1. business and industrial
2. energy
3. renewable energy

WORK STATEMENT COVER SHEET
(Please Check to Insure the Following Information is in the Work Statement )
A. Title
B Executive Summary
C. Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan
D. Application of the Results
E. State-of-the-Art (background)
F. Advancement to State-of-the-Art
G. Justification and Value to ASHRAE
H. Objective
I. Scope
J. Deliverables/Where Results will be Published
K. Level of Effort
Project Duration in Months
Professional-Months: Principal
Investigator
Professional-Months: Total
Estimated $ Value
L. Other Information to Bidders (optional)
M. Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors
N. References
Responsible TC/TG:
Work Statement Authors:
Martha Hewett
Dru Crawley
5/19/2010
Date:

















Title:
1651-WS
Development of Maximum Technically Achievable Energy
Targets for Commercial Buildings (Ultra Low Energy Use
Building Set)
WS#
(To be assigned by MORTS - Same as RTAR #)
Results of this Project will affect the following Handbook Chapters,
Special Publications, etc.:
Advanced Energy Design Guides
Standard 90.1
Standard 189.1
Energy Targets Implementation Planning Cmte
Date of Vote:
For
Against
Abstaining
Absent or not returning Ballot
Total Voting Members
This W/S has been coordinated with TC/TG/SSPC (give vote and date):
*
*
*
6
1
0
2
9
**
Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee:
Dru Crawley (ETI ad hoc)
Chair:
Members:
Martha Hewett (ETI ad hoc)
Mick Schwedler (90.1, AEDGs)
Dan Nall (189.1)
Jim Kelsey (TC7.6)
Mike Brandemuehl
Has RTAR been submitted ?
Strategic Plan
Theme/Goals
letter ballot closed 5/18/2011
No.
RSP2010-2015:
Goal 2. Progress toward Advanced
Energy Design Guides & cost-effective
net zero energy buildings.
Goal 5. Support the development of
ASHRAE Energy Standards…
Project Monitoring Subcommittee:
(If different from Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee)
( Same)
Some of the above have not yet accepted. A substitute from the same cmte will be obtained if need be.
Recommended Bidders (name, address, e-mail, tel. number): **
**Paul Torcellini, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd.,
Golden, CO 80401-3305. (303) 384-7528 [email protected]
Bing Liu, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, P.O. Box 999, Richland, WA
99352. (509) 375-3710. [email protected] (alt: 902 Battelle Boulevard)
Jason Glazer, GARD Analytics, 115 S Wilke Rd Ste 105, Arlington Heights, IL
60005-1500. (847)698-5686. [email protected].
Lixing Gu, Florida Solar Energy Center, 1679 Clearlake Rd, Cocoa, FL
32922-5703. (321) 638-1411. [email protected]
Steve Cornick, National Research Council Canada, Montreal Road Campus
Bldg M24, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R6 Canada (613) 990-0460
[email protected]
(Three qualified bidders must be recommended, not including WS authors.)
Is an extended bidding period needed?
Has an electronic copy been furnished to the MORTS?
Will this project result in a special publication?
Has the Research Liaison reviewed work statement?
* Reasons for negative vote(s) and abstentions
See next page.
** Denotes WS author is affiliated with this recommended bidder
Use additional sheet if needed.
Potential Co-funders (organization, contact person information):
Jim Fields has been tasked by he Energy Targets Implementation Ad Hoc
Cmte to solicit co-funding for this work, but at this time we do not know
how much co-funding may be secured.
USGBC could be a co-funder as this research is highly relevant to their
mission, but they have not yet been approached.
Yes
No
x
How Long (weeks)
x
x
x
(It isn’t clear who our RL is.)
Reasons for negative vote:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1651-WS
Actually isn't the ultimate target or goal net zero and as such one can simulate where their building is in relation to that in design and then audit it in operation to see
where it is in relation to that. So it seems to me the focus of this effort would be setting some target number to shoot for in design and in operation - but again if the
goal is net zero then why have a target other than "shoot for zero and tell us how close you feel the design will produce and then how close you got in actual
operation."
Picking targets is one thing. Then how to get there is another. It seems the impact of the suite of advanced technologies and practices on energy use is a little beyond
the targets. In fact the work done on 90.1-10 metrics produced targets so if one wanted to know a simulation-based target that = 90.1-2010 those values already exist.
Then you can just reduce the target from where it is to zero and along the way see what it takes to yield the target result and if what it takes is even possible. That
may be what this is trying to say but I read what is proposed as two separate activities with the first one being the only one related directly to targets.
