Understanding the Energy

Modeling Process (Energy

Modeling for Architects)
Chris Schaffner, PE, LEED Fellow
The Green Engineer, Inc.
 Three Part Series
#1 - Demystifying the Energy Codes

#2 - Design Strategies / Tipping

Points

#3 - Understanding the Energy

Modeling Process (Energy
Modeling for Architects)
 Learning Objectives
Attendees will be able to:
• explain when energy modeling may be
required for building projects
• differentiate between energy models used for
design assistance or simply for
documentation
• recognize the appropriate modeling approach
for LEED, Stretch Code, and Utility Incentives
• implement best practices energy modeling on
future projects
 Understanding the Energy
Modeling Process (energy
modeling for Architects)
building on the two previous sessions, Chris
will describe when energy models are
needed, and how they can be used
throughout the design process to shape and
validate our design’s energy and daylighting
performance, while meeting code
requirements and maximizing third party
funding (utility incentives, tax credits)
Why do we run energy
models?
 Why?
- Understand design decision
implications
- Improve building performance
- Resolves complicated questions
- Reduces risk
- Qualify for 3rd Party Funding and Tax Credits
- Meet regulatory requirements
- LEED
 “Modeling allows you to play
‘what if?’ on a scientific basis.”
- James Toothaker,
Ecological design saving
opportunities
 Why?
Design Assistance – used to inform design
decisions, test the effect of different
strategies

Validation – used to confirm a final design

meets specific goals, code compliance, etc.
Energy Modeling is a Design
Tool
This change This effect
Insulation Energy use and demand
Construction Energy cost (use and demand)
Window type Daylight levels
Window size Daylight energy savings
Window treatments Thermal comfort
Building orientation Environmental impact
Building shape
Programming
Lighting
HVAC system type
Heat recovery
Fuels
Specific products
Operation schedules
Natural ventilation
Energy Modeling Timeline

Project phase Conceptual Design Schematic Design Design Development Construction Docs Bidding Construction Admin Occupancy

Test massing & Test individual major HVAC System Early Snapshot Utility Updated Code Value Engineering Measurement and
Building Envelope Details Parametrics Final LEED Score Final Utility Incentives
orientation options features Selection for LEED/Code Incentives LEED/Code Compliance Assessment Verification

Modeling Goals

Parametric modeling of Updated Whole

Parametric modeling Whole building Modeling of Updated Update of Whole Whole Building Model,
Parametric Shading, Window Building Model,
Building scale block using partial building Initial Whole model, with minor variations, Updated Whole Updated Whole Whole Building ECM Model, calibrated based on at
Modeling of Configurations, glazing types, used to assess any
models models, or block Building Model individual ECMs using whole Building Model Building Model Building based on installed least 12 months of
HVAC options insulation. Could include substitutions or
models isolated building model Model equipment operation
daylight modeling design changes

Model Description

Green Building Studio,

eQuest,
Ecotect. (also can be Green Building Studio,
spreadsheets, eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace/En eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace eQuest/Trace/Ener eQuest/Trace/Energy eQuest/Trace/Energy
performed with Ecotect, eQuest Ecotect or eQuest
Green Building nergy Plus nergy Plus ergy Plus nergy Plus nergy Plus /Energy Plus gy Plus Plus Plus
eQuest wizard mode, Wizard mode , etc.
Studio
etc)

Software

Architect/Engineer/En Architect/Engineer/En Energy

Energy Modeler Energy or Daylight Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler M&V Team
ergy Modeler ergy Modeler Modeler
Who?

Simplified Block Models

Partial Building Models

Detailed Whole Building Models

Simplified Tools

Detailed Tools
 Design Models – Purpose?
• Compare Alternatives
• Life Cycle Costs
• Energy Projections

INFORM DESIGN DECISIONS!

 OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS
New Laboaratory Science Building - University of Massachusetts Amherst

• INTEGRATIVE AND WHOLE SYSTEM APPROACH

• ENERGY BENCHMARKING TO ESTABLISH GOALS

• WEST FAÇADE DESIGN CHALLENGE

• SIMPLE PARAMETRIC RUNS

• COMPLEX WHOLE SYSTEM ENERGY MODEL

ENERGY BENCHMARKING FROM CAMPUS DATA

CAMPUS BUILDING ENERGY USE

ENERGY BENCHMARKING FROM SIMILAR PROJECTS

LABS 21 DATABASE
ENERGY TARGET FOR NLSB
 PROPOSED ANALYSIS PROCESS

• Simplified modules for quick design decision

1. Daylighting Analysis
2. HVAC system types
3. Solar harnessing feasibility

• Full building models for LCCA, decision making, for example

1. Building Envelope
2. Lighting power density and daylighting strategies
3. HVAC system design

• Detailed models
1. LEED certification
2. Annual energy consumption estimates
 During DD and CD
Start at the project During schematic
development and
concept stage design phase, LCCA
value engineering
OPTIMIZING SHADES FOR A FULLY GLAZED WEST FAÇADE FOR New
Laboratory Science Building, UMASS Amherst

