NRCan Screening Tool for New Building Design: Small Office Archetype

Expectations for Energy Efficiency Measures Stephen Pope, OAA, FRAIC Sustainable Building Design Specialist 11nov09

Agenda ƒ What we know when “we don’t know anything”; ƒ Establishing expectations for energy efficiency; ƒ Small Office Archetype – 8 Canadian Cities.

ƒ Hands-on review. Photo: Lyse Tremblay architecte

2

“…when you don’t know anything…” ƒ Performance assessment starts as soon as one knows: ƒ Building type; ƒ Gross Wall Area, Gross Roof Area, and Gross conditioned floor area.

ƒ Canadian Energy Use Surveys: ƒ National (Comprehensive) End-Use Database (NEUD / CEUD); ƒ http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/compreh ensive_tables/index.cfm?attr=0

ƒ Model National Energy Code for Buildings ‘97, Part 8: ƒ Former CBIP tools and guides (EE4, Screening Tool).

3

NEUD

4

Whole Building Energy Simulation ƒ NRCan Screening Tool for New Building Design; ƒ Parametric editor based on over 100,000 DOE 2.1e runs; ƒ 28-32 data entry points; ƒ Follows MNECB Part 8 + CBIP rules; ƒ Selection of building archetypes available; ƒ Selection of mechanical systems available. ƒ http://screen.nrcan.gc.ca/

5

Architecture Sets the Energy Context In-building pumping

Potable water demand Occupancy & Conditioned Floor Area

Form & Orientation Fenestration / Shading

Air heating demand

Ventilation demand

Air cooling demand

Communications & power demand

Space cooling demand

Electric Lighting Demand

Space heating demand

Skin Heat Loss Skin Heat Gain

Note: Site climate determines the general magnitude of each end-use.

6

Whole Building Site Energy Demand

Small Office Archetype ƒ 4,010 m2 conditioned floor area over 3 stories; ƒ 1:1 plan aspect ratio, 1.2:1 wall-to-roof area ratio, 36.5 m perimeter length per side; 1,338 m2 roof area; 1,604 m2 wall area; 0.4 fenestration-to-wall ratio; ƒ 0.4 L/s/m2 Outdoor Air; 7.5 W/m2 plug load; 25 m2/person occupant load; 18 W/m2 connected lighting power density; 90 W/person SHW load; ƒ Plant: 80% thermal efficiency natural gas boiler; COP 3.8 electric chiller.

7

The Small Office Archetype

8

Method One common building type reviewed with a common approach to energy efficiency in 3 basic scenarios.

Starting points: MNECB Reference Location

Window U value (W/m2*oC)

Window shading coefficient (SC)

Wall Insulation RSI (m2*oC/W)

Roof Insulation RSI (m2*oC/W)

Vancouver

3.2

0.736

1.23

2.13

Whitehorse

2.1

0.736

2.7

3.45

Calgary

3.2

0.736

1.82

2.13

Regina

3.2

0.736

2.08

2.44

Winnipeg

2.1

0.736

2.70

2.86

Toronto

3.2

0.736

1.82

2.13

Montreal

2.1

0.736

3.03

3.45

Halifax

3.2

0.736

2.08

2.44

10

Energy Efficiency Measures: Boilers ƒ Boiler Upgrades: starting at 80% reference efficiency w/ on-off controls, upgrade to: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

85% eff, on-off; 85% eff, modulating; 90% eff, modulating; 92% eff, modulating; 92% eff, condensing; 95% condensing.

11

EE Measures: Windows ƒ Fenestration-to-wall ratio: Starting at 40%, increase area by 5% steps to 95%; ƒ Window performance values: Starting at U=3.2 (or 2.1) and SC=0.736 (SHGC 0.846) decrease U and SC with the following range: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

CLR-CLR, air, alum spcr, FG frm: U=2.79/SC=0.61; CLR-LE, argon, alum spcr, TB alum frm: U=2.55/SC=0.59; CLR-LE, argon, TB spcr, TB alum frm: U=2.45/SC=0.59; CLR-LE, argon, alum spcr, FG frm: U=1.89/SC=0.56; CLR-LE, argon, TB spcr, FG frm: U=1.82/SC=0.56; CLR-LE(TiR), argon, alum spcr, FG frm: U=1.68/SC=0.41; CLR-LE(TiR), argon, TB spcr, FG frm: U=1.61/SC=0.41; CLR-CLR-LE, air-argon, 2 TB spcr, FG frm: U=1.3/SC=0.5; CLR-LE-LE, argon-argon, 2 TB spcr, FG frm: U=1.1/SC=0.46; CLR-LE-LE (TiR), argon-argon, 2 TB spcr, FG frm: U=0.94/SC=0.31. 12