Actually this sounds like a continuation of the work already done for 90.1-2010 where you see what you can do prescriptively and the end result in energy savings and
the resultant EUI. You can continue that work by picking away at making prescriptive more stringent and see where you end up as an EUI, or you could start with a
target EUI and then see what it might take to get there prescriptively.
These values will be based on simulation only and will not have any relevance to current data on real building energy use nor be expected to serve as accurate
predictors for how buildings designed to achieve a certain EUI will actually perform against that EUI.
Objective 1 should be reworded to state, "1.Identify a comprehensive suite of advanced technologies to be included in modeling of building designs to define what
energy targets (EUIs) are achievable with current technology."
1651-WS
From: Martha Hewett [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:54 AM
To: Conover, David R
Cc: Hermans, Rick D.; [email protected]; Vaughn, Michael
Subject: RE: ET Implementation Draft Research Work Statement Vote now
OK, since I just got these comments and the vote is already complete and submitted to RAC, I don't think
we can do anything formally to address. So my suggestion is that revise the WS cover sheet submitted to
RAC to list Dave's first 3 comments and his edit in the first paragraph of the Advancement to the State of
the Art as well as his edit under Objectives as the reasons for his negative vote. His 4th comment and
the other edits in that section really are "non-comments" because everything in that bullet list is simply a
statement of the relevant recommendations from the AHC-ET report of Sept 2010 (the predecessor group
to us), and we can't change what their report said. The ETI-AHC's charge is to implement those
recommendations, so if we disagree with them that is a discussion that needs to take place among the
ETI-AHC as a whole and not in response to the WS per se. (I am not unsympathetic to some of these
comments. In fact the site/source issue is the reason why the work statement addresses gas and electric
options separately in a number of places.)
So then Dave's reasons for negative vote would be listed as follows:
1. Actually isn't the ultimate target or goal net zero and as such one can simulate where their
building is in relation to that in design and then audit it in operation to see where it is in relation to
that. So it seems to me the focus of this effort would be setting some target number to shoot for
in design and in operation - but again if the goal is net zero then why have a target other than
"shoot for zero and tell us how close you feel the design will produce and then how close you got
in actual operation."
2. Picking targets is one thing. then how to get there is another. It seems the impact of the suite of
advanced technologies and practices on energy use is a little beyond the targets. In fact the work
done on 90.1-10 metrics produced targets so if one wanted to know a simulation-based target
that = 90.1-2010 those values already exist. Then you can just reduce the target from where it is
to zero and along the way see what it takes to yield the target result and if what it takes is even
possible. That may be what this is trying to say but I read what is proposed as two separate
activities with the first one being the only one related directly to targets.
3. Actually this sounds like a continuation of the work already done for 90.1-2010 where you see
what you can do prescriptively and the end result in energy savings and the resultant EUI. You
can continue that work by picking away at making prescriptive more stringent and see where you
end up as an EUI, or you could start with a target EUI and then see what it might take to get there
prescriptively.
4. These values will be based on simulation only and will not have any relevance to current data on
real building energy use nor be expected to serve as accurate predictors for how buildings
designed to achieve a certain EUI will actually perform against that EUI.
5. Objective 1 should be reworded to state, "1.
Identify a comprehensive suite of advanced
technologies to be included in modeling of building designs to define what energy targets (EUIs)
are achievable with current technology."
If this is acceptable to everyone then perhaps Mike could add these to the WS cover sheet. Dru or Rick,
it may be helpful if you could outline the key differences between this effort and the modeling work that
was done for 90.1-2010 for the benefit of RAC in considering the above reasons for negative vote..
1651-WS
WORK STATEMENT# 1651
RESPONSIBLE CMTE: Technology Council Ad Hoc Committee on
Energy Targets Implementation Planning
Title:
Development of Maximum Technically Achievable Energy Targets for Commercial Buildings
(Ultra Low Energy Use Building Set)
Executive Summary:
This project will develop a maximum technically achievable set of energy targets for commercial buildings
and will examine the relative impact of a comprehensive suite of advanced technologies and practices on
building energy use. It will provide targets and results that can be used by SSPC 90.1, SSPC 189.1 and the
AEDG project committees in advancing energy efficiency. This work will fulfill the Board’s directive to
Technology Council to develop targets and goals that address increasing stringency of energy efficiency. It
will also further ASHRAE’s Vision 2020 goal of providing tools by 2020 that enable the building
community to produce market-viable net zero energy buildings by 2030.
Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan:
This project addresses two goals in the Research Strategic Plan 2010-2015:
“Goal 2. Progress toward [completing all the series of] Advanced Energy Design Guides (AEDG)
and cost-effective net-zero-energy (NZE) buildings.”
“Goal 5. Support the development of ASHRAE energy standards and reduce effort required to
demonstrate compliance.”
The project will provide both maximum technically achievable energy targets and information on the
impacts of individual technologies and practices that can be used by the AEDG project committees, SSPC
90.1 and SSPC 189.1 in setting goals and developing prescriptive and performance criteria to meet those
goals.
Application of Results:
The Technology Council Ad Hoc Committee on Energy Targets recommended that the Advanced Energy
Design Guides (AEDGs) be designated as the primary means of fulfilling the Vision 2020 goal. The
AEDG Steering Committee will be offered the targets developed through this project as goals for use in
their ultra-low energy series. It is expected that these will be modified as necessary by the AEDG Steering
Committee and Project Committees to fulfill the joint mission of the partner organizations.
The energy targets developed here will provide a low-energy point of reference that SSPC 90.1 and SSPC
189.1 can consider in setting energy targets for future editions of their respective standards. The alternative
scenarios simulated to examine the relative impact of individual technologies and practices on EUI will
provide additional information the SSPCs can consider in setting targets and criteria.
State-of-the-Art (Background):
ASHRAE’s Board of Directors directed Technology Council to develop strategies to address increasing
stringency of building energy efficiency, with the objective of developing targets and goals. Technology
Council established an Ad Hoc Committee on Energy Targets (AHC-ET) that developed strategies and
recommendations to meet this Board directive (ASHRAE 2010). This research proposed here will carry
out some of those recommendations.
In particular, the AHC-ET recommended:
1651-WS
That ASHRAE develop one clearly defined set of commercial building simulation models
consisting of a standardized set of building types, in cooperation with the Department of Energy,
for evaluation of Standard 90.1, Standard 189.1 and the Advanced Energy Design Guides
(AEDGs).
That ASHRAE use these models to define energy use targets comprising the maximum level of
commercial building energy use efficiency and the conservation of primary energy using on-site
renewable energy production which is technologically achievable now or in the near future.
That modeled buildings comply with Standard 62.1 and Standard 55.
That energy targets used by ASHRAE for setting policy and measuring progress toward Vision
2020 goals should be defined in a clear and consistent manner as follows:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Targets include receptacle and process loads.
Targets are based on the best available technology for energy efficiency and on-site
renewable energy production without regard for cost or cost-effectiveness.
Two types of targets should be developed, Target Energy Use Intensity (EUI), which
includes no on-site renewable energy generation and Net Energy Use Intensity (NEUI),
which includes photovoltaic and other on-site renewable energy production.
Targets are based on site energy, consistent with an agreement of understanding among
ASHRAE, AIA, USGBC and IESNA.
The gross floor area used to define EUI and NEUI is defined as in ASHRAE Standard
105.
EUI and NEUI values are determined by modeling.
Historically, several different sets of building models have been used more or less independently for
evaluation of Standard 90.1, Standard 189.1 and the AEDGs. This has made it difficult to compare
efficiency levels among these documents. In addition, an evolving set of reference building models have
been used to evaluate progress in improving energy efficiency. For example, the first set of AEDGs was
targeted to be 30% more efficient than ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999, while the second set of AEDGs is
targeted to be 50% more efficient than ASHRAE Standard 90.1 -2004. The moving baseline is difficult for
users to understand and makes comparisons between the two series difficult.
Recently DOE has defined a set of reference building models to provide a consistent baseline for
comparison across commercial building research and standards projects (Deru et al. 2011). The models
were developed jointly by DOE, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. They are intended to form the basis for research
on specific building technologies, energy code development, appliance standards, and measurement of
progress toward DOE energy goals.
The reference building models developed by DOE were carefully designed to represent about 70% of
commercial building energy use, based on the 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS). They include 16 building types in 16 climate locations (Tables 1 and 2). The models were
developed for use with EnergyPlus Version 2.2 and have been updated regularly as EnergyPlus is updated.
Reference building models were created for three vintages, new (generally represented by buildings
compliant with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 (ASHRAE 2004), existing pre-1980, and existing post-1980
construction. All of these models are publicly available on the DOE web site
(http://commercialbuildings.energy.gov/reference_buildings.html). The researchers continue to update the
reference models as more knowledge is gained about building operations and new research requirements
develop.
