use BLC

Building Representative
Weather Base-load
performance Inverse Model building
data Schedules Instructor
Time constant parameters
Proof
FIGURE 4.2 Basic approach of a typical inverse energy analysis model.
• Inverse methods, which use both steady-state and dynamic modeling approaches and include
variable-base degree-day methods.
Instructor
• Forward methods, which include either steady-state or dynamic modeling approaches and are
Proof
often the bases of detailed energy simulation computer programs.
4.2 Ratio-Based Methods

4.2.1 Introduction
The ratio-based methods are not really energy analysis tools but rather preaudit analysis approaches to
determine a specific energy or cost indicators for the building. These energy/cost building indicators are
Instructor
then compared to reference performance indices obtained from several other buildings with the same
Proof
attributes. The end-use energy or consumption ratios can provide useful insights on some potential
problems within the building such as leaky steam pipes, inefficient cooling systems, or high water usage.
In particular, the building energy densities or ratios can be useful:
• To determine if the building has high energy consumption and to assess if an energy audit of the
building would be beneficial.
• To assess if a preset energy performance target has been achieved for the building. If not, the energy ratio
can be used to determine the magnitude of the required energy use reduction to reach the target.
• To estimate typical consumption levels for fuel, electricity, and water to be expected for new
Instructor
buildings.
Proof
• To monitor the evolution of energy consumption of buildings and estimate the effectiveness and
profitability of any energy management program carried out following an audit.
To estimate meaningful reference ratios, large databases have to be collected. Typically, data for thou-
sands of similar buildings and facilities is required to estimate reference indicators. This data has to be
screened in order to eliminate any erroneous or implausible data points. A number of statistical analysis
procedures can be carried out to screen the databases. Common statistical methods include:
(i) Elimination of any data point that has a value which is not part of an interval bounded by 2.5
times the standard deviation centered on the average of the entire data set
(ii) Elimination of any data point that has a value below the 10th percentile or above the 90th
percentile

Energy Analysis Tools 4-3
You are viewing

When a preview.
new dataYour finalare
points book, as well
added as your
to the digitalthe
database, desk copy, willprocess
screening include of
pristine filesshould
the data directlybe
from the publishers.
repeated.
In particular, any data points previously eliminated should be reinstated in the database. To obtain up-to-
date reference ratios, the databases have to be regularly screened and updated. It is recommended that the
databases be updated at least once every five years for energy ratios, and once every two years for the cost
ratios.
The ratio-based methods are approaches used only for preaudit energy diagnostic or energy screen-
ing. These methods do not provide sufficient information to conduct a complete and detailed energy
analysis of the building and its systems. However, energy screening tools using ratio-based methods can
be useful, if properly employed, to assess the energy efficiency of buildings quickly. Examples of screen-
ing tools developed in the United States include BEST (Building Energy Screening Tool) and Scheduler
(developed for the Energy Star Buildings program).
Instructor
4.2.2 Types of Ratios Proof
Energy or cost ratios are typically computed as a fraction made up of a numerator and a denominator. A
set of variables is used in the numerator. Another set of specific parameters is suitable for the denomina-
tor. For energy ratios, the variables that are typically used for the numerator include:
Instructor
• Total building energy use (i.e., including all end-uses). This total energy use can be expressed in
kWh or MMBtu.
Proof
• Building energy consumption by end-use (i.e., heating, cooling, and lighting).
• Energy demand (in kW).
For the cost ratios, a monetary value (specifically for the energy expenditure or for the overall build-
ing operation) is typically used for the numerator.
For the denominator, several variables can be used depending on the building type and the main goal
intended for the computed ratios. Some of the common variables, used in the denominator of energy
and cost ratios, are:
•
Instructor
Surface area or space volume (such as heating area or conditioned volume in offices )
• Proof
Building users (in collective buildings such as hotels or schools)
• Degree-day [generally with 65°F (18°C) as a base temperature]
• Units of productions (especially for manufacturing facilities or restaurants)
In general, annual or seasonal values are used to obtain the energy or cost ratios. However, daily or
monthly ratios can be considered. The monthly variations of energy ratios are often referred to as build-
ing signatures.
Instructor
4.2.3 Examples of Energy Ratios
Proof
Generally, meaningful energy ratios require careful analysis and screening of the data. For instance,
it is important to consider effects such the climate and building function when estimating energy
ratios. Sources of building energy data are typically difficult to obtain. In the United States, the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) annually provides statistical data about the energy use of vari-
ous building types. In other countries, it is generally very difficult to obtain such data even through
governmental agencies. Table 4.1 provides some energy ratios for selected commercial and institutional
building types in the United States and France.
It should
You are viewing be stressed
a preview. that
Your final energy
book, ratios
as well such
as your as those
digital provided
desk copy, in Table 4.1
will include pristineshould be used
files directly fromonly as
the publishers.
generic indicators of typical energy use for the listed buildings or facilities. Energy ratios specified by
climate zone, type of HVAC system, or building size may be required for an adequate energy screening
or preaudit energy analysis.