EE Measures: Envelope ƒ Based on reference building using lowest ESAF heating fuel (natural gas everywhere but Quebec). ƒ Wall insulation: Starting at the reference increase insulation value in increments of RSI 0.5 to RSI 7.5; ƒ Roof insulation: Starting at the reference increase insulation value in increments of RSI 0.5 to RSI 7.5, then show RSI 10 and RSI 15;

13

EE Measures: Lighting and HRVs ƒ Lighting: Starting with the reference at 18 W/m2 CLPD, reduce to 15, 12, and 10 W/m2; Then reduce by increments of 0.5 W/m2 to 4 W/m2; ƒ Heat recovery ventilation: Increase the effectiveness (machine efficiency times relative volume of relief or exhaust air) in increments of 5% from 0 to 60%, then show 80% effectiveness.

14

Small Office Charts Comparisons ƒ For each of the 8 Cities: ƒ MNECB compared to NEUD; ƒ Ventilation energy demand compared to skin loss energy demand; ƒ Individual measure performance against whole building annual energy consumption; ƒ FWR mapped against window performance.

15

Options Presented ƒ Performance Curves: ƒ MNECB Reference System for multi-zone buildings (Variable Air Volume - VAV); ƒ Ventilation Separated from heating and cooling, showing ventilation by dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS – more commonly make-up air units –MUA), represented a four-pipe fan coil system (4PFC); ƒ Note: Performance curves are sensitive to building occupancy, geometry, roof-to-wall area ratio, HVAC System, and location. The curves are specific to the model described.

ƒ Fenestration Tables: ƒ Typical approach to minimum measures required to achieve LEED Ca-NC Energy & Atmosphere prerequisite 2; ƒ Specific approach to a high-performance office showing double occupancy and double plug loads.

16

LEED® Ca-NC EAp2 in 3 Steps ƒ Ventilation air supply separated from heating and cooling (fan coil HVAC system); ƒ Reduced connected lighting power densities (9.0 W/m2) with occupancy sensor and daylighting dimming controls for light fixtures over 30% of floor plate; ƒ Condensing space heating boiler (modulating boiler for some regions). ƒ Occupancy sensor controlled DCV for all floor areas (option for Vancouver only).

17

High Performance Small Office 1. Concentrated Occupancy: ƒ Double MNECB Occupant Density (13m2/occupant); ƒ Double MNECB receptacle power allowance (15 W/m2).

2. Separated ventilation air supply from heating and cooling; 3. Low-energy hydronic radiant heating and cooling; 4. Reduced connected lighting power densities (9.0 W/m2); 5. Occupancy and daylighting dimming controls for light fixtures; 6. Heat recovery on exhaust or relief air; 7. Demand controlled ventilation (may swap rank w/ 6); 8. Condensing space heating boilers; 9. Improved window thermal performance values; 18

Thunder Bay

NEUD Compared to MNECB 460 440

ekWh / sq.m / yr.

420 400

NEUD Historic Data – Offices Ontario 380 360 340

MNECB 97 Small Office Thunder Bay

320

MNECB 97 Large Office Thunder Bay

300 280 260 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002 20

2003

2004

2005

2006

Skin Heat Loss vs. Ventilation 1 230,000 220,000 210,000 200,000 190,000 180,000 170,000 160,000 150,000 140,000 130,000 120,000 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

Heat Required (W)

MNECB MURB Ventilation

Skin loss

MNECB Office Ventilation

500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 Floor Area (m2)

Skin Loss

MNECB Office Ventilation

Multi-res Ventilation

21

Base Case: MNECB Reference Building for Ontario Region B 3 Storey Small Office Gas Heat VAV Distribution FWR 40% RSI 2.4 Roof RSI 2.1 Walls RSI 0.35 Windows Winter design day skin loss is 59% of total heating load for 4,000 m2 office.

Skin Heat Loss vs. Ventilation 2 230,000 220,000 210,000 200,000 190,000 180,000 170,000 160,000 150,000 140,000 130,000 120,000 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

Heat Required (W)

Advanced Case: MNECB Proposed Building for Ontario Region B MNECB MURB Ventilation

MNECB Office Ventilation

Skin loss

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 Floor Area (m2) Skin Loss

MNECB Office Ventilation

Multi-res Ventilation

22

3 Storey Small Office Gas Heat VAV Distribution FWR 40% RSI 3.5 Roof RSI 3.5 Walls RSI 1.0 Windows Winter design day skin loss is 40% of total heating load for 4,000 m2 office.