1651-WS
Table 1. DOE reference building types and characteristics (Table 13, Deru et al. 2011)
Table 2. Locations representing the 16 climate zones in DOE’s modeling (Table 2, Deru et al. 2011).
1651-WS
This building set was used by PNNL for DOE in its 2010 determination, under the Energy Policy Act, that
Standard 90.1-2007 exceeds the efficiency of Standard 90.1-2004 and thus must be met by state building
codes within two years.
In 2007, NREL conducted an assessment of the technical potential for net zero energy buildings in the
commercial sector (Griffiths et al. 2007, 2008). This project modeled the entire set of 4,820 non-mall
buildings from the 2003 CBECS. While this ensured that the building types, sizes, number of stories and
other basic characteristics were generally consistent with the actual building stock, the vast scale of the
modeling exercise imposed a number of limitations. The new standard set of reference building models
(Deru et al. 2011) has been shown to do about as well in representing the commercial building stock
(Torcellini pers. comm.. 2010) and the much smaller number of buildings allows more realistic and
customized modeling.
The purpose of this project is to conduct an analysis of the maximum commercial building energy efficiency levels
that are technically achievable now or in the near future (~2030), without regard to cost or cost-effectiveness.
Application of on-site renewable energy is not part of this project.
Advancement to the State-of-the-Art:
This project will provide up-to-date values of energy use intensities [EUI] for buildings designed with the
best available energy efficiency technology to achieve the lowest possible annual energy use in all climate
zones. Advancements relative to the 2007 work by NREL include the following:
Modeling will start with the most recent DOE reference building set (DOE 2010b
http://commercialbuildings.energy.gov/reference_buildings.html ), ensuring consistency with the
building sets that will be used for future work by SSPC 90.1, SSPC 189.1 and the AEDG project
committees.
The new reference building set has more realistic building geometry, distribution of loads by zone
and scheduling by zone and therefore will result in more realistic EUIs.
Technologies that could not be considered within the constraints of Griffith et al.’s (2007, 2008)
work can be included. Due to the large number of buildings included, the technologies and
practices modeled in that study were limited to those that could be modeled in EnergyPlus at that
time and can be automatically generated. This resulted in Max Tech scenarios that tended to use
common technologies and practices in use today, but with higher performance characteristics (e.g.,
higher equipment efficiencies). Among the technologies not considered were:
o Modifications to building geometry to enable more daylighting,
o Dynamic insulation.
o Air flow windows,
o Dedicated outdoor air systems,
o Cogeneration with desiccant-based cooling,
o Water-side economizers,
o Under-floor air distribution,
o Ground source heat pumps,
o Natural and hybrid ventilation,
o Thermal storage,
o Radiant heating and cooling,
o Thermostat setback and setup, unless the corresponding CBECS building reported using
setback or setup,
o Economizer operation for heat recovery ventilation systems
New technologies that have become market-viable since 2007 can be included. In this connection,
sources such as High Performing Building Magazine, the DOE high performance buildings data
base, the USGBC and the DOE Commercial Buildings Energy Alliance should be consulted,
among others.
A more recent version of EnergyPlus is available (6.0 as opposed to 2.0) (www.energyplus.gov,
DOE 2010a), which will allow more efficiency technologies to be modeled. Examples of new
features available in EnergyPlus since the 2007 report by Griffith et al. (EnergyPlus version 2.1
1651-WS
through 6.0, www.energyplus.gov/energyplus_features.cfm,
www.energyplus.gov/energyplus_archives.cfm) are listed in Appendix A.
Assumptions regarding future receptacle and process loads can be reexamined.
Justification and Value to ASHRAE:
This research will provide information that can be considered by the relevant PCs in planning advancements to
Standard 90.1, Standard 189 and the Advanced Energy Design Guides. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is referenced in the
U.S. Energy Policy Act and sets a minimum efficiency level for state energy codes. Standard 189.1 provides a
benchmark for design of high performance green buildings. The Advanced Energy Design Guides enjoy wide
distribution and provide a prescriptive path to low energy buildings.
Objectives:
1.
2.
3.
Identify a comprehensive suite of advanced technologies to be included in modeling of ultra low
energy targets.
Simulate the maximum commercial building energy efficiency levels that are technically
achievable now or in the near future (~2030) by modeling the DOE standard building set with
various combinations of technologies to maximize efficiency.
Simulate alternative scenarios to examine the relative impact of individual technologies and
practices on EUI.
Scope/Technical Approach:
Task 1: Identify best available technologies to be modeled.