You are viewing a preview. Your final book, as well as

Table 4.1 your digital
Energy desk
Ratio (or copy,Use
Energy will Intensity)
include pristine files directly from the publishers.
by Principal Building Activity in kWh/m 2
Major Building Activity Francea United Statesb
Office 296 300
Education 160 270
Health care 283 610
Lodging 230 325
Food service 416 649
Mercantile and service 264 250
Sports 278 NAc
Public assembly NA 305
Warehouse and storage NA Instructor
147
a Proof
Source: ADEME based on 2001 energy consumption
(ADEME, 2005).
b Source: EIA using 2003 data (EIA, 2006).
c Not available.
Instructor
4.3 Inverse Modeling Methods
Proof
As discussed in the introduction, methods using the inverse modeling approach rely on existing
building performance data to identify a set of building parameters. Inverse modeling methods can
be valuable tools in improving building energy efficiency. In particular, the inverse models can be
used to:
• Help detect malfunctions by identifying time periods or specific systems with abnormally high
energy consumption.
Instructor
• Provide estimates of expected savings from a defined set of energy conservation measures.
• Verify the savings achieved by energy retrofits. Proof
Typically, regression analyses are used to estimate the representative parameters for the building
or its systems (such as building load coefficient or heating system efficiency) using measured data. In
general, steady-state inverse models are based on monthly or daily data and include one or more inde-
pendent variables. Dynamic inverse models are usually developed using hourly or subhourly data to
capture any significant transient effect such as the case where the building has a high thermal mass to
delay cooling or heating loads.
Instructor
Proof
4.3.1 Steady-State Inverse Models
These models generally attempt to identify the relationship between the building energy consumption
and selected weather-dependent parameters such as monthly or daily average outdoor temperatures,
degree-hours, or degree-days. As mentioned earlier, the relationship is identified using statistical
methods (based on linear regression analysis). The main advantages of the steady-state inverse models
are:
• Simplicity: Steady-state inverse models can be developed based on a small dataset such as energy
You are viewingdata obtained
a preview. Yourfrom
final utility
book, asbills.
well as your digital desk copy, will include pristine files directly from the publishers.
• Flexibility: Steady-state inverse models have a wide range of applications. They are particularly
valuable in predicting the heating and cooling energy end-uses for both residential and small
commercial buildings.