Thunder Bay Reference 6,400 6,200 6,000 5,800 5,600

Thunder Bay Small Office w/ VAV - Envelope & Lighting

Energy Consumption (GJ)

5,400

FWR 40% - 95%

5,200 5,000 4,800 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,000

MNECB+CBIP Reference Wall RSI 2.1 – 7.5

3,800

Roof RSI 2.4 – 15

3,600

CLPD 18 – 4 W/m2

3,400 3,200 3,000

Window U 3.2 – 0.94 LEED Canada NC EAp2

2,800

23

Thunder Bay 4PFC Reference 6,400 6,200 6,000 5,800 5,600

Energy Consumption (GJ)

5,400 5,200 5,000

FWR 40% - 95%

4,800 4,600

Thunder Bay Small Office w/ 4PFC - Envelope & Lighting

4,400 4,200 4,000

MNECB+CBIP Reference

3,800 3,600

Roof RSI 2.4 – 15

3,400 3,200 3,000

CLPD 18 – 4 W/m2

Wall RSI 2.1 – 7.5

LEED Canada NC EAp2 Window U 3.2 – 0.94

2,800

24

Thunder Bay vs. Toronto Thunder Bay ƒ MNECB Ontario Region B; ƒ 5650 Degree Days below 18oC; ƒ Monthly average hours of bright sunshine: 91.7 ƒ Small Office MNECB Reference annual energy consumption: 3,994 GJ; ƒ Reference Values:

Toronto ƒ MNECB Ontario Region A; ƒ 3650 Degree Days below 18oC; ƒ Monthly average hours of bright sunshine: 74.7 ƒ Small Office MNECB Reference annual energy consumption: 3,636 GJ; ƒ Reference Values:

ƒ Windows: U = 3.2 W/m2oC ƒ Walls: RSI = 2.1 W/m2oC ƒ Roof: RSI = 2.4 W/m2oC

ƒ Windows: U = 3.2 W/m2oC ƒ Walls: RSI = 1.8 W/m2oC ƒ Roof: RSI = 2.1 W/m2oC

25

Identify EE measure limits 5,700 5,500 5,300 5,100

Toronto Small Office w/ VAV - Envelope & Lighting 4,900

Energy Consumption (GJ)

FWR 40% - 95% 4,700 4,500 4,300

Thunder Bay @ 3994 GJ

4,100 3,900 3,700

MNECB+CBIP Reference Wall RSI 1.8 – 7.5

3,500

Roof RSI 2.1 – 15

3,300

CLPD 18 – 4 W/m2

3,100

Window U 3.2 – 0.94 2,900

LEED Canada NC EAp2 2 700

26

Impact of DOAS 4,700

4,500

Archetype Toronto Small Office w/ 4PFC - Envelope & Lighting 4,300

4,100 Energy Consumption (GJ)

FWR 40% - 95% 3,900

3,700

MNECB+CBIP Reference

3,500

3,300

Roof RSI 2.1 – 15 3,100

Wall RSI 1.8 – 7.5 2,900

CLPD 18 – 4 W/m2

Window U 3.2 – 0.94 2,700

LEED Canada NC EAp2

2 500

27

System Impacts 3,800

Toronto Small Office w/ VAV - Envelope & Mechanical 3,700

3,600

HRV Eff 5% - 80% y Consumption (GJ)

3,500

Wall RSI 1.8 – 7.5 Roof RSI 2.4 – 15

3,400

Boiler Eff 80% - 95% 3,300

3,600

MNECB+CBIP Reference 3,500

Toronto Small Office w/ 4PFC - Enevelope & Mechanical

Energy Consumption (GJ)