The contractor shall identify a comprehensive suite of technologies, and their associated performance metrics, to be
included in the modeling. In doing this the contractor shall review in detail the technologies modeled by Griffiths et
al. (2007, 2008) and the technologies identified in that study as not included due to the constraints of the study.
These technologies shall be included unless the contractor identifies, and the PMS concurs with, compelling reasons
not to include them. The contractor shall also review such sources as the current versions of Standard 90.1 and
Standard 189.1, the existing advanced energy design guides, ASHRAE Transactions, HVAC&R Research, High
Performing Buildings magazine and the DOE High Performance database, and shall formally solicit input from
TC7.6, SSPC 90.1, SSPC 189.1, the AEDG Steering Committee (including DOE, IES, AIA and USGBC
representatives), NREL (Paul Torcellini), PNNL (Bing Lui), and LBNL (Steve Selkowitz). The contractor shall
allow two months from the data of request for organizations, committees and individuals to respond.
In generating this suite of measures, the contractor shall adhere to the following constraints.
(1) Measures shall be included only if there currently are, or by 2030 can reasonably be expected to be, at least
two manufacturers.
(2) Technologies shall include gas and electric options for end-uses where both technologies are available.
The AHC-ET report acknowledged that use of site EUIs does not capture important differences in primary
energy consumption, and potentially carbon or other emissions, between electricity and gas, and that it
could encourage fuel-switching to reduce site energy use. It is not ASHRAE’s intention, nor the intention
of this research, to promote fuel switching. Task 2 describes how gas and electric options shall be treated
in analyzing technically achievable efficiency levels.
In addition, the contractor may consider implicit inclusion of some economic criteria in selection of technologies.
For example, Griffith et al. (2007, 2008) acknowledged that economic criteria were indirectly incorporated in using
lower levels of insulation in southern climates than in northern climates. The envelope and HVAC system types
assumed for each building type also indirectly incorporate economic criteria as well as current practices.
The contractor shall prepare an interim report documenting the suite of technologies and associated performance
levels to be included. This detailed report shall tabulate options to be modeled including:
Opaque envelope U-factors by climate zone for different envelope types,
Dynamic insulation performance ranges,
Fenestration U-factors and SHGCs by climate zone for different glazing types and percentages of wall area,
1651-WS
Dynamic fenestration performance ranges,
Infiltration rates,
Lighting power densities by building type,
Daylighting sources to be employed (e.g., light tube size, U-value, spacing),
Daylighting control details (sensor locations, setpoints, control, etc.),
Plug and process loads by building type,
Ventilation types by building type and climate zone (mechanical, natural, hybrid),
HVAC system types, fuels and components by building type,
Cooling equipment COPs by equipment type and size,
Heating equipment efficiencies or COPs by equipment types and size,
Fan and pump efficiencies and static pressures by system type,
Economizer options (air side, water side) by building type and climate zone,
Ventilation system types by building type and climate zone (various types of mechanical options, including
heat recovery ventilation, dedicated outdoor air systems, etc., various types of natural ventilation options
including air flow windows, etc.),
Air distribution options by building type and climate zone, where not implicit in the HVAC system type
(e.g., underfloor air distribution, displacement ventilation, overhead distribution),
Control strategies by building type and climate zone,
Radiant heating and cooling options by building type and climate zone,
Thermal storage options by building type and climate zone,
Cogeneration options by building type and climate zone.
The report shall document the rationale for the options and performance levels selected. The report shall be
reviewed and approved by the PMS before the contractor proceeds to Task 2. The PMS may obtain input from SSPC
90.1, SSPC 189.1 and/or the AEDG Steering Committee as they deem appropriate in review of this report.
Task 2: Modify the simulation models to include all of the best available technologies, and calculate target EUIs.
The contractor shall prepare a letter report to the PMS describing the quality control process to be used for internal
review of the model inputs to ensure that they properly capture the intended building and system characteristics.
The PMS shall approve this process before the contractor proceeds to generate input files.
The contractor shall modify the standard set of reference building models developed by DOE to incorporate the
selected technologies and shall run the models to generate target EUIs. Consistent with the AHC-ET criteria, the
modeled buildings shall comply with Standards 62.1 and 55. EUIs shall be based on site energy, and shall include
receptacle and process loads. They shall be based on gross floor area as defined in ASHRAE Standard 105. It is
anticipated that two to three new climate zones will be included based on work currently in progress by SSPC 169
(Weather Data for Energy Standards).
