2013 IEEE Green Technologies Conference

Coupling Simulation Tools and Real-Time Data to

Improve Building Energy Performance

Clare L. Cloudt; Juan D. Gomez; Taeg K. Nishimoto; Les E. Shephard

Texas Sustainable Energy Research Institute
The University of Texas at San Antonio
San Antonio, Texas, USA

Abstract—Researchers at the Texas Sustainable Energy
Research Institute are enhancing the capabilities of building
performance simulation (BPS) tools by collecting real-time high
fidelity energy data to validate and verify simulation capabilities
used to predict building energy consumption and to better
understand the impacts of building occupants on energy
performance. Two case studies, a residential new construction
project and an existing commercial building study, have adopted
a systems approach toward evaluating the building sector,
looking at the relationship between residential buildings,
commercial buildings, their occupants, utilities, and local
demographics. This paper assesses the important role of
efficiency, conservation, and demand response capabilities in
reducing energy consumption without requiring significant
occupant sacrifices. The Institute is coupling simulation science
(as well as its assumptions and processes), with technology that
allows researchers to capture real-time energy information and
identify more space-specific behavioral pattern assumptions
which create an opportunity for better refinement of
continuously-responsive building systems.
Keywords—building performance simulation; energy
efficiency; energy management; demand response
I. INTRODUCTION
The built environment accounts for a considerable portion
of global energy demand. Buildings in the United States
represent more than forty-one percent of the country’s annual
energy consumption [1]—far more than either the
transportation or the industrial sectors (Fig. 1). U.S. buildings,
alone, command seven percent of worldwide primary energy
consumption [2]. With rapid growth occurring in developing
countries, the need for more energy-efficient buildings is
imperative. Through the use of innovative technologies
coupled with government incentives, new building codes, and
building programs such as the U.S. Green Building Council
(USGBC) LEED certification process, new commercial
buildings are on the way to becoming more energy-efficient.
Additionally, architects and engineers are setting performance
goals early on in the design process, making sustainable design
cost-effective and minimizing the added energy demand of
new buildings [3]. The existing built environment—residential,
multi-family, and commercial buildings—requires attention, as
well. Through no-cost and low-cost improvements, current
building owners could increase building efficiency, save
money on utility bills, and reduce demand without needing
large up-front investments [4].

Fig. 1. World Energy Consumption, US Energy Consumption, and US Building Sector Consumption Values [5].

This work was supported in part by the State Energy Conservation Office,
USAA, and CPS Energy.