PROJECT: FLEXIBLE LAB

BUILDING IN MA REGION
WITH EXTERIOR VIEWS
ON THE WEST SIDE

SCOPE: MINIMIZING
SOLAR GAINS AND
OPTIMIZING DAYLIGHT
USE IN THE LAB SPACES
Initial Analysis of Sun-path over West Façade to optimizing
shade type and depth
21st June 1 pm 21st June 2 pm 21st June 3 pm
3.5 ft deep shade 3.5 ft deep shade 3.5 ft deep shade

A shade of 5’3” depth required

to block sun, blocks the exterior
views also
West Façade Shading Options
1st June – 4 pm
 Shading Device Options

Horizontal Overhang 42o 2 Horizontal Overhang 42o

Tilted Tilted

Vertical Fins Vertical Fins and

OPTIMIZING SHADES FOR A FULLY GLAZED WEST
FAÇADE FOR A LAB BUILDING
100 WINDOW SOLAR GAIN -
SUMMER DESIGN DAY
90

80
Solar Gain in kBtu/hr

No Shading
70
64% Area of West Façade Glazing
covered by PVs
60 Vertical Fins facing South; 3.5 ft deep

Vertical Fins facing South (Increased

50 number of fins); 3.5 ft deep
Vertically Fins at an Angle of 20o from
South; 3.5 ft deep
40
Horizontally Inclined Overhang Facing
West - Tilt 42.3o ;3.5 ft deep
30 Horizontally Inclined Overhang facing
West - Tilt 42.3o/2 fins 3.5 ft deep
Horizontal Shades and Vertical Fins
20

10
With shading, approximately
1/3rd of solar gains are cut off
0
5:00 AM6:30 AM8:00 AM9:30 AM 11:00 12:30 2:00 PM 3:30 PM 5:00 PM 6:30 PM
AM PM
Option A – Punched Windows Option B – Plasma Screen Option C – Double Wall

Option F – Screenwall
Option E – Desoto
 SOLAR GAINS THROUGH THE WEST FAÇADE GLAZING

100000 45

90000 40

80000
35

70000
30

60000
25
50000
Total Solar Gains (kBtu)
20
40000 Solar Gains (kBtu/sf) through glazing

15
30000

10
20000

10000 5

0 0
Basecase Option A- Option B - Option C - Option D - Option E - Option F -
Punched Plasma Screen Double Wall Mashrabiya Desoto Screenwall
Openings
THERMAL LOSSES DURING HEATING SEASON THROUGH THE WEST FAÇADE
GLAZING
Total Loss (kBtu)
35000

30000

25000

20000

15000 Total Loss (kBtu)

10000

5000

0
Basecase Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F
Punched Plasma Screen Double Wall Mashrabiya Desoto Screenwall
Openings
 ELECTRIC LOADS AND DAYLIGHT SAVINGS

Electric Loads (kBtu/sf)

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30 Electric Loads (kBtu/sf)

25

20

15

10

0
Basecase Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F
Punched Plasma Screen Double Wall Mashrabiya Desoto Screenwall
Openings
 ENERGY LOADS AND DAYLIGHT SAVINGS

Energy Loads (kBtu/sf)

70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30 Energy Loads (kBtu/sf)
25
20
15
10
5
0
Basecase Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E Option F
Punched Plasma Screen Double Wall Mashrabiya Desoto Screenwall
Openings
 WEST FAÇADE DESIGN

First step - Energy use in a simple module for the 6 options (DesignBuilder)

Energy Consumption Delta for various options

108.0%

106.0%

104.0%

102.0%

100.0%

98.0%

96.0%
Option A - Punched Option B- Plasma Option C- Double Option D - Option E - Desoto Option F - Screenwall
Windows Screen Wall Mashrabiya

% Difference Over Option A (Preferred Option)

 WEST FAÇADE DESIGN

Second step – Daylighting analysis for all the 6 options (Ecotect)

 DAYLIGHTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LAB SPACE

Interior Space statistics for a typical lab module on the west side

Window head height: 12 ft.

Lab module depth: 33 ft.
Carrel Space Depth: 11 ft.
Optimum WWR to obtain 2 – 5% DF in the space is about 22% .

According to the designs, the Window Wall Ratio, a Daylight Factor of 13.9%
is achieved which clearly suggests need for internal shading devices, either
manual or automatic to keep direct sunlight and glare minimized in the
space.

