flu: A. .3 : at... \«3 .I it")? .: I . . 3.... 2m .23. 2 RE? aw, Res ..!: «a»? yawn .. 9.... z 9 2.. 335.... h. gum: . a ; z: 1?”. 3.. I. v.11. i If 2.3.2.. 3.39 I .1 art; {yids . ‘ . 3.5.1-‘ho‘lp’vrl . .I’.I;3lnh)ll Sitzia 2):..1 x..:...........i A. ‘av’lveua .IV . fl . :v. 9.1.13.) 1. iiibzlxbhv. .5; 9.3.15. 3.25:.) (3“! ill-l... 3|...) z" 2" 5.4). 1!...5ahflnrfinuhfl. .1 .n. $5255... 25!. .13... 3....- Vi!!£$lis . v3.1“ 1 $ '...a‘ni."ll I! it $05.45. 51‘???“ 1;... .7 [1.9.1 ““35“ LIBRARY 3 01 Michigan State 100 University This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EXPLORATION OF THE IMPACT OF FIXED SHADING DEVICE GEOMETRY ON BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE presented by ALESSANDRO ORSI has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of degree in Construction Management Science l:- twp Major Professor’s Signature 5/6 #0061 r I Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5/08 K:lProjIAcc&Pres/CIRC/DateDue.indd t\' EXPLORATION O O.\ AN EXPLORATION OF THE IMPACT OF FIXED SHADING DEVICE GEOMETRY ON BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE. By Alessandro Orsi A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Construction Management 2009 .tNEXPLORATIOX O] 0\ Siding systems accour '2}: explored solutlnnx tag} use is b). reducn suited the impact of ti Imle of shading dc 3‘th In reducing cnc litimdi‘ project in .\'ur U5 mace model stud mflnnons. A total 01 at Stud): The Optimu: it17.71316 Impact on an m“ ‘0 help test the 3*”; “'ul“ . ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATION OF THE IMPACT OF FIXED SHADING DEVICE GEOMETRY ON BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE. By Alessandro Orsi Building systems account for 71% of energy used in buildings (USGBC). Researchers have explored solutions for reducing energy use in buildings. One way to minimize energy use is by reducing cooling loads through use of shading devices. This research explored the impact of fixed shading device geometry on energy. The research examined the role of shading device geometry including projection, width and height above window in reducing energy use. Researchers used Carrier HAP sofiware, applied to a case study project in Northern Italy to conduct energy analyses. Researchers developed a single space model studying 376 shading device geometries on four different window configurations. A total of 1504 simulations were run in order to select an optimum for the case study. The optimum shading device was applied to a whole building analysis to determine impact on an entire building against a baseline case without shading devices. In order to help test the results researchers ran simulations in three additional locations including Spain, Italy and Germany. The study showed that fixed shading devices have a positive impact on improving building energy performance, particularly on reducing cooling loads. Negative impacts that shading devices may have on energy use in heating months can be more than offset by cooling season savings. Effectiveness of shading devices is closely related to window configuration and building thermal mass. Recommendations are made regarding use and geometry of shading devices. unor mamas. usr or FIGL’RES (INTER l [\TRODI'CTIOX ll 0&th ......... I: Research IBIIUI'L': I} Research goals a liScope of the PCS-t l5 limitations lihlethtdologv 1' Mi enables. and 1.3 Chapter Summit CHU’TERZ UTERITI'RE RI ..1 lntmduction q ‘ ‘I -~ Baetground on 1“ Q - .hading 8; Se Tt TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Research rationale ............................................................................................... 4 1.3 Research goals and objectives .............................................................................. 5 1.4 Scope of the research ............................................................................................ 7 1.5 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 8 1.6 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 8 1.7 Deliverables and benefits ..................................................................................... 10 1.8 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 12 2.2 Background on energy performance in buildings ................................................ 12 2.3 Shading & Screening Devices in Buildings ......................................................... 17 2.3.1 Engineering articles and technical publications ...................................... 17 2.3.2 Existing architectural solutions about shading devices ........................... 21 2.3.2.1 Between-glass blinds ............................................................ 21 2.3.2.2 Patented shading device systems ........................................... 30 Movable shading devices ....................................... 30 Fixed shading devices ............................................ 31 2.4 Existing Research and Projects ........................................................................... 32 2.5 LEED® background ............................................................................................ 39 2.6 Chapter Summary .............................................................................................. .. 42 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 44 3.2 Shading device features ....................................................................................... 46 3.3 Single-space simulation analysis ........................................................................ 47 3.4 Case-study .......................................................................................................... 50 3.5 Whole-building analysis ..................................................................................... 51 3.6 Climate comparison ............................................................................................ 53 3.7 Impact on LEED ................................................................................................ 53 3.8 Develop guidelines and recommendations .......................................................... 54 3.9 Chapter summary ............................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER 4 SINGLE-SPACE ANALYSIS 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 57 4.2 Single-space features ............................................................................................ 57 iii 4.3 Shading dt’i'lC 4.4 Mechanical S)‘ 4.5 Wmdou leatu 4.6 Single-space r 4.,” Chapter sumrr CIN’IERS WHOLE-BI'ILI Sl Introduction. 5-.” IIhole-buildi: 53 l\hole-Burid; 5-4 “hale-Burii: 5.5 “hole-Build: 5.6 Chapter sum: CHIPTERa CONCLI'SION 6-1 Ifllffiducuon I: SEER-Spec: 6.1.1 6.3.3 5-3 Wealth. 6.3.] 4.3 Shading device features ........................................................................................ 62 4.4 Mechanical system settings .................................................................................. 65 4.5 Window features settings and optimum solution selection .................................... 69 4.6 Single-space result validation ............................................................................... 81 4.7 Chapter summary ................................................................................................. 85 CHAPTER 5 WHOLE-BUILDING ANALYSIS 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 87 5.2 Whole-building features overview ........................................................................ 88 5.3 Whole-Building Simulation Settings .................................................................... 94 5.4 Whole-Building Analysis — Arco Location ........................................................... 96 5.5 Whole-Building Analysis — Multiple Locations .................................................. 104 5.6 Chapter summary ................................................................................................ 111 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 113 . 6.2 Single-Space Analysis ......................................................................................... 113 6.2.1 Single-Space Analysis Limitations ................................................ 113 6.2.2 Single-Space Analysis Conclusions ............................................... 115 6.3 Whole-Building Analysis .................................................................................... 116 6.3.1 Whole-Building Analysis Limitations ........................................... 117 6.3.2 Whole-Building Analysis Conclusions .......................................... 119 6.4 Development of Recommendations ..................................................................... 121 6.5 General Conclusions .......................................................................................... 121 6.6 Impact of Fixed Shading Devices on LEED® Buildings ................ . .................... 122 6.7 Area for Future Research ..................................................................................... 123 6.8 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................... 125 APPENDECIES Appendix A — The LEED “4 System ............................................................................ 127 Appendix B — Implementation of the LEED System .................................................. 136 Appendix C — Single-Space Analysis Results ............................................................. 143 Appendix D — Detailed Report of the Whole-Building Analysis Input Data ................ 189 Appendix E — Whole-Building Analysis Results: Multiple Geographical Locations ................................................................................................................... 211 Appendix F — Additional information related to patented shading devices and existing research .................................................................................... 218 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 233 iv ll External facade 4.2 Construction in 4.3 External sallst 4.4 Proportion ratit 45 Zone Sizing d3! 4.6 list ofpammet 4.7 Snapshot of tht 4'8 Snapshot 01th; 4-9 Surnm shit [he SIB—6. \h m 4.108umman' tablt the lD-bHi m 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.1 LIST OF TABLES External facade features required by the HAP program ....................................... 60 Construction information and green-roof parameters ........................................... 61 External walls construction details required by the HAP program ....................... 61 Proportion ratios between airflow rates and the energy use percentages .............. 67 Zone sizing data parameters ................................................................................ 69 List of parameters set up for each single-space equipment .................................. 69 Snapshot of the analysis result list before the sorting process .............................. 72 Snapshot of the analysis result list after the sorting process ................................. 72 Summary table showing ranges of result values for analysis A, related to the 5-by—6 window configuration ........................................................................ 74 4.10 Summary table showing ranges of result values for analysis B, related to the 10-by-6 window configuration ...................................................................... 76 4.11 Summary table showing ranges of result values for analysis C, related to the five 5-by—6 windows configuration ................................................................ 78 4.12 Summary table showing ranges of result values for analysis D, related to the 31-by-6 window configuration ...................................................................... 79 Annual cost summary table for baseline and design whole-building cases .......... 100 Annual energy consumption summary table for baseline and design cases ......... 101 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Annual cost summary table per unit floor area for baseline and design cases ....... 101 Whole-building summary table for baseline and design cases showing component cost as a percentage of total cost ...................................................... 102 Performance rating summary table for baseline and design cases showing energy consumption values of each building component .................................... 103 Annual energy consumption summary table for baseline and design cases located in Trentino ............................................................................................. 104 Annual energy consumption summary table for baseline and design cases located in Naples ............................................................................................... 106 5.8 Annual energy I located in Valer 5.9 Annual energyt located 111 Franl 5.8 Annual energy consumption summary table for baseline and design cases located in Valencia ............................................................................................ 107 5.9 Annual energy consumption summary table for baseline and design cases located in Frankfurt ............................................................................................ 110 vi ll Facade details 2.2 Facade detail: 2.3 lsometnc new 24 Vision COUIII 1.5 Hunter Doug 1.6 Concordicn 1‘ Concord hop :8 Sights Philly :9 Ohasolar sh. 2.10 Grabertrans Ill Graphic rep; 1 1 .1. Schematic r. LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Facade details of curtain wall, external air curtain and internal air curtain .......... 19 2.2 Facade details internal air curtain ...................................................................... 19 2.3 Isometric view of Vision Control horizontal blinds ............................................ 22 2.4 Vision Control vertical blinds, vertical section ................................................... 23 2.5 Hunter Douglas horizontal blinds standard dimensions ...................................... 24 2.6 Concord vertical blinds device operating scheme, horizontal section .................. 25 2.7 Concord horizontal blinds device operating scheme, vertical section ................. 25 2.8 Syglas photovoltaic shading device example ..................................................... 26 2.9 Okasolar shading device operating system ......................................................... 28 2.10 Graber transparent blind “Optix” model ............................................................ 29 2.11 Graphic representation of cylindrical shell array and transparent slab ................ 32 2.12 Schematic representation of primary and secondary links relations .................... 33 2.13 Schematic representation of the three-section facade ......................................... 35 2.14 General decision-making framework ................................................................ 38 3.1 Flow model summarizing methodology and research process ........................... 45 3.2 Plan view of the single-space design used for the single-space analysis ............. 49 3.3 Plan view of the second floor of the case-study building .................................... 52 4.1 Plant drawing representing the sample-space room 4-04 .................................... 58 4.2 Overhang shading device geometry parameters ................................................. 63 4.3 Graphical representation of analysis A, B, C and D results ................................ 80 4.4 Graphical representation of energy consumption improvement values obtained from analysis A, B, C and D ................................................................. 80 vii 4.5 4.6 5.5 5.6 5.9 Graphical rq projection sh Oterhang sh. Snapshot of I Whole-burldi Schematic re energy srmui Image of the Original draw plant of the h Image of the Image 5hr)“ 1] Image SIIUR 1] Am “Titan a. map 0f EUIOI t -10 Annual CIR'IL' 4.5 4.6 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 Graphical representation of energy consumption range for 56-inches- projection shading devices .................................................................................. 81 Overhang shading device geometry parameters for the optimum solution .......... 84 Snapshot of HAP E20-II program showing all spaces considered for the whole-building analysis with the related square feet floor areas ......................... 89 Schematic representation of HAP operating mode for whole-building energy simulation .............................................................................................. 90 Image of the Arco project showing A-A and C-C cross sections ......................... 92 Original drawing of the Arco school project showing the ground floor plant of the building .......................................................................................... 93 Image of the Arco project showing A-A and C-C cross sections ........................ 94 Image showing the Arco School surrounding area ............................................. 97 Image showing the Arco School construction site ............................................. 97 Image showing the proximity between the Garda lake and the highlighted Arco urban area ................................................................................................ 98 Map of Europe showing locations of Arco, Valencia, Naples and Frankfurt ...... 105 5.10 Annual energy consumption summary graph for baseline and design cases related to Arco, Naples, Valencia and Frankfurt locations. ................................ 110 viii — CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION .l 1.1 Overriew As the world energ mgr use in build for 40% of total ent iflool‘natural gas ; Boolt - 02 03 2008 truer heating build consumption. Near amputable to space an - 02 03 2011K}- seals: of the imp. 1.1 Overview As the world energy crisis becomes apparent it is increasingly important to consider energy use in buildings. According to the US Department of Energy, buildings account for 40% of total energy consumed in the US. 72% of total US. electrical consumption, 55% of natural gas and 8% of oil is consumed by or in buildings (Buildings Energy Data Book — 02/03/2008). Building systems including space heating, lighting, space cooling, water heating, building electronics and refi‘igeration account for 71% of building energy consumption. Nearly 63% of carbon dioxide emissions caused by building end use are attributable to space heating, lighting, cooling and water heating (Buildings Energy Data Book — 02/03/2008). Because of the impact of buildings on energy consumption, a number of researchers have explored a variety of solutions for reducing energy consumption in buildings. Recently designers have placed emphasis on sustainability and specifically on the LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards developed by the US. Green Building Council (USGBC) which encourage energy reduction, as well as, indoor environmental quality for building occupants. LEED® has had a significant impact on changing the construction environment as evidenced by its rapid growth throughout the United States and world. Technical requirements of LEED® impacting this research are described in section 2.5. LEED® standards encourage the use of daylight within spaces to create a connection from inside to outside for building occupants (Refer to Appendix A for discussion of LEED)®. Expanding day-lighting is a two sided sword however, as expanding unprotc. ornlrng loads. as “t One way to minin Shading to shield g neritedural IIISIOI' emirorunental res; lighting by reducr \-.