978-0-7695-4966-8/13 $26.00 © 2013 IEEE 375

373
DOI 10.1109/GreenTech.2013.64
 An array of virtual tools commonly referred to as building
performance simulation (BPS) tools are growing in popularity
among designers and engineers, with dozens of free BPS
options available with capabilities ranging from daylight
simulation to projected cost optimization. BPS tools have
existed for more than three decades; however, only a fraction
of design firms integrate them in the design process, and the
majority of that fraction only use simulation programs to size
HVAC systems and perform engineering-related analyses.
This paper discusses research at the Texas Sustainable
Energy Research Institute (Institute) at the University of Texas
at San Antonio (UTSA) that is examining current BPS
software, and the benefit of combining virtual tools with
measured consumption data and occupant behavior patterns.
Through two case studies, a group of residential new
constructions and a commercial retrofit application, the
Institute is using a systems approach to evaluate the building
sector. Looking at the relationships between residential
buildings, commercial buildings, their occupants and their
behaviors, utilities, and local demographics, the Institute is
focusing on the complexity of actual building energy
consumption in the real world. The study also looks at the
important role efficiency and conservation measures can play
in improving overall energy performance in homes and
buildings, eliminating waste as a first-step toward energy
reduction. Additionally, technology can enable building
owners to participate in demand-response programs offered by
their local utility. Developing a culture centered on the
principles of efficiency and conservation allows utility
companies to serve more customers with the same generation
capacity without disrupting the activities of building owners
and occupants.
The Institute is coupling simulation science (as well as its
assumptions and processes), with technology that allows the
researchers to capture one-second interval energy consumption
information and identify more space-specific behavioral
pattern assumptions. This research creates an opportunity for
better refinement of BPS tools and building energy
management systems (BEMS), which could aid building
designers in more accurately sizing mechanical systems and
could actively engage homeowners and building managers in
reducing their energy waste through innovative technologies
and management practices. Through this ongoing research, the
goal is to use the pairing of simulation technology with real-
time measurements to improve BEMS and help homeowners
and facility managers reduce peak demand, lower utility
expenses, and reduce energy consumption by eliminating waste
rather than requiring sacrifices.
II. USING SIMULATION IN THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
PROCESS
Residential homes account for more than half of the
building sector’s energy consumption in the United States, with
twenty-two percent of the country’s share [1]. The Institute is
currently combining BPS tools and real-time energy
measurements in a group of four newly constructed homes
west of downtown San Antonio. The design-build project,
called Three+1, was built through a partnership between
UTSA’s College of Architecture and the San Antonio
374
376
Alternative Housing Corporation (SAAHC), which is a non-
profit builder providing affordable housing on San Antonio’s
west side. A group of graduate students, including the principal
author, designed three of the four homes with the goals of
comparing different building envelope assemblies and
providing SAAHC with new home designs it could adopt. The
designs were to be approximately 1,050 ft2, energy-efficient,
affordable, and include three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
The team’s three homes used the following wall materials:
structural insulated panels (SIPs), autoclaved aerated concrete
(AAC) blocks, and shipping containers furred out and insulated
using closed-cell spray foam insulation. SAAHC built their
typical wood-framed and open-cell spray foam insulated house
for the fourth home, which is also an energy-efficient design
and serves as a control for the Institute’s ongoing research
(Fig. 2).
From the early stages of the design process, the team used
energy simulation tools to evaluate different building
characteristics including geometry, site placement, and roof
pitch. The BPS tools provided insight to the potential energy
demand and cost associated with different building forms
(Fig. 3), and the team was able to make more responsive design
decisions.
As the project developed, home simulation continued with
more specific mechanical systems and appliances using an
optimization tool developed by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) called BEoptTM (Building Energy
Optimization) which goes beyond simulating the current design
by considering the economics of each material and its financial
impact on the overall project budget. By adding financial
definitions to each material, BEoptTM considers the associated
labor costs and the prices of each material, as well as the
potential impact to utility bills. BEoptTM also automatically
optimizes a design, searching its library of materials and design
options to provide a prioritized curve of cost-effective and
energy-efficient alternatives (Fig. 4).
During the summer of 2012, SAAHC constructed the four
houses, which sit side by side on the same street. To limit the
number of variables contributing to different patterns in energy
consumption, all of the homes were designed to have the same
square footage (roughly 1,050 ft2), have very similar
floorplans, use the same appliances, have identical solar water
heaters, and use the same HVAC system. The wall and roof
assemblies are described in Table 1.
To measure the thermal bridging of each wall assembly,
temperature and humidity sensors were placed throughout the
interior of the homes; and, temperature, humidity, and light-
intensity sensors were placed outside of the homes. Sensors are
located in the middle of the north and south facing walls and
ceilings on the interior, and in the middle of the north and
south facing exterior walls and roofs on the exterior, as shown
in Fig. 5. Additionally, the Institute is collecting one-minute
interval energy consumption data, measuring the power factor
of circuits in the homes. The energy measurements are divided
into the same zones in each house, making it possible for the
Institute to discern the ways home occupants are using energy
and the impact of occupant behaviors on overall home
consumption patterns.
 Fig. 3. Comparison of Different Geometries. During early stages of the
design process, graduate students tested various geometries (top) to gain
insight to the impact building forms have on the house’s energy roof
composition (middle) and annual utility bills (bottom).

Currently, the Institute is collecting actual consumption

Fig. 2. Three+1 Project Wall Sections. Each of the four houses
implements a different set of materials for its wall and roof
composition.
data and comparing it to the simulated energy performance of
each house. A majority of research studies on energy-efficient
homes remove human behavior from the research parameters,
automating average consumption behavior rather than using
homes with real occupants. In this study, we are gaining
insights into the impact of human behavior on home energy
consumption and the potential integration of that knowledge
with energy simulation tools and continuous demand-response
technologies.