The contractor shall prepare an interim report for review by the PMS that summarizes the results of the modeling of
best available technology EUIs. EUIs shall include both gas- and electric-technology options, as well as a blended
EUI based on current stock ratios of fuel types. The report shall compare the best-available-technology EUIs with
the EUIs in Deru et al. (2011) for new buildings (ASHRAE 90.1-2004 levels). It shall also identify the proportion of
energy use attributable to receptacle and process loads and the proportion attributable to regulated loads (lighting,
heating, cooling, etc.). Weighting factors to be used for average EUIs are provided in Deru et al. (2011), Table 42.
Task 3: Simulate alternative scenarios to examine the relative impact of individual technologies and practices on
EUI.
The contractor shall simulate a number of alternative scenarios as necessary to examine the impact of various
technologies and practices on EUI. Alternatives to be simulated include:
Models that do and do not alter building geometry and orientation,
Models that use natural, hybrid and mechanical ventilation, for those climate zones and building types
where natural or hybrid ventilation is part of the best-available-technology scenario,
Models that do and do not include each of the following technologies:
o Dynamic windows,
o Dynamic insulation,
1651-WS
o
o
o
o
o
Daylighting,
Different levels of lighting power density,
Radiant heating,
Radiant cooling,
On site cogeneration.
Additional scenarios to be evaluated may be identified by the PMS based on the outcome of Task 1. Contractor
shall review the scenario analysis by Griffiths et al. (2007, 2008) in planning and carrying out this task, while noting
that Griffiths et al. did not consider the full range of technologies to be considered as part of this study.
The contractor shall prepare an interim report for review by the PMS summarizing the results of the examination of
the impacts of individual technologies and practices on EUI.
Task 4: Prepare final report and technical paper(s).
The contractor shall prepare a final report that includes finalized versions of the information covered in the three
interim reports, as well as the following:
Discussion of the impact of building activity and climate location on EUI.
Breakdown of energy consumption by end use, overall and for each building type by climate zone. Such
breakdown shall separately address gas, electric and blended EUIs as appropriate.
Recommendations for further research.
The contractor shall prepare one or more papers for publication in ASHRAE Transactions or HVAC&R Research.
See Deliverables part (d) for data deliverables.
Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published:
Progress, Interim, Financial and Final Reports, Research or Technical Paper(s), and Data shall constitute
required deliverables (“Deliverables”) under this Agreement and shall be provided as follows:
a. Progress, Interim and Financial Reports
Progress and Financial Reports, in a form approved by the Society, shall be made to the Society through
its Manager of Research and Technical Services at quarterly intervals; specifically on or before each
January 1, April 1, June 10, and October 1 of the contract period.
The interim reports specified in Tasks 1, 2 and 3 and the letter report specified in Task 2 shall be
delivered on the schedule specified in the proposal.
Furthermore, the Institution’s Principal Investigator, subject to the Society’s approval, shall, during
the period of performance and after the Final Report has been submitted, report in person to the
sponsoring Technical Committee/Task Group (TC/TG) at the annual and winter meetings, and be
available to answer such questions regarding the research as may arise.
b. Final Report
A written report, design guide, or manual, (collectively, “Final Report”), in a form approved by the
Society, shall be prepared by the Institution and submitted to the Society’s Manager of Research and
Technical Services by the end of the Agreement term, containing complete details of all research
carried out under this Agreement. Unless otherwise specified, six copies of the final report shall be
furnished for review by the Society’s Project Monitoring Subcommittee (PMS).
Following approval by the PMS and the sponsoring committee, in their sole discretion, final copies
of the Final Report will be furnished by the Institution as follows:
-
An executive summary in a form suitable for wide distribution to the industry and to the public.
Two bound copies
1651-WS
c.
One unbound copy, printed on one side only, suitable for reproduction.
Two copies on CD-ROM; one in PDF format and one in Microsoft Word.
HVAC&R Research or ASHRAE Transactions Technical Paper(s)
One or more papers shall be submitted first to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and Technical
Services (MORTS) and then to the “ASHRAE Manuscript Central” website-based manuscript
review system in a form and containing such information as designated by the Society suitable for
publication. Papers specified as deliverables should be submitted as either Research Papers for
HVAC&R Research or Technical Paper(s) for ASHRAE Transactions. Research papers contain
generalized results of long-term archival value, whereas technical papers are appropriate for applied
research of shorter-term value, ASHRAE Conference papers are not acceptable as deliverables from
ASHRAE research projects. The paper(s) shall conform to the instructions posted in “Manuscript
Central” for an ASHRAE Transactions Technical or HVAC&R Research paper. The paper title shall
contain the research project number (XXXX-RP) at the end of the title in parentheses, e.g., (XXXXRP).