3,400

3,300

Roof RSI 2.1 – 15

3,200

3,100

Wall RSI 1.8 – 7.5 3,000

HRV Eff 5% - 80% 2,900

28

Boiler Eff 80% - 95%

Window

/

FWR

40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%

DG / U3.2 / SC 0.74

0

-4

-8

-12

-16

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-46

-51

DG / U2.79 / SC 0.61

6

3

-1

-5

-8

-13

-17

-21

-26

-31

-36

-41

DG / U2.55 / SC 0.59

8

5

2

-2

-6

-9

-13

-18

-22

-26

-31

-36

DG / U2.45 / SC 0.59

9

6

3

-1

-5

-8

-12

-16

-21

-25

-30

-35

DG / U1.89 / SC 0.56

13

11

8

5

1

-2

-5

-9

-13

-17

-21

-25

DG / U1.82 / SC 0.56

14

11

8

5

2

-1

-5

-8

-12

-16

-20

-24

DG / U1.68 / SC 0.41

18

15

13

10

7

4

0

-3

-7

-10

-14

-18

DG / U1.62 / SC 0.41

18

16

13

10

7

4

1

-2

-6

-9

-13

-17

TG / U1.30 / SC 0.50

18

16

13

11

8

5

2

-1

-5

-8

-12

-15

TG / U1.10 / SC 0.46

20

18

16

13

10

8

5

2

-1

-5

-8

-12

TG / U0.94 / SC 0.31

24

22

20

17

15

12

10

7

4

1

-2

-6

FWR & SC w/ MNECB Reference satisfies LEED Ca-NC EAp2 Expansion of FWR allows some flexibility with trade-offs Expansion of FWR doesn’t compromise benefits of other strategies Expansion of FWR compromises benefits of other strategies FWR & SC w/ MNECB Reference values fail to satisfy MNECB Toronto Small Office archetype

29

Percent energy reduction from MNECB

FWR for Small Office with VAV

Window

/

FWR

40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%

DG / U3.2 / SC 0.74

9

6

3

0

-3

-6

-9

-13

-16

-18

-22

-26

DG / U2.79 / SC 0.61

14

12

9

6

3

0

-3

-6

-9

-13

-17

-20

DG / U2.55 / SC 0.59

16

14

11

9

6

3

0

-3

-6

-10

-13

-17

DG / U2.45 / SC 0.59

17

15

12

10

7

4

1

-2

-5

-8

-12

-15

DG / U1.89 / SC 0.56

22

19

17

15

12

10

7

5

2

-1

-4

-7

DG / U1.82 / SC 0.56

22

20

18

15

13

11

8

6

3

0

-3

-4

DG / U1.68 / SC 0.41

24

22

20

17

15

13

10

8

5

2

-1

-4

DG / U1.62 / SC 0.41

24

22

20

18

16

13

11

8

6

3

0

-3

TG / U1.30 / SC 0.50

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

11

9

6

4

1

TG / U1.10 / SC 0.46

27

26

24

22

20

18

16

13

11

9

6

4

TG / U0.94 / SC 0.31

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

11

9

7

FWR & SC w/ MNECB Reference satisfies LEED Ca-NC EAp2 Expansion of FWR allows some flexibility with trade-offs Expansion of FWR doesn’t compromise benefits of other strategies Expansion of FWR compromises benefits of other strategies FWR & SC w/ MNECB Reference values fail to satisfy MNECB Toronto Small Office archetype

30

Percent energy reduction from MNECB

FWR for Small Office & 4PFC

Window

/

FWR

40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%

DG / U3.2 / SC 0.74

26

23

21

18

15

11

8

5

1

-3

-7

-11

DG / U2.79 / SC 0.61

29

27

24

21

18

15

12

9

6

2

-2

-5

DG / U2.55 / SC 0.59

31

29

27

24

21

18

15

12

9

6

2

-2

DG / U2.45 / SC 0.59

32

30

28

25

22

19

17

13

10

7

4

0

DG / U1.89 / SC 0.56

37

35

33

30

28

26

23

20

18

15

12

9

DG / U1.82 / SC 0.56

38

35

33

31

29

26

24

21

19

16

13

10

DG / U1.68 / SC 0.41

39

37

34

32

30

27

25

22

20

17

14

11

DG / U1.62 / SC 0.41

39

37

35

33

31

28

26

23

21

18

15

12

TG / U1.30 / SC 0.50

42

40

38

36

34

32

29

27

25

22

20

17

TG / U1.10 / SC 0.46

43

41

39

38

36

34

32

27

27

25

22

20

TG / U0.94 / SC 0.31

44

43

41

39

37

35

33

31

29

27

24

22

Fenestration + 3 measures exceeds LEED™ Ca-NC EAp2 Expansion of FWR allows some flexibility with trade-offs Expansion of FWR doesn’t compromise benefits of other strategies Expansion of FWR compromises benefits of other strategies FWR & SC w/ MNECB Reference values fail to satisfy LEED Ca-NC EAp2 Toronto Small Office archetype