To finally narrow down on the various façade options, performance

comparison was carried out for

•Daylighting quality and external views

•Thermal Performance
•Energy Savings due to Daylighting
•Aesthetics
 CURTAIN WALL WIHTOUT ANY SHADING
STRATEGIES

Baseline West Façade

Design: Curtain wall system
with 95% glazing
•To compare and understand the
benefits of various shading options,
a baseline design is used as a
standard measure for comparison.
•Baseline case has a very high
Daylight Factor.
•More than 75% of spaces have a
Useful Daylight Index of 200 foot-
candles or more making it necessary
for internal shades to be used
actively by the user to benefit from
any daylight use.
 OPTION A– PUNCHED WINDOWS – 60%
GLAZING

Punched deep set windows provide an

effective and economic alternative to
complete glazing on the west façade.
The average DF of 3.68% is good for
lab work.
Sufficient UDI for most of the year
except the area next to the west
windows.
For about 35% of occupied hours this
space will need some kind of internal
shading strategies to avoid very high
daylight illuminance levels.
 OPTION A– PUNCHED WINDOWS – 60%
GLAZING

Avg. DF of
3.68%
OPTION A– PUNCHED WINDOWS – 60%
GLAZING

Continuous Daylight
Autonomy
OPTION A– PUNCHED WINDOWS – 60%
GLAZING

UDI
OPTION E- DESOTO

Continuous Daylight
Autonomy
OPTION E- DESOTO

Useful Daylight Index

 OPTION F– SCREENWALL

Screenwall option prevents

harsh rays to come in the
space and still allows good
amount of light.
Average DF is only 3.11%
The UDI and DA are good,
though the deeper spaces
would require more electric
lighting as compared to other
options.
The average DA is around
82%.
 OPTION F- SCREENWALL

Avg. DF – 3.11%
OPTION F- SCREENWALL

Continuous Daylight
Autonomy
OPTION F- SCREENWALL

Useful Daylight Index

Conclusion
• No Single Shading options performs the best
• Combination of two or more shading options will serve
reduce direct solar gains and reduce electric load of the
building.
• Option A, E and F are perform better at avoiding glare and
direct harsh sun.
• Option A performs best in terms of Thermal Envelope

Mixed strategy with shading options would improve the

performance of the west façade and also help in maintaining
the architectural statement of the west façade.
 HVAC SYSTEM ENERGY ANALYSIS

Simple parametric model study for HVAC System Design using eQuest

• Five test Cases

• B1- LEED Baseline Case in accordance with ASHRAE 90.1-2007

• P1- Preferred Design Case

• P2- Design Case without Condenser water reheat

•
• P3- Design Case VAV units with 50% Energy Recovery

• P4- Design Case VAV units with no Energy Recovery

 DECISION MAKING TOOL

Energy Consumption (kBtu/sf)

300.00

250.00

200.00

150.00
Energy Consumption (kBtu/sf)
100.00

50.00

0.00
P1 - Preferred P2 - Preferred P3- VAV units P4- VAV units B1-LEED
Design Case Design Case with Energy w/o Energy Baseline Case
w/o CW reheat Recovery Recovery
 DECISION MAKING TOOL

Percent Savings in Energy Use (Proposed/Baseline)

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%
Percent Savings in Energy Use
(Proposed/Baseline)
5.0%

0.0%

-5.0%
P1 - Preferred P2 - Preferred P3- VAV units P4- VAV units B1-LEED
Design Case Design Case with Energy w/o Energy Baseline Case
w/o CW reheat Recovery Recovery
 LIFE CYCLING COSTING ASSESSMENT

Detailed eQuest models simulated for the Life Cycle Costing Assessment
 LIFE CYCLING COSTING ASSESSMENT

Making informed decisions

 FINAL DETAILED ENERGY MODEL

Updating the final energy model with the construction documents to

estimate the energy consumption in the project
Comparison between Heating
Sources

Country Club Clubhouse

1) Simplified model showed

gas heating saves about
$8000 annually compared
to electric resistance.

2) Heat Pumps show

performance similar to gas
Energy Modeling Timeline

Project phase Conceptual Design Schematic Design Design Development Construction Docs Bidding Construction Admin Occupancy

Test massing & Test individual major HVAC System Early Snapshot Utility Updated Code Value Engineering Measurement and
Building Envelope Details Parametrics Final LEED Score Final Utility Incentives
orientation options features Selection for LEED/Code Incentives LEED/Code Compliance Assessment Verification

Modeling Goals

Parametric modeling of Updated Whole

Parametric modeling Whole building Modeling of Updated Update of Whole Whole Building Model,
Parametric Shading, Window Building Model,
Building scale block using partial building Initial Whole model, with minor variations, Updated Whole Updated Whole Whole Building ECM Model, calibrated based on at
Modeling of Configurations, glazing types, used to assess any
models models, or block Building Model individual ECMs using whole Building Model Building Model Building based on installed least 12 months of
HVAC options insulation. Could include substitutions or
models isolated building model Model equipment operation
daylight modeling design changes