‘:‘r. e. . ruinous incluczn” 3d .- pa‘ dmk'lt I’M- r is pubii\I If?» :83 . - 3r} hie”)? lu‘l": 3w." . In? ' I ‘44.“: _‘ e. expanding unprotected glass areas can also allow for solar heat gain and increased cooling loads, as well as winter heat loss. One way to minimize cooling loads from expanded areas of glass is through the use of shading to shield glass which is exposed to direct sunlight. Shading devices are rooted in architectural history and many traditional building archetypes have used shading as an environmental response to solar gain. Shading devices impact building energy and day- lighting by reducing solar gain and cooling loads. There are a number of shading solutions including simple fixed shading devices, to more sophisticated solutions such as, between-glass, behind-blinds, high performance glass and moveable shades. This research thesis is focused on fixed shading devices and explores the impact or their geometry on total building energy. Some previous research has addressed shading devices. A study by Olbina entitled “Decision-making Framework for the Selection and Design of Shading Devices” (Olbina — 2005) explored a number of shading device options. Other researchers have explored related issues, for example Tzempelikos developed “A Methodology for Integrated Daylight and Thermal Analysis of Buildings” (Tzempelikos — 2005) where the researcher identified parameters that influence daylight and thermal comfort. The Green building Journal has published a model for evaluating the performance of facades. Additionally proprietary literature and software for assessing energy performance and daylighting are available. lhs research it as building energ} pc including projectu 5 this traditional sha Pretious research deuce on encrg} V nature rt’Vieu u This research was targeted at exploring the impact of fixed shading device geometry on building energy performance. The research examined the role of shading device geometry including projection, width and height above the window on energy performance from this traditional shading solution. Previous research addressed in the literature examined the impact of a single shading device on energy and lighting performance using single-room analysis. However, literature review to date revealed no recent research using computer simulation for fixed projecting shading devices. Most prior research focused on energy performance resulting fi'om the presence and/or absence of the shading device. Literature review uncovered some prior research using simulation of innovative shading devices such as between- glass, behind-blinds, photovoltaic and movable systems. No research considering the impact of fixed-projecting shading device geometry on whole building performance was found. This research studied the effect of fixed shading device geometry on building energy performance through single space and whole-building simulation. 1.2 Research rationale Despite the potential of fixed shading devices to impact energy use in buildings and their historic presence, the researcher was not able to find definitive research that analyzed the impact of shading device geometries on whole building performance using simulation methods. Olbina reported 1 selection of a sl research pros idu surrounding shad .JI W - gu.u€.iilfb for opt The researcher c Egerg} Catalog 13 nerpmsit e. €295 lining sezson rut rte-meters and t. “Pa-ct I3 R Olbina reported in her research that, “there are no specific guidelines for architects in the selection of a shading device for a specific building” (Olbina - 2005). This gap in research provided an opportunity for this thesis research to add to the body of knowledge surrounding shading devices by exploring the impact of their geometry and developing guidelines for optimum implementation of fixed shading device solutions. The researcher chose fixed shading devices because, as concluded in The First Solar Energy Catalog for Michigan, “The most effective shading devices will be those that are inexpensive, easy to operate and maintain and those that block only minimal amounts of heating season radiation” (Fridgen et a1, 1982). Fixed shading devices fit well with these parameters and this research helps to address them through simulation to asses their impact. 1.3 Research goals and objectives The long range goal of this researcher is to reduce energy consumption in the built environment. This research was targeted toward partial fulfillment of this long range goal and has two primary objectives. The first was to identify the optimum shading device geometries that could lead to the best annual energy performance on a single-space energy model basis. The secondary objective was to explore the impact of fixed shading devices on the total annual energy consumption based on a whole-building energy simulation. The following primary activities were planned in fulfilling the objectives presented above. 0 Exploration 4 The research It mmologlflfi. l The main gm}: nhich aid-drew 0 Choice of a sir From the liter following char ' Analysis of thq An hourly 51m] Exploration of the shading device concepts The research began by first investigating existing literature addressing shading device technologies, implementation strategies and availability of products on the market. The main goal of the literature review was to identify information currently available which addressed both the theoretical and applied aspects of shading devices. Choice of a single shading device system From the literature, a fixed projecting shading device system was chosen for the following characteristics: simplicity of geometry; feasibility of direct performances calculation without the use of proprietary manufacturer’s data; ease of configuration to a specific site and wide range of applicability. Analysis of the shading device performance on the whole-building design An hourly simulation program, HAP EII software developed by Carrier, was used to quantify the effects of shading device geometry on energy performance using whole building analysis. As a base step, shading device geometry was first modeled and analyzed using a single-space model in order to identify optimum geometries. Optimums identified from the single space analysis were then incorporated into a whole building analysis of a case study building. The objective of the whole building analysis was to determine their impact on a complete building. A baseline case-study building, the ARCO School, Arco TN, Italy was used for the simulation. The building had already been designed and its detailed technical inionnation W maltSIS “35 Europe. 0 Impact of sha Because of ti researcher M desire gaunt daylighting er of geometr} relative to the 1.4 Scope of the The Melt I091 or}. fixed ream heating and cord; trim . . *‘te‘bUlldInQ \“ I. - kl!) rim 10 I931 IL information was available. In order to help generalize and test the conclusions, the analysis was also conducted in several climate and latitudinal zones in southern Europe. 0 Impact of shading device geometry on LEED® energy performance compliance Because of the recent interest in LEED® throughout the construction industry the researcher was interested in considering the results in the context of how shading device geometry influences compliance with LEED® energy performance and daylighting criteria. Therefore, in addition to reporting general conclusions on impact of geometry and development of geometry guidelines, results were also reported relative to their impact on LEED® compliance. 1.4 Scope of the research The research focuses on shading device geometry in the context of commercial buildings with fixed rectangular windows. Reporting was done on an annual basis considering both heating and cooling seasons and integrated data collected from both the singe-space and whole-building simulations. In order to test the ability of the conclusions to be generalized, the researcher conducted a limited number of whole-building analysis using several climate zones in southern Europe. perfonnance and of ‘he researcher: trrn‘ .\'C 2.: a 15 Limitations .4 pnrnan limitat: [tuning conditior occlusions. T‘. ‘3? Study was. lirn domes. such as. mi :4?- Woe. It has n. LT creme. L6 “ElhodoloQ The research led to conclusions about the impact of shading device geometry on energy performance and developed conclusions and guidelines for sizing these devices. Because of the researchers interest in LEED®, results were reported in the context of impact on LEED® NC 2.2 credits EAl Optimize Energy Performance. 1.5 Limitations A primary limitation of the research was the use of a single case—study building. Other building conditions and configurations could have led to other possible results and conclusions. The study was limited to fixed shading devices, it may have been possible that other devices, such as, movable or behind-glass systems could have been more effective or less effective. It was not the objective of the research determining which device is most effective. 1.6 Methodology Following a literature review targeted toward identifying shading device systems and factors impacting their performance, a single fixed shading device was selected, and a case-study approach was used for energy simulation modeling. Carrier HAP EII software was used for simulation and related analysis. Parameters with“ window bOIdCI'S 31 and west) and. to 3 Various shading d determine optimu: asa’3sis. This pr predetermine opti: (I) (1 terns found to l 316 Who! e burldinr 143511161113 Up 10 E Ends and l3 inch 3‘ a '78 LOlltIUCICd In Tie W‘Ruh b 15“}. ““742 desires~ 1 ”I‘m- Resu' Uni; titre q Lensideli‘d ir Parameters considered for the analysis were: geometry (depth, extension beyond lateral window borders and distance from upper window border), facade orientation (south, east and west) and, to a lesser extent, the geographical location of the building. Various shading device geometries were first tested using single-space simulations to determine optimum solutions which were later incorporated into the whole-building analysis. This preliminary step of developing the single-space analysis was to predetermine optimum geometries prior to data entry in the whole building analysis. Systems found to be most effective using the single space analysis were explored using the whole building analysis approach. Geometry was differentiated generally in 4 inch increments up to a total of 60 inch projection (depth), 12 inch extension from window ends and 12 inch from the top of the window. A total of 385 single space simulations ‘ were conducted to draw conclusions about optimum shading device dimensions. The case-study building was previously modeled with HAP software without fixed shading devices. This research recreated the whole-building model using fixed shading devices. Resulting energy and daylight performance of the original and modified building were considered in drawing conclusions. 1.7 Deliverables Iheresearch acct . Dex‘cli‘l‘n shading ‘ 313153.15)- . dem o Dth‘IOPm complete I [pom completion t‘onsider and tin" o’o'ain LEED C re L8 Chapter Sumr Tris -‘ . ‘ moon proxit o» ”.oac' ' ‘ ILLIImILIIII lootind liter militlidolgoy 1.7 Deliverables and benefits of the research The research accomplished the following: 0 Development of performance reference lists showing the relationship between shading device geometry and energy performances (based on single-space analysis). 0 Determination of optimum geometries. 0 Development of conclusions regarding the impact of the optimum solutions on a complete building using whole-building analysis. Upon completion of the analysis the researcher as a secondary effort was also able to consider and draw some conclusions on how fixed shading devices impact ability to obtain LEED Credits EAcI .. 1.8 Chapter Summary This section provides an overview of the scope of the research, its objectives and overall approach. Limitations and potential benefits are also reported. Section Two describes background literature and Section Three provides discussion of the research methodology. 10 — CHAPTER 2 — LITERATURE REVIEW 11 ll Introduction. Senion Two pres: schsectionsfii Int Ergsting Research The P’Ipose of 1h shading dexice im WOIL‘IIS Work [IL]! ti ' ,- 1 .. principles such as fiwfiv‘a‘ arr-Julia. k3“ ‘ 12 B T m . rotate to LEEDI .4e-n u. 0- I “ )pnere CL 1| 4 rag. \QL'.?H IICC SIanda’ 2.1 Introduction. Section Two presents the literature review to date and is divided into the following subsections:2.l Introduction, 2.2 Background on energy performance in buildings, 2.3 Shading and Screening Devices in Buildings Related to Energy Simulation Methods, 2.4 Existing Research and Projects and 2.5 Background on LEED®. The purpose of the literature review was to identify existing published work related to shading device impact on energy and daylighting building performance and to discover previous work that could be helpful to this research. Practical applications of shading devices are based on theoretical and formally codified principles such as thermodynamic laws, energy codes and legislation. Some discussion of these principles and standards is included as reference for considering measurement approaches, tests and computer modeling situations. 2.2 Background on energy performance in buildings. This section addresses some of the background literature on energy issues and how they relate to LEED® requirements. The complexity of the LEED® NC 2.2 “Energy and Atmosphere” chapter necessarily involves a large number of codes, protocols and reference standards that constitute the basis of building energy performance assessment. The primary reference standards are identified and briefly described below. The need for saving energy in buildings is becoming increasingly important in building design. Project teams and architects are moving in this direction. Energy performance 12 arguments are ir: are imporram dot: buildings: ASHRA': Guide for Small 01‘: Energ} POllC} Act ( Protocol (lPXlVPl. Requirements. For termed 61mg 31.: .ldéztsonally. ASH l hm: on. Standard circled discussion filings can be in ASHME lES\ A 34313th featurt Hfating Refim . .gtr row-nation that in {ANSI}- ASHRA‘ w HVAC $819??? requirements are increasingly being defined through standards and codes. The following are important documents that have significant influence on energy performance in buildings: ASHRAE/IESNA Standards 90.1 — 2004, ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide for Small Office Buildings '— 2004, Advanced Buildings Benchmark - Version 1.1, Energy Policy Act (EPA) — 1992, International Performance Measurement & Verification Protocol (IPMVP), Center for Resource Solution’s Green-e Product Certification Requirements. For example the ASHRAE 90.1 2004 is referenced by LEED® as the required energy standard that must be followed in order to obtain LEED® certification. Additionally, ASHRAE 90.1 is one of the energy codes that HAP EII Carrier program is based on. Standards directly related to this research are briefly described below. More detailed discussion of other documents affecting and related to energy performance in buildings can be found in Appendix B. ASHRAE/IESNA Standards 90.1 (2004) is important especially for mechanical equipment features. and minimum standard requirements. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is an important association that influences this field along with the American National Standard Institute (ANSI). ASHRAE publishes a well recognized series of standards and guidelines relating to HV AC systems and issues. These standards are often referenced in building codes. This thesis research was based on the ASHRAE 90.1 ”Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings”. Although ASHRAE doesn’t specifically address daylighting requirements it does have requirements for how computer simulation shall be conducted. ASHRAE 90.1 Chapter eleven “Energy Cost Budget Method” and 13 3316:)le G “Perm .‘r 431-0320201131. Adtanced Building explains hou to dL in high-pertimmn mesa defining h: and controls. In rr pffiject teams gal: rate and national (slimmed Buzld; ll’i‘fi‘. ’ .‘C resedrc Energy Policy Ac MW the ASl appendix G “Performance Rating Method” were used for this thesis research. (ASHRAE 01 - 03/20/2008). Advanced Buildings Benchmark - Version 1.1.- is the nationally recognized source that explains how to deliver best-in-class energy efficiency and indoor environmental quality in high-performance commercial buildings. The Benchmark brings together over 30 criteria defining high performance in building envelopes, lighting, HVAC, power systems and controls. Its main use concerns building design and construction fields and helps the project teams gain access to quantitative and descriptive specifications for exceeding state and national minimum standards such as ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 — 2001 (Advanced Building Benchmark — 03/20/2008). Information contained in this document helped the researcher to optimize the choice of building features and shading devices. Energy Policy Act -— 1992 is a key document related to the core reference standard of this research, the ASHRAE 90.1. The Energy Policy Act (109th Congress l-I.R.776.ENR, abbreviated as EPACT92) is a United States act. It was passed by Congress to reduce U.S. dependence on imported petroleum by requiring certain fleets to acquire alternative fuel vehicles, which are capable of operating on non-petroleum fuels (Energy Policy Act - 03/20/2008). The provisions developed for improving energy efficiency are summarized as follows: 0 Buildings: requires states to establish minimum commercial building energy codes and to consider minimum residential codes based on current voluntary 14 codes Tim 2001. ASHE 0 Utilities. rct utilities to programs to lmpfm‘cmcn ° Equmcnlj and air-cond R010“ (221.3,: J mml‘t‘llin e ' ‘lfzemdfll'cj ) p' “ CT comp, codes. This gave impetus to the creation and modification of ASHRAE 90.1/1999, 2001, ASHRAE 90.2, the Model Energy Code etc. 0 Utilities: requires states to consider new regulatory standards that would require utilities to undertake integrated resource planning; allow the energy efficiency - programs to be at least as profitable as new supply options; and encourage improvements in supply system efficiency. 