Note: A research or technical paper describing the research project must be submitted after the
sponsoring committee has approved the Final Report. Research or technical papers may also be
prepared before the project’s completion, if it is desired to disseminate interim results of the project.
Contractor shall submit any interim papers to MORTS and the PMS for review and approval before
the papers are submitted to ASHRAE Manuscript Central for review.
d.
Data
The Institution agrees to maintain true and complete books and records, including but not limited to
notebooks, reports, charts, graphs, analyses, computer programs, input files, output files, visual
representations etc., (collectively, the “Data”), generated in connection with the Services. Society
representatives shall have access to all such Data for examination and review at reasonable times.
The Data shall be held in strict confidence by the Institution and shall not be released to third parties
without prior authorization from the Society, except as provided by GENERAL CONDITION VII,
PUBLICATION. The original Data shall be kept on file by the Institution for a period of two years
after receipt of the final payment and upon request the Institution will make a copy available to the
Society upon the Society’s request. Electronic copies of computer model input and output files for
all the building types, locations and technology combinations modeled shall be delivered to
ASHRAE. The electronic files shall be accompanied by documentation explaining what the files are
(including which technologies are included in each) and how to use them, in sufficient detail that a
reasonably proficient user of EnergyPlus can replicate the work.
e.
Project Synopsis
A written synopsis totaling approximately 100 words in length and written for a broad technical
audience, which documents 1. Main findings of research project, 2. Why findings are significant, and 3.
How the findings benefit ASHRAE membership and/or society in general shall be submitted to the
Manager of Research and Technical Services by the end of the Agreement term for publication in
ASHRAE Insights
The Society may request the Institution submit a technical article suitable for publication in the Society’s
ASHRAE JOURNAL. This is considered a voluntary submission and not a Deliverable.
All Deliverables under this Agreement and voluntary technical articles shall be prepared using dual units;
e.g., rational inch-pound with equivalent SI units shown parenthetically. SI usage shall be in accordance
with IEEE/ASTM Standard SI-10.
Level of Effort:
The anticipated level of effort is 24 professional-months (4 for the PI and 20 for other professionals) with a
total cost of $250,000. The project is expected to take approximately 1-1/2 calendar years, including time
1651-WS
for user research, detailed table of contents review/approval, draft chapter reviews, and final approval of
the completed press-ready design guide and draft handbook chapter.
Other Information to Bidders (Optional):
The DOE Commercial Reference Building set is available from the DOE web site:
commercialbuildings.energy.gov/reference_buildings.html
EnergyPlus V6 is available here: www.energyplus.gov
Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors:
Criteria
Contractor’s understanding of the Work Statement as revealed in proposal
Relevant qualifications and experience of personnel who will conduct this project
Quality of methodology proposed for conducting research, and probability that the
contractor’s research plan will meet the objectives of the Work Statement
Weighting
Factor
15%
35%
50%
References:
ASHRAE. 2004. ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 Energy Standard for Buildings Except LowRise Residential Buildings. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
ASHRAE 2010. Report of the Technology Council Ad Hoc Committee on Energy Targets.
Deru, Michael, Kristin Field, Daniel Studer, Kyle Benne, Brent Griffith, Paul Torcellini, Bing Liu, Mark
Halverson, Dave Winiarski, Michael Rosenberg, Mehry Yazdanian, Joe Huang, Drury Crawley. 2011. U.S.
Department of Energy Commercial Reference Building Models of the National Building Stock, Technical
Report NREL/TP-5500-46861, February 2011. Golden, Colorado: NREL.
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/46861.pdf
Griffith, B., N. Long, P. Torcellini, R. Judkoff, D. Crawley, J. Ryan. 2008. Methodology for Modeling
Building Energy Performance across the Commercial Sector,Technical Report NREL/TP-550-41956
March 2008. Golden:Colorado: NREL. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41956.pdf
Griffith, B., N. Long, P. Torcellini, R., Judkoff, D. Crawley, J. Ryan. 2007. Assessment of the Technical
Potential for Achieving Net Zero-Energy Buildings in the Commercial Sector. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory Technical Report NREL/TP-550-41957. Golden, Colorado: NREL.