Model Description

Green Building Studio,

eQuest,
Ecotect. (also can be Green Building Studio,
spreadsheets, eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace/En eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace eQuest/Trace/Ener eQuest/Trace/Energy eQuest/Trace/Energy
performed with Ecotect, eQuest Ecotect or eQuest
Green Building nergy Plus nergy Plus ergy Plus nergy Plus nergy Plus /Energy Plus gy Plus Plus Plus
eQuest wizard mode, Wizard mode , etc.
Studio
etc)

Software

Architect/Engineer/En Architect/Engineer/En Energy

Energy Modeler Energy or Daylight Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler M&V Team
ergy Modeler ergy Modeler Modeler
Who?

Simplified Block Models

Partial Building Models

Detailed Whole Building Models

Simplified Tools

Detailed Tools
 Triggers for Validation Models
• Environmental Permitting - MEPA
• Incentives
• Code Compliance
• Stretch Code
• LEED
• IRS 179 D
Software Options –
Compliance Energy
Models
• DOE2
– DOE2.1e – VisualDOE
– eQuest
– EnergyPro
• HAP – Carrier
• TRACE – Trane
• EnergyPlus • 8,760 hours per year
• IES • Hourly schedules
• 10 or more zones
• Thermal mass
• Performance curves
• Air-side economizers
 Environmental Permitting - MEPA
• Calculation of
Energy
Consumption
& Carbon
Emissions
• Requires “IRS
Approved”
model
• Generally
conceptual
level design
 Incentives

• Governed by utility requirements

• Requires each ECM to be modeled in isolation
 Code Compliance
• 90.1 Energy Cost Budget Method or IECC
Total Building Performance
• Only used when prescriptive approach is
not appropriate
• Energy cost of proposed design must be
less than baseline energy cost
 MA - Stretch
Code
• For buildings
>100,000 sf
• ASHRAE Appendix
G
• 20% better than
code compliant
base case
• Site energy is the
metric
• New Stretch Code
coming late 2016
 LEED

• Modeling per Appendix G

• Must show at least 10% improvement against 90.1-2007 (v2009)
or 5% improvement against 90.1-2010 (v4)
• Points for performance
• Metric is Energy Cost (ACP for other metrics)
 IRS 179 D
• Tax Deduction up to $1.80/sf
• Based on 50% Savings vs. ASHRAE 90.1
– 2007
• Lighting, HVAC and Envelope
• On Public projects, designers can claim
the tax incentives
• Expired December 31, 2016
Energy Modeling Timeline

Project phase Conceptual Design Schematic Design Design Development Construction Docs Bidding Construction Admin Occupancy

Test massing & Test individual major HVAC System Early Snapshot Utility Updated Code Value Engineering Measurement and
Building Envelope Details Parametrics Final LEED Score Final Utility Incentives
orientation options features Selection for LEED/Code Incentives LEED/Code Compliance Assessment Verification

Modeling Goals

Parametric modeling of Updated Whole

Parametric modeling Whole building Modeling of Updated Update of Whole Whole Building Model,
Parametric Shading, Window Building Model,
Building scale block using partial building Initial Whole model, with minor variations, Updated Whole Updated Whole Whole Building ECM Model, calibrated based on at
Modeling of Configurations, glazing types, used to assess any
models models, or block Building Model individual ECMs using whole Building Model Building Model Building based on installed least 12 months of
HVAC options insulation. Could include substitutions or
models isolated building model Model equipment operation
daylight modeling design changes

Model Description

Green Building Studio,

eQuest,
Ecotect. (also can be Green Building Studio,
spreadsheets, eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace/En eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace/E eQuest/Trace eQuest/Trace/Ener eQuest/Trace/Energy eQuest/Trace/Energy
performed with Ecotect, eQuest Ecotect or eQuest
Green Building nergy Plus nergy Plus ergy Plus nergy Plus nergy Plus /Energy Plus gy Plus Plus Plus
eQuest wizard mode, Wizard mode , etc.
Studio
etc)

Software

Architect/Engineer/En Architect/Engineer/En Energy

Energy Modeler Energy or Daylight Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler Energy Modeler M&V Team
ergy Modeler ergy Modeler Modeler
Who?

Simplified Block Models

Partial Building Models

Detailed Whole Building Models

Simplified Tools

Detailed Tools
 Learning Objectives - Recap
• explain when energy modeling may be
required for building projects
• differentiate between energy models used for
design assistance or simply for
documentation
• recognize the appropriate modeling approach
for LEED, Stretch Code, and Utility Incentives
• implement best practices energy modeling on
future projects