375
377
Fig. 4. Building Energy Optimization Simulation for the AAC House. The top left image shows the building geometry screen (beginning at top left and
moving clockwise). Based on the geometry, climate, and specified inputs, BEopt runs thousands of simulations, resulting in the second image (top right)—a
curve with hundreds of points each representing a different version of the input building. The lower images are two of the many detailed data sets
Already, some of the gathered data is in close alignment
TABLE I. THREE+1 HOUSE CHARACTERISTICS with the simulated performance provided by BEoptTM in Fig. 6.
Stick AAC Container SIP In the fall of 2012, all four homes underwent an energy audit
House House House House and blower door test, which returned HERS index scores
Area of between 52 and 55, whereas the simulations performed in
Conditioned 1,071 ft2 881 ft2 1,141 ft2 1,115 ft2 December of 2011 projected scores between 51 and 55. The
Space first few energy bills for the houses have also been promising,
Wall Assembly
20 20 21 26 with average energy costs around $50-60 a month, also in line
R-Value
U: 0.34 U: 0.34 U: 0.34 U: 0.30 with projections.
Fenestration
SHGC: 0.26 SHGC: 0.26 SHGC: 0.21 SHGC: 0.21
Characteristics
11% 12% 11.6% 11% III. USING SIMULATION IN EXISTING COMMERCIAL
Distribution of North: 32% North: 36% North: 20% North: 32%
East: 9% East: 8% East: 20% East: 9% BUILDINGS
Fenestration
(as percentage South: 50% South: 46% South: 40% South: 50% The second study the Institute is conducting applies BPS
of windows in West: 9% West: 10% West: 20% West: 9% tools and real-time energy measurements to the existing
each direction)
commercial building stock, which accounts for nineteen
HERS Index 51 54 55 52
percent of US energy consumption [1]. Whereas policies are in
HVAC System Cooling: Electric Heating: Electric place to improve the efficiency of new buildings, there is also
Lighting 100% CFL and Fluorescent great opportunity in the existing built environment to reduce
Duct R Value 8 demand without costly retrofits. Following on the ease and
Windows U: 0.34 SHGC: 0.26 effectiveness of BPS tools in aiding the Three+1 project, the
80 gallon Solar Water Heater with
Water Heater Institute turned to the commercial building sector to evaluate
Electric Auxiliary System
Energy Star Refrigerator, Electric Range the tools’ effectiveness in predicting the energy performance of
Appliances commercial buildings.
(no dishwashers, washers, or dryers)

376
378
Fig. 5. Three+1 Sensor Placement. In each home temperature and humidity
sensors are located on the interior walls and ceilings of each house depicted
by red dots. Adjacent to these are temperature, humidity, and light intensity
sensors on the exterior walls and rooftops. The green dots represent the
location of the energy monitors.

Through a partnership with USAA, a San Antonio-based

Fortune 500 company, the Institute explored the potential of
BPS tools to accurately simulate building energy performance
and determine no-cost and low-cost retrofit options for a large
commercial building on the company’s San Antonio
headquarters campus. The building provided an appropriate
case study, with submetered utility bills, previous energy audit
findings, and original construction documents with detailed
wall sections. The building, constructed in the mid-1980s, is
roughly 215,000 square feet. The building’s size categorizes it
a large office building. Ninety-eight percent of US commercial
buildings are less than 100,000 square feet in size, and by
targeting the strategies that pertain to the majority of
commercial buildings, the Institute research could provide
scalable applications implementable in a majority of the US
commercial building stock [6].
The study presented many challenges from the very
beginning; however, the insights gained from the experience
were invaluable and have helped shape the direction of the
Institute’s path forward. The project began with the goal of
using building energy optimization simulations to prioritize
cost-effective retrofit options on a commercial scale.
The simulation program used in the Three+1 project,
BEoptTM, was found to be unsuitable for simulating the large
office building for a number of reasons. First, the software was
unable to simulate such a large building, having been Fig. 6. Utility Bill and Site Electricity projections for each of the Three+1
developed for residential applications, and it was impossible to homes.
draw the building geometry in the program. Second, the

377
379
simulation assumptions associated with household occupant
behavior do not translate into a commercial application and
would have generated unreliable results. Residential behavior
patterns include common activities such as taking showers,
watching television, cooking, and sleeping—most of which are
not common behaviors in an office building. Third, the impact
of climate on commercial building envelopes is often
outweighed by the activities taking place inside the building.
Commonly, buildings larger than 50,000 square feet continue
to require air conditioning when outdoor temperatures are
below comfort levels because of the heat produced by
computers, occupants, and business-related processes taking
place within a building. These buildings are considered load-
dominated. On the other hand, the activities within a residential
single-family detached home usually do not affect its envelope
enough to dominate its behavior, making a majority of homes
responsive to the outside temperature conditions and
categorizing them as skin-dominated. This difference in
thermal behavior compounds the problems with using
residential simulation software for a commercial application.
For the reasons outlined, the Institute chose an open-
platform energy simulation tool which researchers would be
able to enhance with cost-optimization scripts mimicking those
of BEoptTM. The Institute used another NREL-developed
simulation program called OpenStudio, modeling the USAA
commercial building in Trimble SketchUp before adding
further definition to the building’s system scheduling, occupant
patterns, and specific wall assembly characteristics in the
OpenStudio application. Through the process of drawing and
defining the building for simulation, the Institute explored the
assumptions informing predictions. Fig. 7 illustrates the
complexity of definition in the simulation. By studying
USAA’s commercial building, the Institute gained insight that
will be used in current and future research in the commercial
building sector.
For the current phase of the Institute’s study,

Fig. 7. Rendering Modes Showing Simulation Detail. The OpenStudio model provided a visible depth of detail, as shown here. (a) shows the building geometry,
(b) represents the floor definitions, (c) shows each of the building materials, (d) divides the building into thermal zones, (e) allows detail on each floor level, (f)
interior partition spaces can be defined with unique materials and functions applicable to commercial spaces, (g) daylight simulation is also possible, and (h) each
wall, floor, and ceiling has a wealth of information associated with it.