900000
Aggregated Consumption (kWh)

800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Aggregated Degree Days
Instructor
FIGURE 4.3 Typical application of cumulative (or aggregated) degree-day method. Proof
However, steady-state inverse models have some limitations because they cannot be used to analyze
transient effects such as thermal mass effects and seasonal changes in the efficiency of the HVAC system.
Steady-state inverse models are especially suitable for measurement and verification (M&V) of energy
savings accrued from energy retrofits. Chapter 16 provides a more detailed discussion about the inverse
Instructor
models that are commonly used for M&V applications. In this section, only simplified methods based
Proof
on steady-inverse modeling are briefly presented. These simplified models have been used to determine
the energy impact of selected energy-efficiency measures and are based on the degree-day methods. Two
simplified energy analysis approaches are briefly outlined:
1. The cumulative (or aggregated) degree-day method consists in correlating (using a linear regression
analysis) the cumulative building energy use to the cumulative degree-days (using a reference temper-
ature of 18°C [65°F]). Figure 4.3 illustrates the basic concept of the cumulative degree-day method.
This method is used in some European countries to monitor the variation of building energy
Instructor
use throughout the heating season. In particular, the cumulative degree-day approach helps us
Proof
to visualize easily any changes in the building energy use pattern attributed to energy retrofit
measure through the slope of the regression line. Any improvement in the building thermal per-
formance (such as the addition of thermal insulation or increase in the efficiency of the heating
system) will reduce the slope.
2. The variable-base degree-day method uses a linear regression analysis to estimate the building
balance temperature. Chapter 6 discusses the details of the variable-base degree-day method.
Several energy analysis tools and software have been developed using one form of the variable-
base degree-day method. Among these tools are PRISM (Princeton Scorekeeping Method) used
Instructor
in the United States (Fels, 1986) to analyze energy use for residential and small commercial build-
ings, and the ANAGRAM (ANalyse GRAphique Mensuelle des consommations) software devel-
Proof
oped in France by GDF (1985) specifically to estimate monthly heating energy use for buildings.
Both of these programs are briefly described below:
4.3.1.1 ANAGRAM Method

Using the ANAGRAM approach, the annual building heating energy use is first calculated as follows:
BLC V
× VB × DDH × I
EH = 24 × (4.1)
ηH desk copy, will include pristine files directly from the publishers.
You are viewing a preview. Your final book, as well as your digital
where
EH is the annual building heating energy consumption (in kWh).
BLCV is the building loss coefficient based on the building volume (in kW/m3 °C).

You are viewing

η isathe
preview. Your
average final book,
seasonal as well
energy as your digital
efficiency of thedesk copy,system.
heating will include pristine files directly from the publishers.
H
VB is the heated building volume (m3).
DDH is the heating degree-days (based on 18°C).
I is a correction factor to account for the effects of night setback coefficient in reducing the building
heating load (if there is no night setback, I = 1).
Then, ANAGRAM proceeds to calculate the monthly heating energy use using the following
expression:
BLC V
E H,m = 24 × × VB × I × [DDH,m − (18 − Tb ) × 30] (4.2)
ηH
Instructor
where
Proof
EH,m is the monthly building heating energy use (in kWh).
DDH,m is the heating degree-days (based on 18°C).
Tb is the building balance temperature. Tb is defined as the outdoor temperature for which the build-
ing does not need any heating.
Instructor
BLCV, I, VB, ηH have the same definition as in Eq. (4.1).
Proof
30 is the number of days in a month (which corresponds to the number of days included in the GDF
utility bills).
Thus, a linear regression is carried out to correlate the monthly building energy use to the monthly
degree-days (based on 18°C using only heating season data). This regression analysis provides an esti-
mation of the building balance temperature Tb and the ratio of BLCV/ηH and is the average seasonal
energy efficiency of the heating system. Example 4.1 illustrates how the ANAGRAM approach is used to
analyze monthly building energy use.
Instructor
Proof
Example 4.1
Illustration of the Anagram Method
Using the ANAGRAM approach, analyze the heating energy use data for a building having a
heated volume of 15,000 m3. Monthly energy consumption and degree-day data are provided
Instructor
below for two years, 0 and 1.
Proof Monthly Degree Monthly Consumption Monthly Consumption
Days (MWh) Year 0 (MWh) Year 1
September (S) 115 0 0
October (O) 235 80 20
November (N) 375 200 80
May (My) 185 60 10
March (M) 465 260 110
June (Ju)
You are viewing a preview. 105 as your digital desk copy,
Your final book, as well 0 will include pristine files
0 directly from the publishers.
January (J) 580 340 150
February (F) 535 310 135
December (D) 485 280 120
April (A) 310 140 50