31

Percent energy reduction from MNECB

FWR & LEED™ Ca-NC EAp2

Window

/

FWR

40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%

DG / U3.2 / SC 0.74

44

42

40

38

36

33

31

28

25

23

19

16

DG / U2.79 / SC 0.61

46

45

43

41

39

36

34

32

29

26

23

20

DG / U2.55 / SC 0.59

48

46

44

43

41

39

36

34

32

29

26

24

DG / U2.45 / SC 0.59

48

47

45

43

41

39

37

35

33

30

28

25

DG / U1.89 / SC 0.56

52

50

49

47

46

44

42

41

39

37

35

32

DG / U1.82 / SC 0.56

52

51

49

48

46

45

43

41

39

37

35

33

DG / U1.68 / SC 0.41

53

52

50

49

48

46

44

42

41

39

37

35

DG / U1.62 / SC 0.41

53

52

51

50

48

47

45

43

41

40

38

35

TG / U1.30 / SC 0.50

55

54

52

51

50

49

47

46

45

43

41

40

TG / U1.10 / SC 0.46

56

55

54

53

52

50

49

48

47

45

44

42

TG / U0.94 / SC 0.31

57

56

56

54

53

52

51

50

49

47

46

44

Fenestration + 8 measures delivers 2030 Challenge target for 2008-2010 Expansion of FWR allows flexibility with trade-offs Expansion of FWR doesn’t compromise benefits of other strategies Expansion of FWR compromises benefits of other strategies FWR & SC w/ MNECB Reference values fail to satisfy LEED Ca-NC EAp2 Toronto Small Office archetype

32

Percent energy reduction from MNECB

High Performance Office FWR

8 Cities on 1 Chart

8 Cities Comparison ƒ Investigation of relative energy patterns for a common building archetype; ƒ Does the type behave the same way in all climate zones?

ƒ How much improvement can be expected from envelope improvements? ƒ What impacts can be attributed to climate alone? ƒ Impact of general construction practice – reference building values; ƒ Impact of differences in solar conditions.

34

8 Cities: Walls 4,400 E n erg y C o n su m p tio n GJ

4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

Wall RSI Calgary

Regina

Toronto

Halifax

Montreal

Vancouver

35

Whitehorse

Winnipeg

7

7.5

Whitehorse vs. Regina Regina Heating Degree Days: 5,750 ƒ Reference Values: ƒ Walls: RSI = 2.1 ƒ Roofs: RSI = 2.5 ƒ Windows: USI = 3.2

Whitehorse Heating Degree Days: 6,900 ƒ Reference Values: ƒ Walls: RSI = 2.7 ƒ Roofs: RSI = 3.5 ƒ Windows: USI = 2.1

.…A little bit goes a long way….

36

8 Cities: Roofs 4,400

Energy Consumption GJ

4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Calgary

Regina

Halifax

Montreal

4.5

5

Roof RSI Toronto Vancouver

37

5.5

6 Whitehorse

6.5

7 Winnipeg

7.5

8 Cities: Window Area 7,000

Energy Consumption GJ

6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 40

45

50 Calgary Halifax

55

60

65

70

75

80

Fenestration-to-wall ratio % Regina Toronto Whitehorse Montreal Vancouver

38

85

90

Winnipeg

95

E n ergy C o nsum ption G J

8 Cities: Window Performance Values 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 0.75

1 Calgary Halifax

1.25

1.5 Regina Montreal

1.75

2

2.25

Window U Value Toronto Vancouver 39

2.5

2.75

Whitehorse

3 Winnipeg

3.25

Some observations from 8 Cities: ƒ Ranking of energy consumption by city stays stable; ƒ Relative performance of energy efficiency measure by city stays stable; ƒ Selection of Reference Building (Prescriptive) performance values is significant; ƒ Controlling FWR is the easiest way to control envelope performance; ƒ Super-insulation for even relatively small commercial buildings is not a “silver bullet” for energy efficiency: ƒ “Good practice” residential resistance values approach the optimum.

40

Thank You

Stephen Pope, OAA, FRAIC Sustainable Building Design Specialist Natural Resources Canada / CanmetENERGY Sustainable Buildings & Communities / Commercial Buildings Section 580 Booth St., 13th Flr, D5, Ottawa ON K1A 0E4 tel. (613) 947-9823 cell (613) 324-1642, fax (613) 996-9909 email - [email protected], web - http://www.sbc.nrcan.gc.ca

41