0 Equipment Standards: establishes efficiency standards for: Commercial heating and air-conditioning equipment; electric motors; and lamps. 0 Renewable Energy: establishes a program for providing federal support on a competitive basis for renewable energy technologies. 0 Alternative Fuels, Electric Vehicles, Electricity: removes obstacles to wholesale power competition in the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA). International Performance Measurement & Verification Protocol (IPMVP) - Volume III of 2003 — was used to set the measurement parameters of the HAP software in order to execute the whole building analysis and define the research process. Originally funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, IPMVP consists of three volumes. Volume I defines terminology and establishes procedures for determining the savings resulting fi'om retrofits. Volume II focuses on maintaining or improving indoor environmental quality during the implementation of energy-conservation measures. Volume [11 provides guidance on specific Measurement and Verification (M&V) issues, including applying M&V to renewable-energy systems and to new construction. Additionally, volume III lays out four compliance paths - Options A through D - for different situations assuming 15 a preexisting build: itimroduccs ways mm or building and D address it huf “Center for Rewu used by project I: photovoltaic system miection program retail market. Gre. genome gas mir D», ~ gum defines a t hazel ‘ 0 meet the to? . . EKplOllalltir and relatixc I . Absence of . - . Emission cr- These Criteria p; SL3? e 0r Prim}. undmtandih t] I r»: tr . rdé‘ntlalg “’an I a preexisting building or system against which performance can be measured. Moreover it introduces ways to establish baseline performance in the absence of a preexisting system or building. Inside the document, Options A and B focus on subsystems, while C and D address whole buildings (Architect International Association — 03/20/2008). “Center for Resource Solution’s Green-e Product Certification Requirements” can be used by project teams that decide to introduce alternative energy sources such as photovoltaic systems. Green-e is defined as the “nation's leading independent consumer protection program for the sale of renewable energy and greenhouse gas reductions in the retail market. Green-e offers certification and verification of renewable energy and greenhouse gas mitigation products” (Green-e — 03/20/2008). llnside this field the Green-e Program defines a certification and verification process for green electricity products that have to meet the following main requirements: 0 Exploitation of renewable resources like solar electric, wind, geothermal, biomass and relative source qualification. 0 Absence of nuclear power involved in the process. 0 Emission criteria for the non-renewable portion of energy supplied. These criteria provide basic guidelines that can be slightly modified depending on the State or Province of application and, as highlighted for the EPA paragraph, understanding these standards was important in order to have a general view of all credentials related to the LEED® Energy and Atmosphere chapter (LEED NC v. 2.2). 16 23 Shading & Sc Shading detices c renal design stra from many points the current thesis. 23.1 Engineerir A variety of ClOCL shading dCVlCL‘S. .~‘ dssn’i'antagcs. Ar: center‘s surfaced f O Ll“; 5311 Sl‘Ul’g 2.3 Shading & Screening Devices in Buildings. Shading devices constitute the core of this research work. Architectural solutions and special design strategies for screening and shading devices have been previously studied from many points of view. This research drew from this previous work and applied it to the current thesis. 2.3.1 Engineering articles and technical publications. A variety of documents were used as reference manuals for the practical aspects of shading devices. Additionally, the literature was used to identify possible benefits and disadvantages. An understanding of how shading devices are used in actual building contexts surfaced from these sources. “Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings” (Stein & All — 2006) is a design reference manual that, in section 111, reports the main applications of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) research studies for architectural design and building performance optimization. The lighting chapter is divided into the following subsections which were considered for a preliminary evaluation of the research feasibility: . 0 Lighting Fundamentals: terminology, definitions, basic characteristics and measurements. 0' Light Sources (Daylight and Electric Light): operating characteristics, design features, luminous efficacy. l7 . Lighting D appmpri‘dlt‘ o D3)ll‘:'~hl D" 0 Electric L114 strategies. o Electric Lig‘ l‘ne ‘Jotrnal of Cr. deal-oped analysis 08?) in order to M. (raid suppon the (i tchcxe this object: minding energy. lht’ h 1‘ :M office room 0 Lighting Design Process: costs issues, power budgets, energy considerations, appropriate illumination provision. 0 Daylight Design: passive design solutions, design and analysis. 0 Electric Lighting Design: fixture characteristics, calculation techniques, control strategies. 0 Electric Lighting Applications: building occupancy, exterior and special lightings. The “Journal of Green Buildings” published an article in 2006 where the research team developed analysis of Advanced Integrated F acades (AIF) and Double Skin Facades (DSF) in order to validate their high efficiency and to establish performance criteria that could support the design of sustainable facades (Haase & Amato — 2006). In order to achieve this objective, facade performance was characterized into three categories including energy, thermal and visual. The work was based on the simulation analysis of a typical office room, characterized by ihree different facade-design types. The baseline case consisted of a curtain wall, the second case by an external air cmtain and the last one by an internal air curtain, all three cases are graphically represented in figure 2.1 below. 18 \\\]\\\\\\\ :W'u \\\\\\\\X\ "e F— i Figure 2.1: Facade details of curtain wall (left), external air curtain (right). (Haase M, Amato A. — 2006) \\fl\\\\\4<‘ f" Figure 2.2: Facade details of internal air curtain. (Haase M, Amato A. — 2006). 19 The thermal peril” o DT} Bull) 0 Mean RC“ Relatit‘c l Air Veloe Metaht'tlrc Clothing 1 Daylight performs: nether research an: ' Daylight F; Daylight C. Daylight A I} ~ . emulation resu“ The thermal performance was defined by the following parameters: 0 Dry Bulb Temperature 0 Mean Radiant Temperature 0 Relative Humidity 0 Air Velocity 0 Metabolic Rate (of occupants) 0 Clothing Level (of occupants) Daylight performance was evaluated using the following parameters, (also implemented in other research articles and dissertations): 0 Daylight Factor 0 Daylight Coefficient o Daylight Autonomy The simulation results showed that optimized window systems using double skin facades (DSF) help to reduce annual energy consumption and improves thermal comfort in the work space. Annual cooling saving for the application of DSF turned out to vary from 11% up to 20% against an average annual cooling energy loss of 5% in the case of normal Air Flow Window without any control strategy. Also daylight analysis results confirmed that implementation of double skin facades improves lighting performance and savings. 20 lit? Ell soft“ are specific item. All t titration. uhich \‘x H356 and Amato L , . . till Existing an This subsection ide- that could Te: . altul ll}. .. . I 0. recent work “ax SCl'tiIlOlB CODCCTnlf‘. of: ' th5 SI?!) an my? Med on the pnrr all alr - - ' cad} Identtt'; mined and brietlt 7 HAP Ell software doesn’t allow consideration of a double skin-facade as a separate and specific item. All effects of its implementation would have to be input as solar radiation variation, which would had to be calculated separately making the approach used by Base and Amato unfeasible for this thesis research. 2.3.2 Existing architectural solutions using shading devices. This subsection identifies available operable systems for shading and screening purposes that could afi‘ect the building enviromnent and energy performance. Some investigation of recent work was completed; however, a study of all existing applicable architectural solutions concerning shading and screening devices was not feasible. To reduce the scope of this step an empirical approach based on the existing research work was used, and focused on the primary shading devices where quantitative research had been conducted, and already identified in the literature. Background on shading device solutions are reported and briefly summarized below. 2.3.2.1 Between-glass blinds. Several products are available on the market under this topic . 0 Unicel Vision Control: (Vision Control - 04/08/2008). Hollow chambered louvers are sealed between double insulated glass. A primary seal is polyisobutylene that has high resistance to ultraviolet radiation, and the secondary seal was made of polysulfide. The air space between the two panels of glass was dehydrated by desiccant. The air space is 2” wide and louvers are 1 3/8” wide, made of extruded aluminum. Louvers can be 21 mulled either ho. is needed. Blades cl - .l/anuai’itil - Azttomaztta prommma this 'Il I ‘. \31 em. l‘ns particular shad F‘E‘ure 13: ls. installed either horizontally or vertically. If louvers are wider than 48”, a vertical spacer is needed. Blades can rotate 180° and be operated as follows: — Manually: by a hand crank or thumbwheel. —- Automatically: by the motor, which can be operated electrically by a programmable logic controller. The timer and sun-sensors can be incorporated in this system. This particular shading device system is represented in figures 2.3 - 2.4 - 2.5 below. Figure 2.3: Isometric View of horizontal blinds (Vision Control - 04/08/2008) 22 N A «44 l J- 314.1 Figure 2.4: Vertical blinds, vertical section (Vision Control - 08/04/2008) 0 Hunter Douglas: this manufacturer offers two types of between-glass blinds: 5/8. wide and 0.008. thick and 1. wide and 0.006. thick made of aluminum. Blinds can be installed horizontally or vertically. Vertical blinds can be rotated 180°. They can be operated magnetically, using a permanent magnet to move the shading device from a closed position in one direction to a closed position in the opposite direction. This system does not require holes in glass panels (Hunter Douglas — 04/08/2008). Figure 2.6 below represents this type of shading device. 23 0 Concord Shad blinds. Horizontal i binds are made of . tong a Comfort cor ntesity Semor. ll: Conditions (Olbina \ Size- Maximums for Between-Glass Blinds l Min. AiriSlat Max. Blind Max. BlindlMax. l Gap =WidthtWidth Height lArtm l 13/8" “1" loo" 96" E40 sq fcctj‘ Figure 2.5: Hunter Douglas horizontal blinds standard dimensions. (Hunter Douglas — 04/08/2008). 0 Concord Shading Systems: it also offered either motorized horizontal or vertical blinds. Horizontal blinds can be 1” or 2” wide made of wood or aluminum. Vertical blinds are made of PVC or aluminum. The automatic operation of louvers is possible by using a comfort control system that monitors sun radiation intensity by using sunlight- intensity sensor. The control system also moves the shading device depending on sun conditions (Olbina —- 2005). Figures 2.6 and 2.7 below shows shading device components. 24 Flgore 2.6 Figure 2.6: Concord vertical blinds device operating scheme, horizontal section (Concord - 04/08/2008). Figure 2.7: Concord horizontal blinds device operating scheme, vertical section (Concord — 04/08/2008). 25 o Photovoltaic sane time. The bi also atailable. Ti derosited on glav implementation a:. time systems anti- photoxoltaic slats phototoltaic shadir- - Photovoltaic shading devices provide solar control and capture sun energy at the same time. The blinds are fixed between two panes of glass. Adjustable solar blinds are also available. The photovoltaic slats consisted of tandem amorphous silicon cells deposited on glass. Syglam, a German manufacturer, produced two systems, one for roof implementation and the other for vertical facades. A voltage of 24 V was used for stand- alone systerns and a voltage of 60 V for the grid-connected system. Nominal power of photovoltaic slats was about 40 W/mz. Figure 2.8 below provides an example of photovoltaic shading device application (Syglas — 04/08/2008). Figure 2.8: Syglas photovoltaic shading device example (Syglas — 04/08/2008). 0 Okasolar systems use reflective louvers installed between insulating glass units. The louvers protected the interior from sun radiation in summer but provided diffused natural light. In winter, radiation was reflected by the louvers to the ceiling so that a large amount of sun energy and daylight could enter in the building. Okasolar units are made of clear float glass, but louvers with a concave and convex shape are made of a highly 26 ii reflectite. lig it go at a predeten tine. lourets ahsor . a c outside glass am- in control cc itin. permitted trar ;m:\ some light is t :tle. Kill}! transmis ion 3*. fit The lou ers '9qu ‘ ““ “ed. 0“ l C of heat raii r . Ltdthn 5 m. “111‘ h (t 0_( 5" l" m. - . Hi. the L.\ tlUC all] t 4' t‘ . ‘ ’autaoon , m ,‘l-no . Tooled "no he I' u ' . ml Space. . mu: reflective, light gauge steel strip with a high performance Trial coating. Louvers are fixed at a predetermined angle and spacing to respond to different seasonal conditions. Since louvers absorb a certain amount of sun radiation, increased thermal stress can occur. The outside glass pane therefore needs to be toughened or heat-strengthened, and it can have a sun control coating to reduce transmittance. The unique shape and position of the louvers permitted transmission. Reflection of light can also occur between adjacent louvers so some light is reflected to the outside and some will be transmitted into the interior. Direct light transmission varies from 3% to 58% and diffused light transmission from 13% to 28%. The louvers have a reflective surface coating so that most of the sun radiation is reflected, on the other hand absorption of sun radiation and its conversion to long wave heat radiation is minimized. The thermal insulation of Okasolar glass panels was U: 2.7 W/m2 K (2 0.067 BTU/fir.fi2.°F). By using a low-e coating and an argon filling in the air space, the U-value could decrease to 1.8 W/m2 K (2 0.1 BTU/hr.f’t2.°F). In summer, all sun radiation is reflected. lln transition seasons (fall and spring), radiation is partially reflected into the interior; and in winter, solar radiation is entirely reflected into the interior space. Figure 2.9 below shows Okasolar’s operating system (Olbina — 2005). 27 Figure 2.9: Okasolar shading device operating system (Olbina — 2005). 0 Transparent blinds, consist of 2” wide slats made of polycarbonate They have an L -shape with one side completely transparent and the other side frosted or translucent. The three available blind positions are: — Tinted view: the transparent side of the slats is in the vertical and closed position, providing a view and reducing glare and UV rays transmission. — Open: the slats are in the semi-open position allowing a higher percentage of direct natural light transmission and providing a view. - Privacy: the slats were tilted in the opposite direction to the tinted view position; the fiosted part of the slat was in the vertical and closed position, providing privacy and obstructing a view to the outside. 28 Figure 2.10 belt. produced by Gra privacy is not it horizontally and almost l00°o of manually or autorr .Figure 2.10 below shows a particular type of transparent blind, the Optix model, produced by Graber. Completely transparent blinds 1” or 2” wide are also available if privacy is not necessary and a view is desired. Transparent blinds can be installed horizontally and vertically. They reduce 30% to 50% of light and glare and eliminate almost 100% of the sun’s ultraviolet rays. This shading device could be operated manually or automatically (Olbina — 2005). Figure 2.10: Graber transparent blind “Optix” model (Olbina — 2005). 29 233.2 Patent The patented sh: especially intere: transparency of u an understanding physics in the des designers is to imt patented shading c to moveable det ic Moreable shadinC Components of m. meal aris. depe t ’2' ' module honzontr msms are made Ci Beet Use of ret‘racti. i ' - t1Sposstble to ha. 2.3.2.2 Patented shading device systems. The patented shading devices made of transparent materials, such as glass or plastics, are especially interesting for application since they provide a possibility for complete transparency of windows or glass facades. The patented systems were investigated to get an understanding of their performance and the application of the principles of optical physics in the design of blinds. This is important because on important objective for designers is to improve the daylight level in the space by using shading devices. Several patented shading device systems are explained in this section and they can be divided in to moveable devices (dynamic) and fixed devices (stationary). Moveable shading devices. Components of moveable shading devices usually rotate around either a horizontal or vertical axis, depending on the position of the slats. Venetian blinds assemblies with rotatable horizontal slats consist of an array of rectangular symmetric prisms. These prisms are made of dielectric transparent material and are arranged on a rotatable slat. Because of refraction, the slats are not transparent, that is, the view will be distorted, but it is possible to have a view between adjacent slats. Different types of patented shading devices were studied for the scope of the research. Additional information on the use of patented movable shading devices can be found in Appendix F. Fixed shading devices. Fixed shading devices can be used to provide protection from direct sun rays and overheating for several hours per day. They provide protection for several months for 30 mwllfll Ola-ha solar control. Th‘ and calculated l' accordance Mill ‘ slat material. Th“ reflection. An Ch who proposed the because mo retle deuce The shad: tottl internal ret‘. production capahzi with a reflecting ' mono] for orient ,.. c h roots or yenical e.. be changed by ad “to adjacent \ seasonal overheating protection, such as in the summer, or the whole year for complete solar control. The shape and position of the shading element must be carefully designed and calculated to meet these goals. The correct slat tilt angle must be chosen in accordance with the latitude and altitude angle, as well as the index of refraction of the slat material. The slope of the slat is designed to meet the requirements of total internal reflection. An example of use of fixed shading devices was given by Wirth et a1. (1998) who proposed the design of a slat that consisted of concentric cylindrical shell segments because two reflections are not enough to achieve the desired efficiency of the shading device. The shading element with a cylindrical shell array provided multiple, successive, total internal reflections. The number of shell segments in the slat is limited by production capabilities. The remaining part of the slat could be left transparent or covered with a reflecting layer. This invention can be used seasonally or as an all-year solar control for orientations that provide a normal incidence angle, such as tilted, south-facing roofs or vertical east/west facing windows. Optical properties of the shading element can be changed by adding a complementary structure and by establishing optical contact between adjacent shells. A switching mechanism can be used to turn a mirror of a wide shading element into a transparent slab. One such mechanism is a thermally induced phase change of a substance from a liquid to a gas with an index of refraction approximately 1.0. This solution leads to thermally self-regulating overheating protection (Olbina —- 2005). 