You are viewingThe

a preview.
resultsYour finallinear
of the book, as well as your
regression digital desk
analysis copy,
of the will include
monthly pristine
heating files directly
energy from the publishers.
consumption
with degree days are provided in the graph below. The regression analysis is based on the model
described by Eq. (4.2) with I = 1(no temperature setback ).
400
350
Monthly consumption (MWh) year 0
Monthly consumption (MWh) year 1 300
250
Instructor 200
Proof 150
100
50
Instructor 0
Proof 700 600 500 400 300
Monthly Degree Days
200 100 0
For year 0, the regression line intersects the x-axis at degree-days DDH.,m = 120oC-days. Thus,
the balance temperature Tb can be estimated as follows: [DDH,m – (18 – Tb) × 30] = 0. Therefore, for
year 0, the balance temperature is:
Tb = 18 – 120/30 = 14°C
Instructor
Using the slope of the regression line (which is 570 kWh/oC-days), the ratio BLCV/ηH can be
estimated using the fact that: Proof
570 kWh/oC-days = 24 * BLCV/ηH * VB,
Because VB = 15,00 m3, it is estimated that:
BLCV/ηH = 1. 58 W/m3°C
A similar analysis can be carried out for year 1. It is found that between year 0 and 1, the bal-
Instructor
ance temperature has decreased from 14°C to 13.5°C, and the ratio BLCV/ηH is reduced from 1.58
Proof
W/m3°C to 0.70 W/m3°C. It is most likely that this reduction in both Tb and BLCV/ηH is attributed
to improvement in the energy efficiency of the building envelope.
4.3.1.2 PRISM Method

PRISM correlates the building energy use per billing period to heating or cooling degree-days (obtained
for the abilling
You are viewing period).
preview. Thus
Your final the as
book, energy
well asconsumption is estimated
your digital desk for each
copy, will include billingfiles
pristine period using
directly fromthe
thefol-
publishers.
lowing expression:
BLC
E H/C = 24 × × DDH/C (Tb, H/C ) + E base, H/C (4.3)
η H /C
You are viewing a preview. Your final book, as well as your digital
Fuel deskDay
Use Per copy,
vs. will
HDD include pristine files directly from the publishers.
107 Acoma (2006–2007)
Monthly Daily Gas Consumption (MMBtu/day) 1.2
1.0
y = 0.0252x + 0.0833
R2 = 0.9423
0.8
0.6
Instructor
0.4
Proof
0.2
All months
Linear (all months)
0
Instructor
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Proof Daily Heating Degree-Days fn (Tb best)
FIGURE 4.4 Analysis of gas consumption as a function of monthly heating degree-days. (Kalinic, 2009.)
where
EH/C represents the annual building energy use during heating or cooling season.
BLC is the building loss coefficient.
ηH/C is the average seasonal energy efficiency of the heating or the cooling system. Instructor
Tb, H/C is the building balance temperature for heating or cooling energy use. Proof
DDH is the heating or cooling degree-days (based on the balance temperature). Chapter 6 discusses
in more detail how variable base degree-days are defined. For heating, for instance, the heating
degree-days are estimated as follows: DDH(Tb) = Σj[Tb−To,j]+ with To,j the outdoor air tempera-
ture at day j.
E base, H/C is the base-load for building energy use. It represents nonheating or noncooling energy
use.
Instructor
Through regression analysis, the balance temperature and the building load coefficient can be deter-
Proof
mined (assuming the heating or cooling system efficiency is known). With these two parameters deter-
mined, the PRISM tool can be used to establish an energy use model for the building and to determine
any energy savings attributed to measures that affect one of the three parameters, balance temperature,
building load coefficient, or heating/cooling system efficiency. Figure 4.4 illustrates the PRISM method
for the analysis of natural gas usage as a function of the heating degree-day for a residential building.
One variation of the PRISM approach represented by Eq. (4.3) is to use the average outdoor temperature
instead of the variable-base degree-day. This method is described in Chapter 6.
4.3.2 Dynamic Models
Steady-state inverse models are only suitable for predicting long-term building energy use. Therefore,
energy use data is collected for a relatively long time period (at least one season or one year) to carry out
the regression analysis. On the other hand, dynamic inverse models can be used to predict short-term
You are viewing