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41957.pdf
U. S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2010a. EnergyPlus version 6.0, www.energyplus.gov
U. S. Department of Energy. 2010b. Commercial Reference Buildings, version 1.3_5.0, September 27,
2010, commercialbuildings.energy.gov/reference_buildings.html
Authors:
Martha Hewett
Dru Crawley
1651-WS
Appendix A:
Examples of new features available in EnergyPlus since the 2007 report by Griffith et al. (EnergyPlus
version 2.1 through 6.0, www.energyplus.gov/energyplus_features.cfm,
www.energyplus.gov/energyplus_archives.cfm)
Windows and Daylighting
o Movable outside insulation, with transparent insulation material (TIM) (6.0)
o Ecoroof (green roof) model enhanced moisture diffusion calculations (6.0)
Zone Model
o Thermochromic windows (3.1)
o Ventilated slab model (including radiant heating and cooling interactions with hollow
core slabs) (3.0)
Natural and Mechanical Ventilation
o CO2 concentration comprehensive modeling in zone air, including internal emission
sources and ventilation controls. (6.0)
o Ventilation rates based on winds and stack effects (5.0)
o Zone HVAC outdoor air unit module for make-up air and DOAS (5.0)
o Large horizontal openings added to airflow network (4.0)
o UFAD upgraded. (3.1)
o Demand control ventilation based on 62.1-2007 ventilation rate procedure (3.1)
o Thermal chimney (solar radiation used to enhance natural ventilation). (3.0)
o CoolTower (natural evaporative cooling used to cool incoming air). (3.0)
HVAC and Refrigeration
o Central fans with load-dependent power, accounting for fan pressure rise variations, duct
static pressure reset, and fan, belt, motor, and VFD efficiency variations. (6.0)
o Multi-cell cooling towers: single speed, two-speed, and variable speed. (6.0)
o CO2 refrigeration secondary loops (5.0)
o Pumps can ride pump curves based on pressure (5.0)
o Electric radiant/convective baseboard (5.0)
o Walk-in refrigeration, refrigeration cascade condenser, and refrigeration secondary loop
(4.0)
o Zone water-to-air heat pump (4.0)
o Cool beam (4.0)
o Refrigeration system capabilities expanded: variable evaporating temperatures, variable
condensing temperatures, mechanical subcoolers that transfer refrigeration loads from
less efficient low- temperature systems to more efficient medium-temperature systems,
and iquid-suction subcoolers. (3.0)
o Desiccant dehumidifier (2.2)
o Water side economizer (including integrated and non-integrated water side economizers).
(2.1)
o Packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) models fan, DX cooling coil, and gas, electric,
hydronic or steam heating coil serving a single zone. (2.1)
o Multispeed heat pump with up to four discrete speeds for both cooling and heating. (2.1)
o Heat losses (and gains) from plant piping. (2.1)
Electrical Systems
o Electric load dispatch via the electric load center (5.0)
Controls and User Functions
o EMS expanded to included system timestep, custom schedule output, and coupling with
external interface (5.0)
o Energy Management System implemented, including EnergyPlus runtime language with
numerous actuators (4.0)
On-Site Energy Supply
o Wind turbine module (horizontal and vertical axis turbines) (5.0)
o DC-to-AC inverter model added along with simple battery model. (3.0)
o Microturbine electric generator model (2.2)
1651-WS
The following editorial changes were made to the WS after the ETI ad hoc cmte vote:
Section on Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan: “Goal 2. Progress toward [completing all the
series of] Advanced Energy Design Guides (AEDG) and cost-effective net-zero-energy (NZE) buildings.”
(Parenthetical comment inserted in Goal 2 wording to clarify that this WS will contribute toward
completion of the lowest energy series of Guides).
Section on State of the Art, in the summary of AHC-ET recommendations: “Targets are based on site
energy, consistent with an agreement of understanding among ASHRAE, AIA, USGBC and IESNA.”
(Omission corrected).
Section on Scope/Technical Approach (Task 4): “See Deliverables part (d) for data deliverables.” Calls
bidders’ attention to the data deliverables.
Section on Level of Effort: “The anticipated level of effort is 24 professional-months (4 for the PI and 20
for other professionals) with a total cost of $250,000.” (Parenthetical comment added to address cover
sheet requirement for PI and other hours to be stated separately).
Section on Deliverables, (d) Data: “Electronic copies of computer model input and output files for all the
building types, locations and technology combinations modeled shall be delivered to ASHRAE. The
electronic files shall be accompanied by documentation explaining what the files are (including which
technologies are included in each) and how to use them, in sufficient detail that a reasonably proficient
user of EnergyPlus can replicate the work.” (Elaborates on the more general statements in this section.)