31 Figure 2.11: Graphic representation of cylindrical shell array and transparent slab (Olbina —— 2005). 2.4 Existing research and projects. Part of the literature review was based on existing research related to shading devices. The following were helpful in understanding the current status of research identifying gaps and what additional work still needs to be done. “A methodology for integrated daylight and thermal analysis of buildings” — Athanassios Tzempelikos - Ph. D. Thesis 2005 — Concordia University — Montreal. Tzempelikos analyzed the issues of lighting and thermal features in buildings caused by daylight effect. During his work he defined criteria to select, evaluate and calculate the consequence of different sources, facade features and internal building conditions. Some methods he identified and used were specific and, in some cases, their applicability to general building conditions in not predictable. For instance, some of the parameters he considered were so detailed that they could not be included in a simulation program. However, some general methods that Tzempelikos used were applicable to this thesis research. 32 parameters identi relevant to the rt linking 13mmcu space. These par: role and importar ll'indott Propmit lzg‘tting controls selection for a g schematic organi/ raann \ DAVLtc,a ‘pERFCRI Fl‘e’UTeZD- s iii-o ‘er Wncept Us Cami? . ones. Commu‘ d whmwi ~11 Kt“ fit Parameters identified by Tzempelikos influencing daylight and thermal comfort were as relevant to the research. Tzempelikos identified that a key was to determine a set of linking parameters that had an impact on both daylight and thermal performance of the space. These parameters were classified as primary and secondary, depending on their role and importance inside the user’s process. The primary items were: Window Size - Window Properties — Shading Device and Properties — Shading Device Control. Electric lighting controls were considered then, as a consequence of the primary parameters selection for a given set of luminance and/or heat situations. Figure 2.12 shows the schematic organization of these concepts, as applied in Tzempelikos’s research. DIRECT me SECONDARY LINK l t SHADING CONTROL ._______*. LIGHTING CONTROL ‘ n l INTERNAL suns DAYLIGHTINGW THERMAL t ‘ THERMAL PERFORMANCE } PERFORMANCE , PERFORMANCE \m J Figure 2.12: Schematic representation of primary and secondary links relations (Tzempelikos — 2005). Another concept useful for this thesis was the distinction of the linking parameters in two categories, continuous and discreet. The first items were characterized by properties that could not be modified over time, and those that could be modified any time. An example 33 for both Of lllL‘SC not be changed. i1 Mother idea tha three-section fa. lighting and their: important as well Tzempelikos repo hill 5% - 10°g‘ l office workers“ (8 l? 141'; " windings ._ DUI/5 WWW 0f facade m “I Ihell St‘pq for both of these elements is a window, whose dimensions, position and orientation can not be changed, and a shading device that can be moved. Another idea that surfaced from Tzempelikos’s considerations was the concept of the “three-section facade”. The implementation of shading elements directly influences lighting and thermal performance, but can also have secondary effects. One of the most important as well as problematic effects is the presence of glare inside the building. As Tzempelikos reported, “recent studies have shown that for transmittance values higher than 5% - 10%, part of direct sunlight could penetrate and create glare problems for office workers” (Source: “A methodology for integrated daylight and thermal analysis of buildings ” — 2005 -— pg. 91). Therefore it was convenient to take into account a new concept of facade design, developed by Concordia University in 2003, that considered the facade to be divided in three parts (for each floor). The bottom part was opaque and should satisfy thermal insulation requirements for every considered location. The upper part was then separated in a top section, which represented the non-viewing part, and a middle section that allowed direct view to the outside and should protect the occupants from direct sunlight glares. The shading properties of the middle part should have allowed only the transmission of diffuse light into the room. On the contrary, the top part of the window, could allow beam daylight since it would not create glare problems while it maximize daylight availability. 34 l Penman; sch. Thu concept is g. Figure 2.13: Schematic representation of the three-section facade (Tzempelikos — 2005). This concept is graphically explained in figure 2.13 above and represents an important aspect of Tzempelikos’s work. However, for this present research some modifications of the concept was necessary in considering LEED® “Indoor and Environmental Quality” chapter, EQ Credit 8.2 “90% view of spaces”, requires a direct line of sight for building occupants between 2’6” and 7’6” for external views. An opaque surface, even if very useful for some aspects, wouldn’t allow the designer to achieve that LEED® point. Therefore, researchers considered the possibility to introduce another type of facade solution, always divided in three bands but with the two upper parts fixed on a sliding system. Operable windows could have been considered not just for natural ventilation rates but also for daylight level regulations, always directly controlled by occupants. The design of a building, especially for elements that affect indoor spaces, is a process in which the project team should always leave some allowance because basic conditions such as weather, occupant perception and disposition of interior elements can not always 35 bribe same. Al> that could be dlr" to their anS “Decision-Malt" Stetlana Olblfla [titersity - Vi' march focused dereloped a Silt“ performance only shading devices. ‘- tith it she deyelt doices. patented a mature and repor Etch shading dent m the market 'n lllfinancc. thermal h Olbina ”PORN deg ”ll-‘1 CW that con} be the same. Also for control glare, it’s important to insert, in the design, some elements that could be directly and easily adjusted by users in order to adapt the envelope features to their needs. “Decision-Making Framework for the Selection and Design of Shading Devices” - Svetlana Olbina — Ph. D. Thesis 2005 — Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University - Virginia. After developing a general decision-making framework, this research focused on analysis of daylighting performance of shading devices and developed a specific decision-making model for selection, based on their daylight performance only. In her dissertation, Olbina first analyzed existing standards related to shading devices, windows and luminance features. Beside this topic and in relationship with it, she developed a list of all main shading devices respectively divided in existing devices, patented and a new type, developed by herself. The work was mostly qualitative in nature and reported the device features with limited technical and numeric information. Each shading device was matched with a real manufacturer and with an existing model on the market. The list included information for each device including drawings, luminance, thermal effects and applicability in LEED® projects. As Olbina reported in the conclusion, her work left open research issues not completely developed that could constitute a core element for other research projects. One of them was the development of specific decision-making frameworks for all the of performance and building conditions not considered. The examples reported were those listed in the main fiamework such as thermal, acoustic, cost, control system, but there were many 36 Other aspects th: ones. Between C analysis and not be influenced by attempt of Olbina main concepts. th Sttrlmanzedas: f‘l -.' ‘ Inc 1.... L._l ‘ DC "'fi .._2 ‘ Sh. other aspects that could have been improved, not necessarily in relationship with these ones. Between Olbina’s limitations there was the issue of considering just a single-space analysis and not a whole-building environment where choices of shading devices could be influenced by other .factors. The model shown below in figure 2.22 represents the first attempt of Olbina to complete a decision-making model. The research was based on four main concepts, that represent key variables in the decision-making process. These can be summarized as: !_ . j — Independent Variables (weather conditions, location, site, ...) L - 1 — Dependent Variables (heat transfer, HVAC equipment, facade type, . . .) l . ; — Shading Devrce Variables D — Performance Parameters (thermal, acoustic, aesthetic, ...) As the author herself said: “the specific decision-making model developed by this research is designed as a part of a more complex decisiOn-making model for the section/design of the shading device” (Olbina — 2005). Although the model focused only on the daylight performance of the shading device, variables used in this decision-making model can also be implemented in different situations. Olbina’s research and statements were used for reference during the current research. Her identification of understanding dependent and independent shading device variables was helpful for this thesis research. Levels of energy and daylighting performance in buildings could be measured in different ways and HAP software provided different performance values. Figure 2.14 below reports the specific decision-making framework developed by Olbina. 37 l , D! I V: Ll Sit-tn: L . . Li \A ------------- q _ INDEPENDENT t f VARIABLES . ' DEPENDENT ' I PERFORMANCE SELECTION MAKING . VARIABLES ' PARAMETERS DECISION ...... -l .. — . - SELECTION _! SHADING DEVICE l'——— L VARIABLES F DESIGN DESIGN Figure 2.14: General decision-making framework. (Olbina — 2005). One of the points was the identification of system properties and that help determining the best solution. Different shading devices had different lighting and thermal effects on the internal environment; the use of a specific one instead of another can affect the building performance. Within the scope of the literature review researchers also addressed the study of other existing research. However, not all findings could be implemented during the experimental sections because of software limitations. One example is the use of light pipes for whole-building analysis in order to transmit natural daylight into buildings with deep plans and increase energy savings related to electrical consumption. Additional information can be found in Appendix F. 38 25 LEED’ B; lhe research als of certain LEED nhich were rela: cinch solutions c Energy Performs this interest are rt Imprenented in o. lhe intent of Lt browsing leyels Studard to reduce 1136. Three di tfcre: l1] the pron“ Pertionname r. mole“ Simuld. pmemaee to: Pr. -, . $567133“? C U' ~31”- ‘ J )0 S(ll-litre fl the AmanCC-d l '“ated. 2.5 LEED® Background. The research also addresses the impact of fixed shading device geometry on achievement of certain LEED® requirements. Therefore, the researcher reviewed literature on LEED® which were related to use of shading devices. The researcher was interested in identifying which solutions could be considered in order to meet LEED® Credits EAl “Optimize Energy Performance” on a whole-building design scale. Some of the notions related to this interest are reported below and address aspects of LEED® buildings that could be implemented in order to optimize building energy performance. The intent of LEED® EA Credit 1 (“Optimize Energy Performance”) is to achieve increasing levels of energy performance above the baseline case of the prerequisite standard to reduce environmental and economic impacts associated with excessive energy use. Three different paths could be chosen in order to comply with that requisite. 0 Whole buildinLeneLgv simulgtion: that could demonstrate a percentage improvement in the proposed building performance rating compared to the baseline building performance rating per ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 by a whole building project simulation. All calculations have to be based on the energy costs savings percentage (dissimilar for New Buildings and Existing Building Renovations) and depending on the achieved results, will be assigned at least 1 point, at most 10. 0 Prescriptive compliance path (4 points): was developed for office buildings under 20.000 square feet and are projected to meet all applicable requisites as established in the Advanced Energy Design Guide for the climate zone in which the building is located. 39 and presaip‘ according to Implementation (‘On-Site Renee and recognizing entironrnental at nmction leads 00315- The numht 311121.13] 5061’ 8." ct. rates can be inclu. Energy (DOE) (1 ‘LEED NC \~_ ‘) a ~'§l 3110316: {6351le ‘. l‘Gt - Prescriptive compliancmth (l pointL requires compliance with the basic criteria and prescriptive measures of the Advanced Building Benchmark Version 1.1 design according to the climate zone where the building is located. Implementation of on—site renewable energy sources is also considered in BA Credit 2 (“On-Site Renewable Energy”) as an applicable solution with the intent of encouraging and recognizing increasing levels of on-site renewable energy and to reduce environmental and economic impacts associated with fossil fuel energy use. The main instruction leads to an on-site use of renewable energy system to offset building energy costs. The number of points are assigned according to the percentage of the building annual energy cost supported by on-site renewable energy (from 1 to 3 points). These rates can be included in the energy modeling used in BA Credit 1 or by the Department of Energy (DOE) Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) database (LEED NC v. 2.2). Another feasible way to improve renewable energy supply is presented in BA Credit 6 (“Green Power”) which has the intent of encouraging the development and use of grid- source, renewable energy technologies on a net zero pollution basis. That target can be reached by providing at least 35% of the building’s electricity from renewable sources by engaging in at least a two-year renewable energy contract subsequent to a determination of the baseline electricity use calculated as in the EA Credit 1 or according to the Department of Energy (DOE) Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) database. 40 Other research buildings were Buildings publh die Energy-Rad Brottn — 300’)- due to LEED" b probabilistic mm buildings in rela' consisting of SlU= Conan range of \ budding elemcmt We use [ELt Kllh ofbascd p; - Olnisting buildi; 1:2; 6. I. a - . Jr addition, mode-7 EU Valut‘S (301‘ Energy} Star“ . t O'J‘tEr data C(tf“ Other research analyzing LEED® requirements and building energy performance in buildings were previously conducted by several research teams. The Journal of Green Buildings published in fall 2007 published an article entitled “Analysis of Variation in the Energy-Related Environmental Impact of LEED® Certified Buildings” (Wedding & Brown — 2007). The related research analyzed the variability of environmental impacts due to LEED® building energy use. The whole work was based on implementation of probabilistic models that measure the energy-related environmental impact of LEED® buildings in relationship with the number of credits achieved. “Monte Carlo” methods consisting of stochastic analysis were used where each variable could be input with a certain range of values. Various models have been developed to consider several LEED® building elements, such as, building category (office, residential, ...), average intensity of energy use [EUI], percentage of electric-energy used (of the total energy consumption), KWh of based plug loads, BTU of base plug loads, energy efficiency compared with EUI of existing buildings, LEED® certification level, frequency of achievement for EA Credit 1; 2; 6. In addition, models are based on the following assumptions. 0 EUI values considered as a starting point for the analysis and calculations 0 “Energy Star” values implemented as reference for the percentage of electricity used 0 Other data coming from the CBECS had to be adapted to ASHRAE standards by subtracting a percentage between 2,4 and 14,8 to the average electricity consumption values 0 Consideration of the “Green-e” purchase with 50 % of impact reduction instead of 100 % due to secondary effects not considered (Green-e — 03/20/2008) 41 Finally the rest. features. buildtr; 2.6 Chapter 51 This second cha; present research possible. existing of the infonnatrl met- had two r: 0 .‘ll'Old LLselc 0 Identify etl focused Finally the results were rendered as impact reduction values in function of the impact features, building type and certification level achieved (Wedding & Brown — 2007). 2.6 Chapter summary This second chapter summarizes the main literature which helped to form the basis of the present research. The literature review was intended as a tool to investigate, as much as possible, existing research, articles and documentation related to shading devices. Some of the information was for the development of the research methodology. Literature review had two main scopes: 0 Avoid useless repetition of existing research works 0 Identify eventual gaps of knowledge on which the present research could be focused. 