buildinga preview. Your
energy use final book,
variations as well
using dataas collected
your digital
fordesk copy,period
a short will include pristine
of time such asfiles
onedirectly
week.from the publishers.
Generally,
a dynamic inverse model is based on a building thermal model that uses a specific set of parameters.
These building model parameters are typically identified using some form of regression analysis.
Chapter 16 discusses other approaches to developing dynamic inverse models suitable for predicting
building energy use.
An example of a dynamic model relating building cooling energy use to the outdoor air temperatures
at various time steps (typically hours) is presented by Eq. (4.4):
E Cn + b1 E Cn−1 + .... + bN E Cn− N = a 0 Ton + a1 Ton−1 + ... + a M T0 n−M (4.4)

Other examples of dynamic inverse models include equivalent thermal network analysis, Fourier
Instructor
series models, and artificial neural networks. These models are capable of capturing dynamic effects
Proof
such as building thermal mass dynamics. The main advantages of the dynamic inverse models include
the ability to model complex systems that depend on several independent parameters. Their disadvan-
tages include their complexity and the need for more detailed measurements to fine-tune the model.
Unlike steady-state inverse models, dynamic inverse models usually require a high degree of user inter-
action and knowledge of the modeled building or system.
Instructor
4.4 Forward Modeling Methods
Proof
Forward modeling methods are generally based on a physical description of the building energy systems.
Typically, forward models can be used to determine the energy end-uses as well as predict any energy
savings incurred from energy conservation measures. Selected existing U.S. energy analysis tools that
use the forward modeling approach are described in the following sections. For a more detailed discus-
sion, the reader is referred to the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (ASHRAE, 2009).
4.4.1 Steady-State Methods Instructor

Proof
Steady-state energy analysis methods that use the forward modeling approach are generally easy to use
because most of the calculations can be performed by hand or using spreadsheet programs. Two types
of steady-state forward tools can be distinguished: degree-day methods and bin methods.
4.4.2 Degree-Day Methods

The degree-day methods use seasonal degree-days computed at a specific set-point temperature (or bal-
ance temperature) to predict the energy use for building heating. Typically, these degree-day methods
Instructor
are not suitable for predicting building cooling loads. In the United States, the traditional degree-day
Proof
method using a base temperature of 65°F has been replaced by the variable-base degree-day method and
is applied mostly to residential buildings. In Europe, heating degree-day methods using 18°C as the base
temperature are still used for both residential and commercial buildings.
The variable-base degree-day methods predict seasonal building energy used for heating with one
variation of the following formulation:
24.BLC.f. DDH (Tb )

FU = (4.5)
νηH copy, will include pristine files directly from the publishers.
You are viewing a preview. Your final book, as well as your digital desk
where
FU represents the fuel use (gas, fuel oil, or electricity depending on the heating system).
BLC is the building loss coefficient including transmission and infiltration losses through the build-
ing envelope. Chapter 6 indicates how BLC can be computed.
You are viewing