378
380
researchers are using the UTSA downtown campus as a test
bed. The ongoing research involves simulation and real-time
data collection, coupling the two to develop more intuitive
BEMS tools and more adaptive demand-response technology.
In the summer of 2012, the Institute installed sensors
throughout all four of the University’s downtown campus
buildings, collecting one-second interval electricity
consumption data. Within each building, the data is further
divided by floor and by zone, corresponding with the
building’s wiring layout.
Already, the data has provided useful insight to areas of
improvement a building simulation could not have predicted.
For example, a small data center in a zone of one building is
responsible for creating large spikes in electricity consumption
lasting between ten and fifteen minutes which then plummet
for an equal amount of time before spiking again (Fig 8). The
value of this level of definition cannot be understated. Without
the refinement of zone-by-zone, second-by-second, actual
energy data, the University would not have known (and did not
know) how large an impact that single room was having on its
peak demand charge. The Institute is continuing its
development of BPS tools, modeling each of the downtown
campus buildings to gain further insight into ways simulation
tools and BEMSs can take advantage of the one-second
interval data being collected.
IV. CONCLUSION
Through the integration of simulation technology and real-
time energy data, the Texas Sustainable Energy Research
Institute is furthering the potential impact energy efficiency
and continuous demand-response capabilities could have on
reducing energy demand in the United States and mitigating
the need for more drastic sacrifices by eliminating waste, first.
The value of both technologies should not be understated. As
illustrated in the Three+1 project, energy simulation allows
designers to make informed schematic design decisions,
building upon the passive design strategies and rules-of-thumb
which architects developed from centuries of trial and error.
Fig. 8. Energy Peaks at UTSA’s Downtown Campus. These spikes in energy
consumption were previously unknown to the University and contribute to its
peak demand charge. Through energy simulation alone, consumption patterns
such as this one remained hidden.
379
381
Simulation also has value for existing buildings, revealing
inherent problems in a building and its mechanical systems.
The value of real-time data collection is also invaluable, filling
in the gaps left by simulated behavior assumptions. Without
actual energy data, consumption anomalies remain hidden
such as the data center peaks at UTSA’s downtown campus
that a simulation would not have known to predict. The
Institute is combining the two technologies, playing off both
of their strengths and studying the potential benefits their
insights can provide to building managers and the implications
this kind of combined technology could have on a utility’s
ability to implement continuous demand-response programs.
To further the impact of the energy data being collected, the
Institute is creating a SmartLiving Campus, where
visualization stations allow students, employees, and members
of the downtown community to visualize the impact their
energy behaviors have on where they work and live,
potentially affecting occupant consumption patterns. This
information also aids the University in reducing its electrical
demand, thereby reducing its operating costs. The Institute is
taking a systems-based approach to energy efficiency, making
the UTSA downtown campus buildings dynamic, intelligent,
and treating them as living systems which respond to their
surroundings, the activities they house, and the very reasons
buildings are capable of becoming intelligent systems—the
smart people inside them.
REFERENCES
[1] U.S. Energy Information Agency. (2012). EIA annual energy outlook
2013 early release, June 2012 (DOE/EIA-0383(2012)). Washington,
DC: EIA Office of Communications. www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo , Table
A2, pp. 133-135
[2] U.S. Energy Information Agency. (2011). EIA International Energy
Outlook 2011 (DOE/EIA-0484(2011)). Washington, DC: EIA Office of
Communications. www.eia.gov/ieo , Table A1, pp. 157
[3] Davis Langdon. (2007). The Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the
Feasibility and Cost Impact of Sustainable Design in the Light of
Increased Market Adoption. Retrieved from
http://www.davislangdon.com/upload/images/publications/USA/The%2
0Cost%20of%20Green%20Revisited.pdf
[4] Electric Power Research Institute. (2009). Assessment of Achievable
Potential from Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs in
the U.S. (2010-2030). Retrieved from
http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=0
00000000001016987
[5] U.S. Department of Energy. (2012). 2011 Buildings Energy Data Book.
Silver Spring, MD: Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by D&R International, Ltd.
http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/ p. 22
[6] U.S. Energy Information Agency. (2012). EIA annual energy outlook
2013 early release, June 2012 (DOE/EIA-0383(2012)). Washington,
DC: EIA Office of Communications. www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo p. 3-9