42 — CHAPTER 3 — RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 43 3.1 lntroductit This Section prt divided into the Single-space srr Climate comps, recomnendatior: oitbe research it 3.1 Introduction. This Section provides an overview of the methodology proposed for the research and is divided into the following subsections: 3.1 Introduction, 3.2 Shading device features, 3.3 Single-space simulation analysis, 3.4 Case-study, 3.5 Whole-building simulation, 3.6 Climate comparison, 3.7 Impact on LEED. 3.8 Development of guidelines and recommendations and 3.9 Chapter summary. Figure 3.1 below shows a graphic overview of the research methodology. 44 IDENTIH OPTIt Btt DETER I IMPACT“ DEVICE FR( 1 SELECT 5h S)STE\1 VARttBtt 7_ —'_-_-_'_ CO\Dt( PERFORu .\ DETLR\l /. SELECt CO‘DLC‘I \t A I . . l a I I .m‘ .- _- — Industry articles IDENTIFY SHADING DEVICE . OPTIONS AND LEED PM“ manuals and company websntes BACKGROUND I Previous research J 3 Technical journals Geometry DETERMINE FACTORS Control features IMPACT INC THE CHOICE OF DEVICE FROM THE LITERAUTRE Range Of applicability fl Adaptability to building conditions I SELECT SHADING DEVICE Geometric features SYSTEM AND IDENTIFY Facade orientation VARIABLES FOR ANALYSIS Building characteristics 11 CONDUCT SINGLE-SPAC E PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE OPTIMUM SOLUTIONS l1 SELECT CASE-STUDY 11 Creation of the single-space simulation model Creation of shading device simulation models Creation of simulation window models torn out concerto Result reports and identify optimum solutions C2! Create baseline building simulation model CONDUCT WHOLE-BUILDING ANALYSIS C: lmplernent the optimum shading device models C: Incorporate various location conditions u. <23 Report results and final considerations L CLIMATE COMPARISON DETERMINE IMPACT OF SHADING c. Identify average values ofimpa ct. DEVICE ON WHOLE-BUILDING . . ENERGY ACONSUMPTION AND ON 3:. “C""fy LEED “‘1'” “flat“ LEED REQUIREMENTS C:- Quantify impact on LEED requirements Ci) I REPORT LIMITATIONS AND RECOMANDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH I Figure 3.1: Flow model summarizing methodology and research process. 45 .2 Shading dc The research In and traditional 'L researcher to be 0 The simg‘ Iithout depend:- o Gwmmn determination of Its 6:66 I‘ and application it Being a s | adaptable to OIhCI' Analysis examine energy Performer: t I odicated below: ' Shading dt' Dimension Shape (din: ‘ Honzonta] , D Clue iOQc 3.2 Shading device features. The research focused on evaluation of fixed shading devices because of their simplicity and traditional use. Specific advantages of fixed shading device were perceived by the researcher to be as follows: 0 The simplicity of its geometry could allow for direct calculation of performance without depending on manufacturer’s data. 0 Geometry could be precisely and incrementally adjusted which allowed for a determination of their impact. 0 Its ease of implementation and wide range of applicability could support its use and application to various building types. 0 Being a simple and fixed device, the results of performance analysis could be adaptable to other latitudinal and climate conditions. Analysis examined shading device geometries in order to determine their impact on energy performance. Specific features and their parameters addressed by this research are indicated below: 0 Shading device geometric features (shape, inclination, dimensions). Dimensions (depth, width, extension beyond window lateral borders). Shape (dimension variation by 4 inch increment). Horizontal inclination. 0 Device location on the building facade in respect to windows position. Distance from the window rim. Facade orientation. 46 Location on the facade. 3.3 Single-space simulation analysis. This research studied the effect of fixed shading device geometry on building energy use and day-lighting using the Hourly Analysis Program (HAP E-ZO II v. 4.34) developed by Carrier. This software was selected because it was one of the few software tools which met the software requirements of ASHRAE 90.1 and LEED® NC. ASHRAE 90.1 places a number of specific conditions on simulation software and they are laid out in detail in ASHRAE 90.1. Chapter 11 “Energy Cost Budget Method” and Appendix G. LEED® mandates that energy performance be evaluated in conjunction with ASHRAE 90.1 Chapter 11 and Appendix G. The software can be used for simulation analysis, either on an hourly, monthly or annual basis. HAP E-20 II v 4.34 can be used to analyze projected energy use of single spaces or multi-space buildings. The software allows for detailed building characteristics to be incorporated, and each calendar date is related to a certain consumption level, which depends on estimated occupancy. Space models consider wall features, window area and glass characteristics. The software also incorporates building occupancy, HVAC systems, including heating, cooling and ventilation, as well as, lighting, sources of energy, occupant schedules and climate. As cited in the literature review in section Two, virtual simulation processes have been previously used by other researchers for various types of shading devices, but not for 47 fixed prttjCClln‘ current researc fim tested using were incorporul model a a hast: of tanables and necessary with simulation was assembled a par entry considerah' ' Creation of We [519d on t}: incorporated 13k, Iris (’J --l Ln ‘ — fixed projecting elements on a whole-building—model scale, which was targeted by this current research. Prior to the whole building analysis, shading device geometries were first tested using single-space simulation in order to determine optimum solutions which were incorporated later into the whole-building analysis. The choice of a single-space model as a basis for preliminary simulations provided for quick assessment of a number of variables and allowed the researcher to narrow the range of solutions and data entry necessary with the whole building simulation. Data entry in the whole building simulation was cumbersome requiring each space to be modeled individually and assembled as part of the whole. This prior single space simulation approach reduced data entry considerably. The single-space analysis followed the steps reported below. 0 Creation of shading device simulation models: various shading device geometries were tested on the single-space simulations to determine optimum solutions which were incorporated later into the whole-building analysis. Geometry shapes were differentiated by 4 inch increments up to a total value of 60 inch in depth, 16 inch in projection from lateral borders and 16 inch in distance from the top of the window. A total number of 375 models were created and set up, in order to determine optimum shading device geometry. 0 Creation of the single-space simulation model: a single-space model was created on the basis of a case-study building that was also used for the whole-building analysis. ' HAP software required a different space for each shading device which had to be linked to a specific heating and cooling system in order to perform the analysis and so 376 single-space models were created and set up. The 376 simulations represent the sum of the 375 cases created for each shading device plus the “zero” case, for which no shading device was considered. 48 . 0’60!an 0' bNS of the C” 0 Result NP“ considering the hatcooling S}~ through cun'es derice geometr, Figure 3.2 repo: Which was used F 0 Creation of simulation window model: a single-window model was created on the basis of the case-study building features. 0 Result reports and identifiz optimum solutions: the single-space analysis was run considering the 376 shading devices respectively linked to 376 single-spaces and 376 heat/cooling systems. Results were reported in Microsoft Excel® sheets and represented through curves and diagrams. Graphs were used to illustrate the influence of shading device geometry on energy performance as predicted by the single-space model analysis. Figure 3.2 reported below shows a plan view of the space and window configuration which was used as a basis for the single-space analysis. _"""‘ CLAIiYRC‘x’iM _ I i. ' W 1" K) ("1! "' A I i 5 X ~ O‘ I 19‘ K P -. l -:'r C .35 L‘i 1, I I l g; , 1.3 ' r Ff D . __‘ ‘x .viJ-‘(FR Figure 3.2: Plan view of the single-space design used for the single-space analysis. Source: “KREG Engineering — ATA Group” 49 3.4 Case-5m“: A case-study 3 software “as U was pmiously recreated the “ obtained from I} the baseline and In ’lliS case lhc building analysr: perfonnance. 50TH an acuio lhf Impact of s“ didn‘t U36 a con" WRlOl’ls of the l‘ 3.4 Case-study. A case-study approach was chosen for energy simulation modeling. Carrier HAP EII software was used for simulation and related analysis. The case-study building selected was previously modeled with HAP software without fixed shading device. This research recreated the whole-building model using the optimum fixed shading device solutions obtained from the single-space simulation. Resulting energy and daylight performance of the baseline and modified buildings were compared. In this case the results of such shading device performance were applied to a whole building analysis to determine the impact on whole-building energy use and daylighting performance. NOTE: an actual building was selected as the case study building in order to investigate the impact of shading devices in a real-world setting. However, the original building didn’t use a complete cooling system and air-conditioning was designed only for limited portions of the building used for administrative offices. Because, many buildings are cooled and because shading devices significantly impact cooling loads, the researcher opted to extend the air conditioning systems to all spaces. This modification to the modeling of the actual building conditions was felt by the research to be more representative of most typical new buildings. Therefore, the simulation model was slightly modified from the original one by introducing an air-conditioning system serving all occupied spaces. 50 3,5 \i’hoIe-bui L'pon complCll dt'thi’ geomctf building anal pa 0 Create has: basis of the cat rolurne and irt' Implement the their Specific s for the whole it. building model i. each nindon u ‘r Show the effe. below Shows the . Results “770' Conclusions drain mm to illustl \ Impacts o idi'ntification of l' ‘ Impact Holmance. hig} Cite. Stud." feeitm.C 3.5 Whole-building analysis. Upon completion of the single space analyses and determination of optimum shading device geometries the researcher incorporated these optimum solutions into the whole building analyses. The structure and parameters of the whole building analysis are. 0 Create baseline building simulation model. The virtual model was created on the basis of the case-study project and considered building design (shape, footprint area, .volume and interior spaces organization), materials, occupancy rates and schedules. Implement the optimum shading device models. The single-space simulation showed which specific shading device geometries had the most impact and should be considered for the whole building analysis. Optimum geometries were incorporated in the whole- building model during this part of the research. The simulation placed shading devices on each window which were also be to orientation and location on the facade. The analysis showed the effect of these solutions based on the whole-building analysis. Figures 3.3 below shows the second floor plan design of the case-study building. 0 Results report and final considerations. The results were discussed, summarized and conclusions drawn in the body of the report. Results were also reported using curve diagrams to illustrate the impact of shading device geometry and are listed below: — Impacts of shading device geometry on single-space energy performance with identification of optimum geometries. — Impact of shading device geometry features on whole-building energy performance, highlighting variance between the baseline and design buildings on the case-study features. 51 — Impact proposed in or — Impact of varying latitudinal and climate zone. A limited number of analyses were proposed in order to test the validity of the results for other climates in southern Europe. ; . i ‘ Luann 1......ngr l f t I 1, q ’_ i " l - ti ‘ -S , it : l. as .. i r; '2'; ll ..-..:.4 I e z i. ' I' ; a 4: I: Ti 5 i .. . , ' 1 “ " *6 s *1 j I ‘ l x i ‘ "I a MI I p - i ;. IL»- Ll. . T E; L u Figure 3.3: Plan view of the second floor of the case-study building. Source: “KREG Engineering — ATA Group” 52 3.6 Climate coml lhe original case s inltaly. The resea geometry were val analyses were cor geogrphic specifr the building has be the research only those available in ' mole-building sir model embqjfing Emissis The m .1 effects of gmgra; Momma At r ““5 and if it d; :h, 3.6 Climate comparison. ' The original case study building used as a basis for this study is located in a northern city in Italy. The researcher was interested in testing to see if the conclusions about optimum geometry were valid for other climate and latitudinal zones, therefore a limited number of analyses were conducted using other building locations. HAP software has extensive geographic specific climate data and it is relatively easy to change building location once the building has been modeled. However, given that this issue didn’t represent the core of the research only a few analyses were conducted. Several locations were selected from those available in the HAP software and primarily addressed southern European cities. A whole-building simulation was run for each location, based on a standard whole-building model embodying the optimum shading device features shown in the whole-building analysis. The main objective of this subpart of the research was to explore possible effects of geographical location on how shading geometries impact on energy building performance. At the start of the research, researchers could not state if such dependency exists and, if it did, how it could affect the final results. The comparisons were used by the researcher to estimate eventual limitations of this research. 3.7 Impact on LEED®. Shading device geometry impacts building energy and daylighting performance, both of which in turn impact the level of LEED® credits a building may achieve. LEED® represents a current practical set of industry standards and encourages whole building thinking and analysis. Therefore, the researcher was interested in considering how , shading device geometry would influence the ability to achieve LEED® credits. The 53 work “'35 based 0 the use of optimU credit EA 1- Th“ models gave the pursuing LEEDI- '. help designers in It: 33 Develop guidel At the completion Values. diagrams an designers and prOIt‘t he use of appropm which addressed a 5p mffirSt gurdeline re] all SlIlEle- the Space encru LilOlCé of the be t ‘8 The ~ Mid gUldcltnc , elitrgt- ~ ' Ol'mt’intc n. til it work was based on the comparison between the potential improvements obtained through the use of optimum shading device solutions and the performance required by LEED® credit EA 1. The values obtained fi'om the analysis of the different whole-building models gave the researcher an idea of how helpful such improvements could be in pursuing LEED®. The research first tried to' determine if the use of shading devices could help designers in the achievement of LEED® requirements and, if yes, which ones. 3.8 Develop guidelines and recommendations. At the completion of the analyses, the research reported the results and conclusions. Values, diagrams and concepts were translated into guidelines which could be usefirl to designers and professionals who want to improve building energy performance through the use of appropriate shading devices. Guidelines were divided into several sections, which addressed a specific solution. The first guideline reported the results of the impact of shading device geometry features on single-space energy performance. This section was followed by a short report about the choice of the best geometries to optimize the impact of shading devices on single- space energy performance. The second guideline reported the impact of shading device geometry on whole-building energy performance, including differences between the baseline and design buildings as well as climate zone variation. The third guideline presented considerations raised fiom the comparison between design- case performance improvement and achievement of LEED requirements. 54 3.9 Chapter summa This chapter preset: objectives laid out ir. used to complete eac the say the results an 3.9 Chapter summary. This chapter presented the methods used by the researcher in order to address the objectives laid out in Section One of the proposal. Each section described the operations used to complete each part of the research, Descriptions included both the methods and the way the results are reported and illustrated. 55 — CHAPTER 4 — SINGLE-SPACE ANALYSIS 56 4.1 Introduction An important thes on energy consum‘ the researcher stud determine optimun the single space 3 reponed in Section is indicated earlier and because of its c mtdel each of the 5. Racine. all calcul. This allowed the n r"-‘filICher selected a 4.1 Introduction ' An important thesis objective was to study the impact of fixed Shading device geometry on energy consumption on a whole-building model basis. However, as a preliminary step the researcher studied the effects of Shading device geometry on a Single-Space model to determine optimum geometries for use in a whole-building analysis. This section reports the single space analysis approach and its results. The whole building analysis is reported in Section 5. As indicated earlier the Arco School Project in northern Italy was used as a case study, and because of its complexity, number of spaces and functions it proved too difficult to model each of the shading device configurations directly using whole building analysis. Therefore, all calculation were developed on a smaller scale using a representative space. This allowed the researcher to enter and manage data in an efficient manor. The researcher selected a representative classroom to model the fixed Shading devices along its exterior wall. Procedures and methods used for the single space analysis are reported and summarized below. 