f is aa preview. Your
correction final book,
factor as wellvarious
to include as your digital
effectsdesk
suchcopy, willpart-load
as the include pristine files directly
performance from
of the the publishers.
heating
system, night setback effects, and free heat gains.
Tb is the building heating balance temperature. Again, the reader is referred to Chapter 6 which
describes the procedure to calculate the balance temperature based on the building descrip-
tion and indoor temperature settings
DDH(Tb) is the heating degree-days calculated at the balance temperature Tb. Chapter 6 provides two
simplified methods to estimate degree-days at any balance temperature. Monthly and annual
degree-days for selected balance temperatures are provided in the appendices.
Variable-base degree-day methods generally provide good predictions of the fuel use for buildings
dominated by transmission loads (i.e., low-rise buildings). However, they are not recommended for
Instructor
buildings dominated by internal loads or with involved HVAC system operation strategies.
Proof
4.4.3 Bin Methods
Another energy analysis method that uses the forward approach but is based on steady-state modeling of
building energy systems is the bin method (Knebel et al., 1983). The bin method is similar to the variable-
base degree-day method but relies on bin weather data to estimate total building heating or cooling energy
Instructor
consumption. In the United States, a number of HVAC engineers use the bin method to perform a variety of
Proof
energy analyses. Moreover, computer energy simulation tools based on the bin methods have been developed
(DOE, 2010). The simulation tools based on the bin method are typically appropriate for residential or small
commercial buildings.
In the classical bin method, only the outdoor temperatures are grouped into bins of equal size, typi-
cally 5°F (2.8°C) bins. The number of hours of occurrence is determined for each bin. For other weather
variables, only average values coincident to each temperature bin are determined. The resulting weather
data from the classical bin method is often referred to as one-dimensional bin weather data. Table 4.2
illustrates one-dimensional weather data obtained for Atlanta, Georgia. In addition to the outdoor dry-
Instructor
Table 4.2 Proof
Classical (or One-Dimensional) Bin Weather Data
for Atlanta, Georgia
Average of Outdoor
Dry-Bulb Number of Hours of Average Coincident
Temperature Bin (oF) Occurrence Humidity Ratio (lb/lb)
15 1 0.0020
20 42 0.0020
25 154 0.0020
Instructor30 291 0.0025
Proof 35
40
354
641
0.0031
0.0038
45 623 0.0044
50 665 0.0053
55 741 0.0065
60 882 0.0083
65 905 0.0100
70 1225 0.0128
75 1000 0.0133
80 672 0.0137
85 421 0.0143
90 133 0.0156
95 19 0.0170

You are viewing a preview.

Table 4.3 Your
Partial final of
Listing book, as well as yourBin
Two-Dimensional digital desk copy,
Weather willAtlanta,
Data for include Georgia
pristine files directly from the publishers.
Average of Dry-Bulb Temperature Bin (oF)

Average of Humidity
Ratio Bin (lb/lb) 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0020 69 48 29 14 0 0 0 0 0
0.0040 229 183 123 54 35 11 1 0 0
0.0060 238 178 91 75 39 37 10 0 0
0.0080 129 210 196 122 71 85 28 14 0
0.0100 0 122 335 228 140 111 72 40 3
0.0120 0 0 108 312 202 131 156 53 5
0.0140
0.0160
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
486
237
Instructor
245
289
156
184
131
142
42
57
0.0180 0 0 0 0 15 Proof
89 62 37 19
0.0200 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 7
0.0220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Instructor
bulb temperature bins, Table 4.3 provides the average values for coincident humidity ratio. The current
Proof
version of ASEAM software uses one-dimensional bin weather data.
The accuracy of the classical bin method is adequate only for buildings dominated by sensible heat
loads and with no significant thermal mass effects. However, the classical bin method may not provide
accurate energy predictions for buildings with high latent heat loads as reported by Harriman et al.
(1999) and Cohen and Kosar (2000). To improve the accuracy of the bin method especially for buildings
with significant latent loads, two-dimensional weather data bins were introduced by ASHRAE (1997).
The two-dimensional (also referred to as joint-frequency) weather data bins are generated based on
bins obtained for two variables (such as the dry-bulb temperature and humidity ratio) as presented in
Table 4.3 using a partial dataset for Atlanta, Georgia. Instructor
Proof
The two-dimensional weather bin data can be created using hourly data such as TMY-2 files. A num-
ber of software are available to create these bins including the ASHRAE Weather Data Viewer developed
by Colliver et al. (1998).
4.4.4 Dynamic Methods

Dynamic analytical models use numerical or analytical methods to determine energy transfer among
various building systems. These models generally consist of simulation computer programs with hourly
Instructor
or subhourly) time steps to estimate adequately the effects of thermal inertia, due for instance to energy
storage in the building envelope or its heating system. The important characteristic of the simulation
Proof
programs is their capability to account for several parameters that are crucial for accurate energy use
especially for buildings with significant thermal mass, thermostat setbacks or setups, explicit energy
storage, or predictive control strategies. A typical calculation flowchart of detailed simulation programs
is presented in Figure 4.5.
Detailed computer programs require a high level of expertise and are generally suitable to simulate
large buildings with complex HVAC systems and involved control strategies that are difficult to model
using simplified energy analysis tools.
In general,
You are viewing an Your
a preview. energy
finalsimulation program
book, as well requires
as your digital deska copy,
detailed physical
will include description
pristine of the
files directly building
from the publishers.
(including building geometry, building envelope construction details, HVAC equipment type and oper-
ation, and occupancy schedules). Thermal load calculations are based on a wide range of algorithms
depending on the complexity and the flexibility of the simulation program. To adequately estimate
energy savings from energy-efficiency measures, energy simulation tools have to be calibrated using
Climate data
Load calculation
Building data
Physical
Internal
Envelope
Infiltration Peak heating and cooling loads
Schedules
HVAC and process

equipment
Input data System simulation
Equipment data
Instructor
Hourly equipment loads by system
Energy
Proof
requirements
Economic data
Economic factors
Economic
Instructor Project life
First cost
analysis
Proof Maintenance cost
FIGURE 4.5 Flowchart of complete building model.
existing measured energy data (utility bills, for instance). A basic calibration procedure is discussed in
detail in Chapter 16.
Although energy simulation programs are generally capable of modeling most of the building energy
Instructor
systems, they are often not sufficiently flexible and have inherent limitations. To select the appropriate
Proof
energy simulation program, it is important that the user be aware of the capabilities of each simulation
available. Some of the well-known simulation programs are briefly presented below:
• DOE-2 (version DOE-2.1). DOE-2 was developed at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(LBNL) by the U.S. Department of Energy and is widely used because of its comprehensiveness. It
can predict hourly, daily, monthly, or annual building energy use. DOE-2 is often used to simulate
complex buildings. Figure 4.6 illustrates a typical zoning scheme used to model the office build-
ing of the case study in Chapter 1 with DOE-2. Typically, significant efforts are required to cre-
ate DOE-2 input files using a programming language called the Building Description Language
Instructor
(BDL). Several tools are currently available to facilitate the process of developing DOE-2 input
Proof
files. Among energy engineers and professionals, DOE-2 has become a standard building energy
simulation tool in the United States and several other countries using interfaces such eQUEST and
VisualDOE. Figure 4.7 shows a 3-D rendering of a residential building modeled using eQUEST.
• BLAST (building loads analysis and systems thermodynamics). This program enables the user
to predict the energy use of the whole building under design conditions or for long-term peri-
ods. The heating/cooling load calculations implemented in BLAST are based on a heat balance
approach (instead of the transfer function technique adopted by DOE-2). Therefore, BLAST can
be used to analyze systems such as radiant heating or cooling panels that cannot be adequately
You are viewingmodeled
a preview.
byYour final book, as well as your digital desk copy, will include pristine files directly from the publishers.
DOE-2.
• EnergyPlus. This builds on the features and capabilities of both DOE-2 and BLAST. EnergyPlus
uses new integrated solution techniques to correct one of the deficiencies of both BLAST and
DOE-2: the inaccurate prediction of space temperature variations. Accurate prediction of space
temperatures is crucial to properly analyze energy-efficient systems. For instance, HVAC system
You are viewing a preview. Your final

Top book, as well as your Zoning
View digital desk copy, will include pristine
System First files
Floordirectly from the publishers.
1 PNW 1 PNE
1 PW
1 PE
1 CW 1 CE
1 PSW 1 PSE
Second Floor Third Floor Reference Floor (*22)

2 PN
3N RN
Instructor
Proof
2 PW
3 EE
3W
RW
RE
2 CW 3C RC
3S RS
2 PS
Top Floor Penthouse Doe Model

Instructor TN
Proof
TW
TC Pent
TE
TS
FIGURE 4.6 Space zoning used to model an office building using DOE-2.
Instructor
(a)
Proof
Instructor
Proof
(b)
You are viewing a preview. Your final

w book, as well as your digital desk copy, will include pristine files directly from the publishers.
FIGURE 4.7 Three-dimensional models for a residential building (a) CAD rendering and (b) eQUEST
rendering.