4.2 Single-Space Features. Sample space selection. The researcher selected a typical classroom representative of most spaces. Room 4-04 was selected. It is a regular classroom, designed for 26 students. The space is located on the second floor above an unconditioned storage space. It has a rectangular plan and is approximately 697 square fee in area. The room has one exterior wall and other three 57 interior walls. The 1 length of 28.8 ft. a feet. All data relate orientation. are the 51 Hit can be seen bCIt llie main reasons it] follows; ' “16 Arco 5g} 35 this 0mg Square {0013.: ’ The Classrm ‘mpact “hot -'ld~ . '21"- “pled6fr0me r interior walls. The facade is south oriented with a gross wall area of 369 square feet, a length of 28.8 ft, a height of 11.5 ft. and has window area of approximately 248 square feet. All data related to this sample-space are indicated below and, except for the orientation, are the same for all the full-time occupied classrooms of the building. Room 4-04 can be seen below in figure 4.1. The main reasons why this classroom was chosen as reference are summarized below as follows: 0 The Arco school project building is mainly formed of identical classrooms, such as this one. Other spaces (for example labs and music room) also had similar square footages and occupancy rates. 0 The classrooms are regularly occupied and therefore their energy and lighting use impact whole building energy consumption heavily. —'—___t—i—‘——__——‘ "iW‘W v: ..‘u..‘fl‘u-*...~um - wean-mu. a . . . - - u... .. .. ., , e- 4.. w-uwn --...' w. ..-. _-.—. . —.-—- '. -. -.n. was». Khan-”v «I. w-Lw-a'm‘x-uz aqumiw-.. Figure 4.1: plant drawing representing the sample-space room 4-04. Adapted from: Arco School Project — “Progetto esecutivo” — Studio AVI Associates. 58 Creation of the single-space virtual model The characteristics of the representative classroom were entered into the HAP program for simulation. The HAP program doesn’t support importation of drawing files, so each space parameter must be described and entered individually, which is time consuming. .However, after initial data was entered it was it is relatively easy to incorporate changes such as facade orientation and weather conditions. Listed below are the main space and construction data for the representative single space model entered into the HAP program: General Details: ’Floor Area ........................................ 697.1 fi2 Avg. Ceiling Height ........................... 11.5 ft Building Weight ............................... 130.0 lb/fi2 OA Ventilation Requirements: Space Usage User-Defmed OA Requirement 1 10.6 CF M/person OA Requirement 2 0.00 CFM/fi2 Space Usage Defaults ASHRAE Std 62-2001 Internals: Overhead Lighting: Fixture Type ............................... Free Hanging Wattage ............................................. 0.83W/fi2 Ballast Multiplier ........................................ 1.00 People: Occupancy ....................................... 26.0 People Activity Level .............................. Office Work Sensible Heat .................. 245.0 BTU/hr/person 59 Fagade: Latent Heat ........................ 205.0 BTU/hr/person Fa ade: Facade features Wall Gross Area 369 ft 2 Wall U-value 0.028 BTU/hr/fiZ/F Overall Shade Coef. 0.28 Window and glass features Window U-value 0.194 BTU/hr/ftZ/F Window Height 6 ft Window Width 5 ft Table 4.]: external facade features required by the HAP program. Green Roof: Green Roof Gross Area 697.1 ft 2 Absorptivity 0.55 LW Concrete Layer Thickness 6 in Density 440 lb/ft 3 Specific Heat 0,2 BTU/lb/F R-Value (Thermal R.) 5 hr-fiZ-F/BTU Weight 33 lb/ft 2 Bat Insulation R-25 Thickness 8.3 in Density 0.5 lb/fi 3 Specific Heat 0.2 BTU/lb/F R-Value (Thermal R.) 26.6 hr-fiZ-F/BTU Weight 0.3 lb/fi 2 Built-up Roofing 60 far “all Details: Thickness 0.376 in Specific Heat 0.35 BTU/lb/F R-Value (Thermal R.) 0.33 hr-fiZ-F/BTU Weight 2.2 lb/ft 2 Table 4. 2: construction information and green-roof parameters. Wall Details: Outside Surface Colour ......................... Dark Absorptivity .......................................... 0.900 Overall U-Value .................................... 0.028 BTU/(hr-fi2-°F) Partition U-value ................................... 0.500 BTU/(hr-fi2-°F) Thickness Density Specific Ht. R-Value Weight Layers inch was ”33“" ' o‘gfi‘ffi was Inside surface resistance 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.68500 0.0 23:11::Lgh Weight 10.000 140.0 0.20 0.83333 116.7 R-30 batt insulation 9.400 0.5 0.20 30.12820 0.4 Air space 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.91000 0.0 4-in LW concrete 4.000 40.0 0.20 3.33333 13.3 Outside surface _ 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.33300 0.0 resrstance Totals 23.400 - 36.22286 130.4 Table 4.3: external Walls construction details required by the HAP program. 61 Twc Floor Total L'ncor Ambit L'ncor. . Ambit Floors: Type ............. Floor Above Unconditioned Space Floor Area .......................................................... 697.1 fi2 Total Floor U-Value ........................................... 0.100 BTU/(hr-fi2-°F) Unconditioned Space Max Temp. ........................ 75.0 °F Ambient at Space Max Temp. ............................. 95.0 °F Unconditioned Space Min Temp. ........................ 75.0 °F . Ambient at Space Min Temp. .............................. 55.0 °F 4.3 Shading Device Features. In order to determine optimum shading device geometries, the researcher modeled a number of fixed shading devices with varying projection from the building facade, height above the window and length beyond the window edge. Data for each geometry set was entered and assigned to the single space model described above. Dimensions of each shading device were changed progressively and performance variations caused by such adjustments were calculated and collected with a sample-space analysis of the energy consumption. After completion of all single space models, energy performance of each variation was compared to determine optimum solutions, which reduced overall annual energy consumption. Because data entry would have been overwhelming to do as many variations in the whole building analysis, the researcher selected this preliminary single space analysis approach in order to more efficiently identify optimum geometries. 62 Shading device The shading get shading device at 0 Projectior 0 Height At 0 Extension . Reveal dc; Fli-‘K’lu Shading device virtual models and spaces setup. The shading geometry parameters that were incorporated into the study for the fixed shading device are indicated below and in Figure 4.2. 0 Projection From Surface 0 Height Above Window 0 Extension Past Right and Lefi-Hand Side of Window 0 Reveal depth of the wall 446:3 .. ’/\<’\ ‘ \‘Q //(:/\(\\\\\\\ \ /\ ‘ ‘\‘_\\\ \\\\ \ \ \ <.<§ \ \ \ \;_§\\\\ . X \ \ .\;\\ x \ \ 4 .::-\\\\:\\ from building >4“ , / /( ' \ i‘ ‘24—! X» \. X \ \ \\ ‘\ i <_ \ Overhang \ \ ‘ \\ x \ /<<\ ‘\ projection \\\ \\ \. \ Height win! 7 Figure 4.2: overhang shading device geometry parameters. 63 of Slfi a Hit The reveal depth was held constant for all simulations, however, the other three parameters were incrementally changed and their energy impact recorded and is described below. Shading devices projection was increased incrementally from 0 to 60 inches by 4 inches increments. In all, 15 projection lengths (4, 8, 12, 16 in) were considered and for each of them the other two parameters of extension past the window and height above the window were set. These features were also increased in 4 inches increments up to a total length of 16 inches beyond the window and to 16 inches above the window. The whole process lead to the creation of 375 shading device virtual models (15 projection lengths * 5 lateral extensions * 5 border distances) so that every projection length could be related to a specific extension and height beyond the window borders. A big advantage of such this approach was that all input data and results could be treated as mathematical functions. At the end of the research each specific combination of input data and shading device geometry was related to a precise result in terms of energy consumption. The next step was the creation of a specific space, always equivalent to the sample-space 4-04, for each shading device geometry. The HAP simulations were based on whole-building virtual models intended as a body of spaces, systems and equipment. Therefore, each shading device and its geometry had to be related to a single space with precise characteristics. That led to the specific creation of 375 spaces, equivalents for geometry, orientation and internal characteristics but each of them provided with a different pre- modeled shading device. 64 fl L'nfOt‘lL set oilté‘ms “ll-Ll had to be create required a car Cfi failure films 0‘" ' elements introdm 4.4 Mechanical 5 In order to consi. conditioning syster mm were pattc M‘Ml)‘ With the 5 following a single: independent system lite - . 3211116 conduit-m m; Unfortunately the HAP program doesn’t have any automation option to create a set of items with some common elements. For example, in this case each shading device had to be created manually and attached to a space. This characteristic of the program required a careful systematic approach to data entry. Moreover the potential level of failure turns out to be very high because the unassisted management of a large number of ' elements introduces many risks of input mistakes, not always easy to discover. 4.4 Mechanical System Settings In order to consider a realistic virtual model a specific heating, ventilation and air cOnditioning system (HVAC) had to be provided for every virtual space created. HVAC systems were patterned after the Arco school project, data and utility features which fit perfectly with the scope of the research. In fact, the Arco school was originally modeled following a single-space system concept. The need to create a series of spaces with an independent system that could be individually simulated inside a virtual model retraced the same conditions of the original project. This approach allowed for direct comparison of original simulated systems with the results of the the new single-space energy performances, providing for evaluation of the energy improvements caused by the shading device geometry variations. HVAC equipment consisted of a common ventilation system with terminal units connected to several packaged DX fan coils and return air ducts. 65 All systems and ‘ and dimensions h final model. Such fictitious plant lhi also requires the . ouping charactc had to include in single Space. That addressed to a sir Shading detice em The HAP pro gran “798$ input can t Smng UP one sin: lite Single‘space m 300 st .Stems per f fil CS and the ana stheet Which A"? ' udlllOna] dala Bl) t phllded belOw All systems and spaces previously defined in respect of the 4-04 Room characteristics and dimensions had to be organized by mechanical system groups before creating the final model. Such groups would have been used during the next step for the creation of a fictitious plant that would have formed the first building simulation. The HAP program also requires the single space and system set-up information about their location, grouping characteristics and systems, be input. In order to achieve this point the model had to include individual systems with identical features for every previously-created single space. That implied the progressive set-up of 375 different systems, each of them addressed to a single space equivalent to the room 206 but characterized by different shading device geometries. The HAP program allows analysis either at a system, building or plant level. Loads and energy input can be calculated in relationship to all systems such as HVAC and lighting. Setting up one single building and one plant model for each system was not necessary for the single-space model analysis. Unfortunately, the HAP program can support only up to 200 systems per file, so the 375 single-room systems had to be split into two different files and the analyses run separately. The results were later collected in a single spreadsheet which allowed the researchers to evaluate all configurations together. Additional data about the ventilation equipment assigned to each single-space system are provided below. 66 Ventilation Ssst Ventilation Ai Ventilation Rm Ventilation Fan Ventilation System Components: Ventilation Air Data: Airflow Control ............................ Constant Ventilation Airflow .......................................... Ventilation Sizing Method ........... Sum of Space Airflows Unocc. Damper Position ............... Closed Damper Leak Rate ........................ 0 % Outdoor Air C02 Level ................ 400 ppm Ventilation Reclaim Data: Reclaim Type .............................. Sensible Heat Thermal Efficiency ..................... 95 % Schedule ...................................... January - December Ventilation Fan Data: Fan Type ...................................... Forward Curved Configuration ............................... Draw-thru Overall Efficiency ....................... 54 % °/o Airflow 100 90 80 70 6O 50 40 30 20 0 % kW 100 91 81 72 61 54 46 40 33 21 Table 4. 4: proportion ratios between airflow rates and the energy use percentages. Thermostats and Zone Data: Cooling T-stat: Occ. ......................... 75.0 F° Cooling T-stat: Unocc. .................. 85.0 F ° Heating T-stat: Occ. ......................... 70.0 F° Heating T-stat: Unocc. ..................... 60.0 F° T-stat Throttling Range ................... 3.00 F ° NOTE: cooling system was considered enable also for unoccupied spaces. 67 Common Termina " Cooling Coil: Heating Coil: Terminal l'nits D z..l TC] .\1 l I F or s- . % (comm System Siling COt l Hydronic Sin, Clllllr Hm \i Safety Fa‘TIOrs; CW ilzi C00!“ Hear“ Common Terminal Unit Data: Cooling Coil: Design Supply Temperature .................. 58.0 °F Coil Bypass Factor ................................. 0.100 Cooling Source ....................................... Air-Cooled DX Schedule ................................................. January - December Heating Coil: Design Supply Temperature ...... 110.0 °F Heating Source ....................................... Hot Water Schedule ....................... . ......................... January - December Terminal Units Data: Zone .............................................................................. All Terminal Type .............................................................. Fan Coil Minimum Airflow ................................................ 0.00 CF M/person ..... Fan Performance 0.6 kW Sizing Data (Computer-Generated): System Sizing Data: Cooling Supply Temperature ........................................ 58.0 °F Heating Supply Temperature ....................................... 110.0 °F Hydronic Sizing Specifications: Chilled Water Delta-T ..................................................... 10.0 °F Hot Water Delta-T .......................................................... 20.0 °F Safety Factors: Cooling Sensible .................................................................. 0 % Cooling Latent ..................................................................... 0 % Heating 0 .......................................................................... % 68 Zone Sizi ‘1 Supply Airflo l (CF31) 501.7 \_ W l.\ ‘ Emmate l M‘Ximm l (MBH) Table 4. Zone Sizing Data: Zone Airflow Sizing Method ........... Sum of space airflow rates ................................................... Space Airflow Sizing Method ........... Individual peak space loads Supply Airflow Zone Htg Unit Reheat Coil Ventilation (CFM) (MBH) (MBH) (CFM) 501.7 - - 275.6 Eguipment Data Table 4.5: zone sizing data parameters. Estimated Gross Compressor Design Cutoff Maximum Cooling & OD Fan OAT OAT Load Capacity Power (°F) (°F) (MBH) (MBH) (kW) 18.6 95.0 23.9 2.43 55.0 Table 4. 6: list of parameters set up for each single-space equipment. 4.5 Window Features Settings and Optimum Solution Selection. The researcher originally modeled the window proportions as it was in the original building. The original plans of the selected room called for continuous band windows on the south facade. The specified window dimensions were 31 feet in length and 7.89 feet in height. Afier preliminary study it was easy to determine that projection beyond the window length would have relatively little proportional impact. 69 Additional]; the impact following er 0 Shading very sins ° The heig tangible i ' The area the half 0. total 467 ; thi‘tTnal ir an." Other horder to Clear ll not affected by St Additionally, the overall height of the window and overall area would tend to mitigate the impact on any shading devices. Consequently, the researchers identified the following concerns about the original windows: 0 Shading device projection from the edges ranged between 4 and 12 inches, were very small relative to the 31-feet length of the continuous-band windows. 0 The height of the original window could have been excessive in order to have tangible values of shading device impact on single-space energy performance. 0 The area of the window, as shown in the original project, would cover more than the half of the whole facade surface. 244 square feet (31 x 7.89 sq. ft.) out of the total 467 facade square feet were designed as glass surface. Therefore, the average thermal inertia of the single-space would have been much lower than the ones of any other internal or semi-intemal spaces of the building. In order to clear these issues researchers had to make sure that single-space analysis were not affected by such exceptional window areas which could distort or hide the shading device impact on energy consumption. Therefore, four different analyses with different window areas were developed and analyses run. All analyses were based on the same single-space, facade and shading device features. For the four analyses all 375 shading devices were considered and U-values for glass and walls were not modified. Researchers chose the single 5 ft. x 6ft. window as the basic modular unit for exterior openings because it reflects an average window size for this type of buildings. At the same time, the regularity of its dimensions allows for multiple windows and separation between windows along the single-space facade. The Analyses are classified as follows: 0 ANALYSIS A: one window of 5 by 6 feet. 70 o ANALYE o ANALYE o ANALYS m HAP St “additional glass Walls. as if each s orientation. an a\ ‘Hill and by doin‘; areas previously i bid to change uc Pararneter Ofth 5: 0 ANALYSIS B: one window of 10 by 6 feet. 0 ANALYSIS C: five windows of 5 by 6 feet. 0 ANALYSIS D: one window of 31 by 7.89 feet (original design). NQ’LE; HAP software considers windows as “holes in the exterior walls”, not as “additional glass area”. In other words, operators always have to input all data of various walls, as if each space didn’t have any exterior opening. Each wall is characterized by an orientation, an average U-value and other features. Then, windows are assigned to each wall and by doing that, the program subtracts the window areas fiom the original wall areas previously input. Therefore, for this set of analyses, the parameters the researchers had to change were the height, width and number of windows on the facade. No other parameter of the single-space model was modified. At the end of each analysis every combination of shading device variables corresponded to a specific value indicating the annual energy consumption of the single-space model. The annual energy consumption value (“total load” value) was calculated as the sum of three different factors, Central Cooling Coil Load, Central Cooling Equipment Load and Central Heating Coil Load respectively related to cooling and heating loads. After a sorting process done through a specifically designed spread sheet, all shading device geometry combinations were ranked on the basis of the annual energy consumption values, as shown in tables 4.6 and 4.8 below. Optimum solutions were identified on the basis of minimum gaps between total energy load results. The tolerance for total load variation was taken as 0.1%. 