You are viewingperformance

a preview. Your finaloccupant
and book, as well as yourare
comfort digital desk copy,
directly will include
affected pristine
by space files directly
temperature from the publishers.
fluctuations.
Moreover, EnergyPlus has several features that should aid engineers and architects in evaluat-
ing a number of innovative energy-efficiency measures that cannot be simulated adequately with
either DOE-2 or BLAST. These features include:
• Free cooling operation strategies using outdoor air
• Realistic HVAC systems controls
• Effects of moisture adsorption in building elements
• Indoor air quality with a better modeling of contaminant and air flows within the
building
• Several interfaces for EnergyPlus have been developed over the last few years. A complete list of
the interfaces is periodically updated on the EnergyPlus website (EnergyPlus, 2009).
Instructor
• HAP (1.17 or 3.05) is a computer tool developed by Carrier and is currently used to calculate
Proof
cooling and heating loads in order to design air-conditioning systems in buildings with multiple
zones (up to 20 zones). It can also perform seasonal and annual energy analyses and evaluate
potential energy savings from several energy conservation measures.
• TRNSYS provides a flexible energy analysis tool to simulate a number of energy systems utiliz-
ing user-defined modules. A good knowledge of computer programming (Fortran) is required to
properly use the TRNSYS simulation tool.
Instructor
Proof
4.5 Summary
In this chapter, selected energy analysis tools are described with a brief discussion of the general analy-
sis procedures used by these tools. The advantages as well as the limitations of the presented modeling
approaches are outlined. The auditor should select the proper tool to carry out the energy analysis of
the building and to estimate the potential energy and cost savings for retrofit measures. Throughout the
following chapters, simplified analysis methods are presented to estimate energy savings.
Instructor
Proof
Instructor
Proof

4 - Energy Analysis Tools PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

4 - Energy Analysis Tools PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

4

Energy Analysis Tools

Traceable User Identifier: e9cf122e85c3db39818b6157256f5d5a - 192.168.80.254 - 08/10/2016 06:29:53

Building Geometry Building

FIGURE 4.1 Basic approach of a typical forward energy analysis model.

Energy use BLC

4.2 Ratio-Based Methods

Traceable User Identifier: e9cf122e85c3db39818b6157256f5d5a - 192.168.80.254 - 08/10/2016 06:29:53

You are viewing

Traceable User Identifier: e9cf122e85c3db39818b6157256f5d5a - 192.168.80.254 - 08/10/2016 06:29:53

You are viewing a preview. Your final book, as well as

Traceable User Identifier: e9cf122e85c3db39818b6157256f5d5a - 192.168.80.254 - 08/10/2016 06:29:53

Aggregated Consumption (kWh)

4.3.1.1 ANAGRAM Method

Traceable User Identifier: e9cf122e85c3db39818b6157256f5d5a - 192.168.80.254 - 08/10/2016 06:29:53

You are viewing

Traceable User Identifier: e9cf122e85c3db39818b6157256f5d5a - 192.168.80.254 - 08/10/2016 06:29:53

You are viewingThe

Because VB = 15,00 m3, it is estimated that:

4.3.1.2 PRISM Method

You are viewing

E Cn + b1 E Cn−1 + .... + bN E Cn− N = a 0 Ton + a1 Ton−1 + ... + a M T0 n−M (4.4)

4.4.1 Steady-State Methods Instructor

4.4.2 Degree-Day Methods

24.BLC.f. DDH (Tb )

You are viewing

Traceable User Identifier: e9cf122e85c3db39818b6157256f5d5a - 192.168.80.254 - 08/10/2016 06:29:53

You are viewing a preview.

Average of Dry-Bulb Temperature Bin (oF)

4.4.4 Dynamic Methods

HVAC and process

FIGURE 4.5 Flowchart of complete building model.

You are viewing a preview. Your final

Second Floor Third Floor Reference Floor (*22)

Top Floor Penthouse Doe Model

You are viewing a preview. Your final

Traceable User Identifier: e9cf122e85c3db39818b6157256f5d5a - 192.168.80.254 - 08/10/2016 06:29:53

You are viewingperformance

Traceable User Identifier: e9cf122e85c3db39818b6157256f5d5a - 192.168.80.254 - 08/10/2016 06:29:53

Você também pode gostar