71 16 \ Table 4. N M 4k k 445,151; Depth, length, CentralCoolng Central Cooling Central Unit Ck Central Heating Central Heating TOTAL LOAD edge ext. Coil Load Eqpt Load hput Coil Load Coil tryout (inch) BTU) (kBTU) (kWh) JkB‘I'U) (kWh) (kB‘lU) 4,0,00 1729 1729 122 15787 4501 19244 4,4,88 1752 1752 122 15787 4512 19291 4,16,16- 16 1755 1755 122 15787 4506 19296 16 0,00 1632 1632 121 15744 4509 19007 16,4,8-8 1658 1658 121 15744 4517 19060 16,16,16-16 1726 1726 121 15744 4513 19196 Table 4. 7: snapshot of the analysis result list before the sorting process. Depth, length, CentraICooIng Central Coolim Central Unit Ck Central Heating Central Heating TOTAL LOAD edge ext. Coil Load Emma: hput Coil Load Coil Input finch.) @TU) (kBTU) JkWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 4,16,16-16 1755 1755 122 15787 4506 19296 4,4,8-8 1752 1752 122 15787 4512 19291 ,0,00 1729 1729 122 15787 4501 19244 16,16,16-16 1726 1726 121 15744 4513 19196 16,4,8—8 1658 1658 121 15744 4517 19060 16,0,00 1632 1632 121 15744 4509 19007 Table 4. 8: snapshot of the analysis result list after the sorting process. Each analysis led to the identification of an optimum solution, intended as the combination of shading device variables that implies the lower amount of annual energy consumption. At the end of the process, total load values from the analyses A, B, C and D were different, even for the same combination of geometrical variables. However, the list of total load values, each of them associated with a specific variable combination, had the same ranking order for both cases C and D. This was one of the. main reasons that made the researcher choose the optimum solution identified by analysis C and D. Other causes and elements that lead to such conclusions are explained below in the discussion of the conclusions for each window-type analysis. 72 For each analys original 375 res which no shadin, Besides analflir different anal yse tallies. in order t ilk“ data sorting Variable on 5mg solutions that the below; in this case. all re ofl°o. In all Case: 933s heme?“ dif: Set‘i-le faaorS led ' The Opium height abm extensions}. For each analysis 376 combinations of shading device geometries were considered, the original 375 resulted from the three variable increment in addition to the case “0”, for which no shading device was considered. 1504 values were determined for the four cases. Besides analyzing the four optimum combinations of variables resulting fiom the four different analyses, researchers also drew some general conclusion related to groups of values, in order to reach a general understanding of the results. The key element that led the data sorting process was depth from wall which proved to be the most impacting variable on single-space energy consumption. The main conclusions about optimum solutions that the researchers drew for each run of the single-space analysis are reported below. ANALYSIS A - one mg: “5 by 6 feet” window. In this case, all resulting values related to the annual total energy load varied by a range of 1%. In all cases the impact of shading devices could be considered irrelevant because gaps between different load values were smaller than 0.1%. Researchers determined several factors led to the smaller than expected improvement which are identified below. 0 The optimum combination of variable turned out to be the “36 inch depth, 0 inch height above window, O-O inch projection from the edges” (36 depth,0 height,O-O extensions), with a total load of 18325 kBTU. 0 The worst combination of variable, which was the 8 depth,0 height,12-12 extension, indicated a total annual load of 18528 kBTU. 73 0 This 203 kBTU range between best and worst combination represented approximately the 1% increment of the total load value, contained all results of the 376 combinations of variables. 0 The sorting process done through the annual load values ranking operations apparently didn’t show any rational connection between variable increments and total load variation. Long and short projections, wide and narrow edges, big and small distances from the border appeared in a sequence didn’t reflect any correlation between variables and total energy load values. Shading Height above Extension from Space energy device depth window rarge sides (refleL load (range! finch.) finch.) finch; (kBTU) 0 \ \ 18326 4 0 - 16 0 - 12 18388- 18337 8 0 - 16 0 - 12 18528- 18341 12 O - 16 0 - 12 18508- 18353 16 0 - 16 0 - 12 18459 - 18341 20 0 - 16 0 — 12 18484 - 18337 24 0 - 16 0 - 12 18419 - 18335 28 0 - 16 0 - 12 18393 - 18439 32 0 - 16 0 - 12 18347- 18432 36 O - 16 0 - 12 18325 - 18416 40 0 - 16 0 - 12 18382 - 18433 44 0 - 16 0 - 12 18327 - 18427 48 O - 16 0 - 12 18369 - 18497 52 0 - 16 0 - 12 18387 - 18469 56 0 - 16 0 - 12 18386- 18501 60 0 - 16 0 - 12 18399- 18518 Table 4. 9: summary table showing ranges of result values for analysis A, related to the 5- by-6 single window configuration. The main causes of this inconclusive set of results were related to the smallness of the window area and can be summarized as follows: 74 . 0 Low solar impact on heating and cooling loads caused by the small glass area. 0 High average U-value for exterior and interior partitions, made mostly of solid wall and little glass. 0 High value of thermal capacity. Exterior walls, as well as the entire building partitions, were classified in HAP software as “heavy structure”. This input has direct consequences on the thermal mass of the space. In other words, it affects the capability of the structure of retaining heat (or cold, depending on the outside temperature) when no air conditioning equipment is running. This factor homogenizes the temperature throughout the whole day and night time reducing energy needs and solar impact on heat gains. Other aspects of thermal capacity effects in buildings are explained more specifically at the end of chapter 4. ANALYSIS B one window of 10 by 6 feet; This case partially reflects the results obtained for the previous analysis: 0 The optimum combination of variable was identified as the “32 inch depth 16 inch height above window, 0-0 inches projection from the edges” (32,16,0-0), with a total load of 18,536 kBTU. o The worst combination of variable, corresponding to the 56 depth,4 height,4—4 extension, indicated a total annual load of 18,943 kBTU. Once again the range of values showed a total increment of 407 kBTU for all the 376 analyzed combinations. The causes are the same as the ones listed above for analysis A and therefore researchers decided not to consider these values for the scope of the research. However, in this case at the end of the ranking operations the list of values 75 appeared more organized than the one obtained for analysis A. The sorting process lined out some criteria, based on the depth, that characterized the whole set of values and are summarized below: 0 Shading devices with projection length between 20 and 40 inches, regardless of the other two variables, were the best-ranked solutions. 0 Shading devices with projection length below the 20 inches occupied the average band of values. 0 Shading devices with projection length above the 40 inches constituted the bottom of the pool in terms of energy performance values. Shading device Height above Extension from Space energy depth (range) window range sides (range) load (range) (inch.) (inch.) (inch.) (kBTU) 0 \ \ 19025 4 0 - 16 0 — 12 18732 - 18761 8 0 - 16 0 - 12 18697 - 18750 12 0 -16 0-12 18656- 18700 16 0 - 16 0 - 12 18634 - 18700 20 0 - 16 0 - 12 18559 - 18590 24 0 - 16 0 - 12 18563 - 18665 28 0 - 16 0 - 12 18588 - 18731 32 0 - 16 0 - 12 18544 - 18677 36 0 - 16 0 - 12 18567 - 18817 40 0 - 16 0 - 12 18664 - 18849 44 0 - 16 0 - 12 18600 - 18864 48 0 - 16 0 - 12 18787 - 18914 52 0 -16 0-12 18659- 18904 56 0 - 16 0 - 12 18659 - 18855 60 0 - 16 0 - 12 18754 - 18885 Table 4.10: summary table showing ranges of result values for analysis B, related to the 10-by-6 window configuration. 76 The differentiation between categories was gradual and the intent of this brief description is to give a sense of how total load vales were ranked throughout the result list. Complete lists of values are reported in appendix C. ANALYSIS C (five 5 ft. x 6 ft. windows) and ANALYSIS D (one 7 ft. x 31ft. window): These cases reflected the results that researchers expected. Both sets of results had the same optimum combination of variable, as well as, the whole ranking order based on annual energy consumption and the listing sequence didn’t present any random element such as with analyses A and B. Projection length appeared to be, once again, the most important variable governing the ranking list of energy consumption values. The main data collected from the two analyses is summarized here below: 0 The optimum solution appeared to be the “56 depth, 12 height, 4-4 extension” with an annual energy consumption of 20019 kBTU for analysis C and 21520 kBTU for analysis D. o The worst combination was identified as the “4 depth, 12 height, 0-0 extension”, with an annual energy consumption of 20511 kBTU for analysis C and 23584 kBTU for analysis D. Especially for analysis D, shading device impact is clearly identifiable because the range of values obtained constitutes 9.5% of total annual energy consumption. The results based on the projection length suggested the following: 77 m——— 0 Projection lengths between 40 and 60 inches induced the best energy consumption values. 0 Projection lengths between 20 and 40 inches induced average energy consumption values. 0 Projection lengths between 4 and 20 inches induced low energy consumption values. Shading device Height above Extension from Space energy depth (range) window range sides (“1153) load (range) (itch) (inch.) (inch.) (kBTU) 0 \ \ 21784 4 0 - 16 0 - 12 20478 - 20511 8 0-16 0-12 20451- 20511 12 0 - 16 0 - 12 20376 - 20481 16 0 - 16 0 - 12 20330 - 20396 20 0 - 16 0 - 12 20234 - 20353 24 0 - 16 0 - 12 20217 - 20327 28 0 - 16 0 - 12 20198 ~ 20286 32 0-16 0-12 20304- 20138 36 0 - 16 0 - 12 20079 - 20241 40 0-16 0-12 20051- 20241 44 0 - 16 0 - 12 20082 - 20214 48 0 - 16 0 - 12 20102 - 20243 52 0 - 16 0 - 12 20118 - 20353 56 0 - 16 0 - 12 20019 - 20357 60 0 - 16 0 - 12 20070 - 20355 Table 4.11: summary table showing ranges of result values for analysis C, related to the five 5-by-6 windows configuration. NOTE: In each analysis the worst energy performance was given by the “0” case, which had a 0 inch depth, 0 inch height and 0 inch edges shading device, equivalent to not using any shading device. 78 Shading device Height above Extension from Space energy depth (range) window range sides (range) load (range) (inch.) (inch.) (inch.) (kBTU) 0 \ \ 24943 4 0-16 0-12 23437- 23583 8 0 - 16 0 - 12 23294 - 23429 12 0-16 0 -12 23043- 23279 16 ‘ 0-16 0-12 22916- 23187 20 0 - 16 0 - 12 22371 - 22992 24 0 - 16 0 - 12 22034 - 22904 28 0 - 16 0 - 12 22173 - 22748 32 0 - 16 0 — 12 21827 - 22797 36 0 - 16 0 - 12 21832 - 22727 40 0 - 16 0 - 12 20051 - 20241 44 0 - 16 0 - 12 20082 - 20214 48 0 - 16 0 - 12 20102 - 20243 52 0 - 16 0 - 12 20118 - 20353 56 0 - 16 0 - 12 20019 - 20357 60 0 - 16 0 - 12 20070- 20355 Table 4.12: summary table showing ranges of result values for analysis D, related to the 31-by—6 window configuration. Single-space analysis results are graphically summarized in figures 4.3 and 4.4 below. In figure 4.3 values indicating single-space annual energy consumption are shown as a function of the fixed shading device projection length. Figure 4.4 shows the energy ' consumption improvement caused by shading device implementation as a function of the projection length. 79 Energy Consumption [KBTU/year] 27000 ,_.._1--._._1-1,-.- _-. _ _ 25000 Wx—n ~ ~-~- , -- ~ , \ \\ 23000 3.21. LTIIZEW.--‘ , . H W , o __ ,_ ,_. 7 —-AnaiysisA:5 ftx6ftWindow ‘----- “\~- —Analysis 8:10 ftx 6 ft window ‘ ~--------- - . . 21000 ,_.?~:._. ...-.._.. .._--__ ,. . w“. _,__ .....2._-.,_..-_.~ “:1 ...-. -—- AnalysrsC:25 fthft window --—------—---------..-______________. ---AnaiysisD:31ftx6ftwindow 19000 ~--«—-—‘ 17000 ., _-_,1, rsooo ~~~~-~r -—-r---r - . -- , ,, , Y ‘ . Projection length 0 4 s 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 4o 44 4a 52 55 so ('"Chl Figure 4.3: graphical representation of analysis A, B, C and D results. Energy comsumption improvement [kBTU] ‘ —AnalysisA: 5 ft x 6 ft \Mndow —-Anaiysis B: 10 ftx 6 ft window --- Analysis C: 25 ftx 6 ft window --- Analysis 0:31 ft x 6 ft window Projection length (Inch) 48 52 56 60 Figure 4. 4: graphical representation of energy consumption improvement values obtained from analysis A, B, C and D. 80 In order to display the impact of secondary variables (height and lateral extension) on total energy consumption researchers focused on the range of values obtained for a specific projection length. The projection length chosen for this type of investigation was the optimum one. Results related to energy consumption for the 56 inches projecting shading device are reported below. Figure 4.5 shows that the closer the shading device is to the top of the window and the farther the extension, less energy will be used In the building. However, these effects are very small in relation to the impact of projection on energy use. I 19800-19950 I 19950-20100 I 20100-20250 fl 20250-20400 Energy Consumption IKBTUl . ,, 20400 20250 20100 19950 19800 Height=16 " ‘ ~ 9.- , 12 Lateral extension [inch] ; Height above . ‘0 window [inch] , “”3” o Figure 4.5: graphical representation of energy consumption range for 56—inches- projection shading devices. 4.6 Single-Space Result Validation. The unpredictability of values obtained for analysis A and B raised some concerns about the accuracy of results. Two main issues were highlighted. First of all the sequence of 81 values proceeded from the sorting process based on total annual energy load didn’t show any apparent correlation with shading device variables. Moreover, the gap between best and worst energy performance was almost undetectable. Upon advice of mechanical engineer, the researchers focused their attention on the possible side effect of high thermal mass values related to concrete walls. The whole school building was simulated in HAP program as a “heavy structure”, with an average density value of 130 pounds per square foot, typical of concrete structure buildings in Italy. This specific characteristic is the main factor that influences thermal mass effects causing discrepancies in energy load balance. The concept of thermal mass is strictly bound to the concept of thermal capacity, which is defined by Stein and Reynolds as “indicator of the ability of a fixed volume of material to store heat” (Ben Stein, John S. Reynolds — 2006). In reality this definition is not precise but it gives an intuitive idea of the main concept. In fact, the principles that govern thermodynamic laws are based on temperature and thermal gradients, not on heat quantities. More specifically the thermal capacity is related to the speed at which a certain body characterized by a specific temperature reaches the thermal equilibrium with the environment it’s dipped in under specific convection, conduction and irradiation conditions (Kalema T. et a1. - 2008). A study about thermal capacity and mass effects on residential construction systems was recently developed by Katerine Gregory and other Australian researchers. The work focused on a single-space model and analyzed the impact of varying thermal mass 82 features on energy performance, by simulating four different construction systems. Analysis results showed that “thermal mass has the ability to significantly reduce energy usage in residential buildings by maintaining a comfortable internal temperature” (Gregory et a1. — 2007). However, in order to have result consistency between different single-space simulations, increasing window area requires thermal mass to be increased proportionally (Gregory et a1. — 2007). According to Gregory, thermal mass strongly impacts building energy performance especially in systems like the Arco school, in which the schedule of use and the exterior temperature varies completely from night to day periods. The whole concept could be briefly explained as follows. If the whole heating and cooling systems are shut down during part of the day the internal environment temperature tends to reach the equilibrium with the external one. However, if the time needed by the internal environment to reach such equilibrium is longer than the period in which systems are shut down due to the presence of big thermal mass, then the quantity of energy needed to bring internal spaces to the previous temperature would be lower than the one of a low-thermal mass building. With respect to the present research, results of Gregory’s study were considered as guidelines for the choice of the optimum shading device solution. Researchers decided to choose, for the single-space simulation, a window configuration for which the proportion between gross wall and glass area of the single-space could match with that of the whole- building. Bearing in mind that all exterior walls of the structure had the same U-value and thermal capacity, the total exterior wall area of the building was divided by the total window area. The ratio between overall wall and window area of the building turned out 83 to be approximately 2.55. While considering the single-space simulation the total gross area of the exterior wall was 369 square feet. Researchers applied the same proportion to the single-space model finding a fictitious window area of 145 square feet. Such area value resulted very close to the one given by the five-by-six-feet windows case, in which 5 punctured windows were considered with a total glass area of 150 square feet and a ratio between single-space wall and window area of 2.45. This particular consideration led researchers to the choice of the 5-by-6-feet window simulation as the case to select the shading device optimum solution which would be modeled in the whole building simulation addressed in Chapter 5. The optimum solution coincided with the following shading device variables combination: 56 inches projection, 12 inches height above window and 4 inches projection from both sides. {(485.1 56 INCHES \ . ‘. . " ,/ \ \ l f ,/ ,v ‘. \ \ \ . \ . , , /' ' \ * \ . \ -, . ," \ . x , ' (,v .> . ~ :. . ,, \ \ Figure 4. 6: overhang shading device geometry parameters for the optimum solution. 84 4.7 Chapter Summary. This chapter describes the process followed by researchers to define the single-space features for the single-space analysis. Reasons for supporting researcher’s choices are reported and explained. Variables used to consider different shading devices and window configurations on the single-space analysis are explained, as well as, reasons and processes that led researchers to their choice. Finally the combination of shading device variables and window configuration which were selected as the “optimum solution” in terms of single-space energy performance is identified. 85 — CHAPTER 5 — WHOLE-BUILDING ANALYSIS 86 5.1 Introduction. The single-space analysis discussed in chapter 4 was used to establish the optimum shading device solution for use in a whole building analysis. The optimum solution was one which yielded the lowest energy consumption from all the analyses and dimensions of 56 inch projection fi'om the wall, 12 inch height above window and 4 inches projection from the lateral edges. After studying the single space analyses the researcher used the optimum solution to study its impact in a whole building solution, again using the Arco School case study as a basis for analysis. The whole building simulation named “whole-building optimum solution” (WBOS) considered one optimum shading device installed over each of the school windows. Annual energy consumption values resulting from the WBOS analysis (design case) were compared to the original building annual energy consumption values and design configuration (baseline case). The difference between baseline and design cases energy consumption gave the potential energy savings for the whole building on an annual basis. In order to. test the results for varying climate conditions, the same process of comparison between design and baseline case was repeated for four geographical locations of the building related to an equal number of weather conditions, sun exposures, longitude and latitude values. All locations were chosen in the South Europe area and within the HAP software restrictions, which provides a limited number of pre-set conditions. The decision to test the difference of annual energy performance between baseline and design cases was taken in order to help normalize the research results. The researchers opined that the shading device solutions and energy savings could be strictly related and dependent on 87 geographical location of the building. If so, the present research would be valid just for the northern Italian area, otherwise its results could be applied to a broader area. Details related to the choice of the different locations for the whole building simulation analysis are explained in at the end of chapter 5. 5.2 Whole-Building Features Overview. The project chosen as a reference for conducting the whole building energy simulation is a middle school complex. The core is formed by the classroom building where all office and main educational activities are performed. This portion of the building is characterized by a total area of about 28,500 square feet. The whole structure is on three main floors plus an unconditioned basement level that matches with the whole classroom building footprint. Additionally, the school complex also includes a 9,667 square feet gymnasium with opposite locker room and related facilities as well as cafeteria, kitchen and service area. A detailed list of all school spaces and their areas is reported in figure 5.1 below. In order to develop the energy simulation the HAP software requires the input of different types of data. For the modeling in the software each building is characterized by various systems intended as the whole group of mechanical devices that provide and perform any kind of mechanical-related function in the building (heating, cooling, air fan, ...). Each system is designed to serve a limited number of spaces, each of them characterized by specific design features, as already shown in Chapter Four for the single space analysis. Each group of spaces linked to one single mechanical system was defined as a “thermal 88 The Arco school project was designed to have a central heating plant that could supply heat to every space of the building. Therefore all data related to the central heating plan were also input in the HAP software. lll‘Il' ll [All 1- ,1 l1-.11l Hil'l ‘l My: \ll-l-llln'J Probe! at View Reports Wad: Halo roman" :92 I x 5% I -. :"FII E amaE ? ' -AIeoad1oolHAP44Alexd\ariig Space... g ,. Roam 3 WW' 3203 Closuoom 597.1 aZlMClassluom 007.1 59"“ fiz05cnosmom m1 2”"? .206 Classroom 5971 “u. '9‘ . .207C1osuoomu71 - Prqaet Lhw a s 3 6200 Classroom 397,1 2 was fizmrmrouvooms 5200 Rod: 9 302 Secretary omoo 5510 Hi Wr,do,,,,.30:<1 304 told: 224.0 000,, .300Ponmnoooo 194.5 a grade. .307 Teachers-Lina}: 5540 Diet: .3085wa m1 thch-wers .309LonouoooLob 5159 Bolas .310P1ysaooroo 678.1 a Eben-c Rates ”311 Storage 1930 Fudnam .3—12Music Room 5159 fladnoatoaouoom 520.0 II401 Clawoom 3971 D 402 Storage 133.0 3403 Classroom 5159 B404 Clasooom 5971 .405 Storage 133.0 34061.me 515.9 .407 PhysicsLoo 575.1 .409 Storage 193.0 .400 Classroom 515.9 flue Classroom 470,0 gumbo. toiet room 520.0 Clawounbldgbasm 10341 0 iCoreAtriu'n 3951.0 .Gymssm 7344.0 .Lockerroom 2323.0 anatomy 52726 Figure 5.1: snapshot of HAP E20—II program showing all spaces considered for the whole-building analysis with the related square feet floor areas. At a whole-building simulation level, researchers had to input two types of data, the first related to the building design, intended as the sum of all single space design features, and 89 the second ones related to the mechanical system design. Figure 5.2 below shows a simplified scheme related to the types of data that were input in the HAP energy model. Thermal Block 1 System 1 Space Geometrical 7 : Features —'————1 l 5 ELSpaee1 ”SpaceZ] l Spacen IE | System 1 "——I I i . M . . Whole echanical[De319n ______________________________________________ 8”"de Whole-building heating plant Energy [ Model .- ............................................ , System 2 Mechanical Design ElSpaoe1HSpaee2HSpacenlE : l E System 2 r Space Geometrical ' Features ---------------------------------------------- Thermal Block 2 ..l l Figure 5.2: schematic representation of HAP operating mode for whole-building energy simulation. A summary of all features related to each space that were used to setup the whole- building simulation are reported in table 5.1 below. Further and more detailed information are reported in appendix D. 0 General Details: 0 0A Ventilation Requirements: Floor Area Space Usage Avg. Ceiling Height 0A Requirement 1 Building Weight Space Usage Defaults 90 Overhead Lighting: Window Shade Type Fixture Type Door Type Wattage Roofs, Skylights Features: Ballast Multiplier Exposion Lighting Schedule Roof Gross Area Task Lighting: Roof Slope Wattage Skylight Quantity Schedule Infiltration: Electrical Equipment: Design Cooling Wattage Design Heating Schedule Energy Analysis People: Floors: Occupancy Type Activity Level Floor Area Sensible Heat Total Floor U-Value Latent Heat Unconditioned Space Max Temp. Occupancy Schedule Ambient at Space Max Temp. Walls, Windows, Doors: Wall Type WindowType Unconditioned Space Min Temp. Ambient at Space Min Temp. Internal Partition Details. All processes and activities related to the simulation set up were performed on the basis of an existing project previously developed by Italian companies and offices. In order to give the reader a better understanding of the whole building structure part of the original drawings are shown in figures 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 below. No architectural or structural modifications were implemented for the HAP simulation purposes and all inputs used to set up the energy model were directlyltaken from the original project. 91 SOUTH FRONT 1 _ . .. E . 1 7." g . l l ‘ i 4 A * :E ' :- v .7 T3 1 ‘ A ‘- ‘_ ‘ I ‘ ‘ ~ ‘ 7* w ,3 1- l ' j v“ If 9 g ‘ 5 I ._ i ‘ ‘ V . ,. 1 .‘ 1 1...:— M .. 1.... Jan-.4. ~ _ . - ., . 2. ‘ -. I I q u a i "o - -- ° ' v i? - t .‘2 l W.J'---M._.u~.“_.nb..._4p_-j E .._._s l . l ‘ 5 “ ‘ a: ...2 2...: u" . g. -. or-........-w__-.--_..... \ - J Figure 5.3: image of the Arco school project showing A-A and C—C cross sections. Source: “KREG Engineering - ATA Group” 92 ea-” ‘7 .:::>‘ .1 1.? ’3‘ .. 'rqu" V F El} £33.“ l j.“ REFRECTORY [— ‘ Figure 5. 4: original drawing of the Arco school project showing the ground floor plant of the building. Source: “KREG Engineering — ATA Group” 93 SECTION A - A SECTION C - C . .45 Figure 5.5: image of the Arco school project showing A-A and C-C cross sections. Source: “KREG Engineering - ATA Group” 5.3 Whole-Building Simulation Settings. The whole building analysis was based on the original Arco school project features. The original HAP simulation created for the Arco LEED® certification process was used as the baseline case (Entire Arco School). Another HAP simulation file considering the installation of the optimum shading device on every window was created afterwards and is referred to as the design case (entire Arco School shading). The only difference between the two cases was the presence of the shading devices over the windows, all the other characteristics of the building intended as data input in the simulation file were the same. For this reason all values related to building geometry features, air conditioning system designs, mechanical data and heating plant characteristics reported below and 94 system designs, mechanical data and heating plant characteristics reported below and with more details in appendix D were not repeated for both design and baseline cases. The simulation was created by inputting data related to the various aspects of the building. Geometric characteristics of every space, as well as, orientation and location in the building were considered. All data related to the heating plan were input after creating an entire building heating plan. The whole building structure was divided in four thermal blocks, each of them characterized by different features referenced to the different spaces and to all mechanical aspects of each space. General information about these features are reported below. For a more detailed description refer to appendix D. 0 Entire Area School Input Data Secondary LOOP Features. Summary 0 Thermal Block Input Data Summary. Plants Included in this Building. Air Systems Included in this Building. Miscellaneous Energy. Meters. E Miscellaneous Data. Arco Heating Plant Input Data Summary. General Details. Air Systems served by Plant. Configuration. Distribution. Distribution System Features. Fluid Properties. Primary Loop Features. 95 General Details. System Components. Ventilation Air Data. Economizer Data. Ventilation Reclaim Data. Central Cooling Data. Supply Fan Data. Duct System Data. Supply Duct Data. Return Duct or Plenum Data. Zone Components. Space Assignments. Thermostats and Zone Data. Supply Terminals Data. Zone Heating Units. Sizing Data (Computer- Safety Factors. Generated). Zone Sizing Data. System Sizing Data. Equipment Data. Hydronic Sizing Specifications. Central Cooling Unit - Air-Cooled DX. 5.4 Whole-Building Analysis — Area Location. Geoggphical Locjation Overview The whole building analysis was based on the original Arco school project features located in Trentino Alto Adige, in Northern Italy. This area is unique, due to the proximity of high mountains (Dolomites) and the Garda lake, which covers a total area of about 145 square miles. Such aspects impact the local climate which is characterized by frequent precipitations during spring, fall and summer seasons and by fairly stable outdoor temperatures during the whole year, due the mitigating effect of the lake. The singularity of the area in which the Arco school building is set can be gathered from the figures reported below. 96 r. WON'WVW'J ‘, awfl'w‘q’ifig‘ NM“ Figure 5. 6: image showing the Arco School surrounding area. Figure 5. 7: image showing the Arco School construction site. 97 Figure 5. 8: image showing the proximity between the Garda Lake and the highlighted Arco urban area. Whole-Building Analysis Results A primary objective of this research was to evaluate the impact of fixed shading devices on whole-building annual energy performances. However, first it is important to define the meaning of the term “energy performance”, which could be seen in different ways, depending on aspects considered. For this instance researchers focused their attention on building energy performance as the total quantity of energy supplied by human infrastructures to the building in order to keep each of its activities running properly under a pre-determined annual schedule. This definition summarizes the concept of energy performance described in the ASHRAE Standard and the decision of adopting it for the current project came from the idea of considering the Arco school building from a LEED® prospective. In fact, as the sustainable protocol itself reports in EA 1 section, the '98 percentage improvement in the pr0posed building performance rating has to be calculated by following the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. Following the definition cited above two different aspects of annual building energy consumption were considered, thermal energy and electrical energy respectively measured in British Thermal Units (BTU) and Kilo Watts (kW). Each building system and energy-consuming component were calculated separately for both the baseline and design cases. At the end, all values related to single items were summed together and the total annual energy consumption for the whole building was summarized in two values, the total thermal and electrical energy used. The same process was then repeated for each geographical location chosen to test the consistency of the results in other locations. In order to reduce the length of the thesis, complete tables are reported only for the Arco location, as shown in table 5.1 through 5.6 below. Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 list annual values for HVAC components, which include cooling loads, pre-cooling coil loads, pre-heating coil loads, heating coil loads, fans, pumps and part of the boiler heating loads. All other loads and of energy consuming elements implemented in the building, such as, process loads and lighting loads, are listed under the non-HVAC components section. 99 Component Baseline Design Case — Energy Cost Case (8) Shading Savings (%) Devices (S) HVAC Components Electric 7,590 6,659 12.23 Natural Gas 3,406 3,409 0.09 HVAC Sub-Total 10,996 10,067 8.45 Non-HVAC Components Electric 26,492 26,384 0.4 Natural Gas 8,479 8,370 1.29 Non-HVAC Sub-Total 34,971 34,756 0.62 Grand Total 45,967 44,767 2.67 Table 5.]: annual cost summary table for baseline and design whole-building cases. Here annual cost savings related to the implementation of the shading optimum solution mainly arise from HVAC power supply difference. This variation implies a percentage cost savings of 8.45% on HVAC components operating costs. This percentage is given by an annual saving for electrical supply of 12.23% and an annual loss for natural gas supply of less than 0.1%. On the other hand, the difference between non-HVAC component costs are minor totaling only about 0,77%. An important conclusion related to this first table is that implementation of fixed projecting shading devices, within the limitation of this first whole-building energy simulation, have a substantial impact on HVAC component energy costs. However, due to the order of magnitude of the grand total energy values, HVAC-related savings do not impact sensibly the whole energy costs. 100 Component Baseline Case Design Case - Energy (S) Shading Savings (%) Devices (5) HVAC Components Electric (kWh) 26,788 23,501 12.23 Natural Gas (Therm) 1,664 1,666 0.12 Non-HVAC Components Electric (kWh) 93,499 92,919 0.62 Natural Gas (Therm) 4,144 4,090 1.29 Totals Electric (kWh) 120,287 116,420 3.2 Natural Gas (Therm) 5,808 5,756 0.9 Table 5.2: annual energy consumption summary table for baseline and design cases. Table 5.2 shows in terms of energy consumption values the same concepts previously explained for table 5.1. HVAC annual energy consumption is consistently reduced by the use of fixed shading devices (12.23 %). However, this is only a partial savings calculation, the total impact of shading devices on electrical energy annual consumption is only about 3.2 %. Component Baseline Design Case — Case (S) Shading Devices ($) HVAC Components Electric 0.122 0.107 Natural Gas 0.055 0.055 HVAC Sub-Total 0.177 0.162 Non-HVAC Components ' Electric 0.426 0.412 Natural Gas 0.136 0.136 Non-HVAC Sub-Total 0.562 0.548 Grand Total 0.739 0.710 Gross Floor Area (ftZ) 62227.5 62227.5 Conditioned Floor Area (112) 33801.5 33801.5 101 Table 5.3: annual cost summary table per unit floor area for baseline and design cases. Considerations previously done for tables 5.1 and 5.2 are also reflected in table 5.3 which shows the impact of shading device use on annual energy costs on a square foot basis. Once again the energy costs per square foot of the Arco school building are considerably lower for only the HVAC system, and they are slightly lower for the whole-building energy consumption values. Component Baseline Design Case Case ($) - Shading Devices (3 HVAC Components Electric 16.5 14.8 Natural Gas 7.4 7.6 HVAC Sub-Total 23.9 22.4 Non-HVAC Components Electric 57.6 58.8 Natural Gas 18.4 18.8 Non-HVAC Sub-Total 76.1 77.6 Grand Total 100.0 100.0 Table 5. 4: whole-building summary table for baseline and design cases showing component cost as a percentage of total cost. Table 5.4 above demonstrates an important aspect of energy savings caused by the use of fixed shading devices. The importance of each system component on the whole-building energy consumption rates varies as a function of the shading device configuration. More specifically, for the design case simulation HVAC components have a smaller impact on annual energy consumption, whereas non-HVAC components provide a larger impact. 102 E III Use Design Energy Proposed Design Baseline Building Proposed Brilding Percent Savings Type Unis Resuls Results (%) Interior Lighting Electric Energy kWh 20,228 20,228 0.0 Dermnd kW 17.7 17.7 0.0 Space Heating Electnc Energy kWh 730 731 -0.1 Damnd kW 1.5 1.4 6.7 . Natural Gas Energy Therm 1,664 1,666 01 Space Heating *- Demand MBH 348.4 328.3 5.8 . W . Space Cooling Electric Energy k h 11,690 9,861 15 6 Demand kW 20.9 17.1 18.2 Fans - lntaior Electric Energy kWh 13,569 12,103 10.8 Demand kW 3.7 3.3 10.8 Electric Energy kWh 26,319 26,319 0.0 Process energy - Durand kW 123 12.3 0.0 . Natural Gas Energy Therm 4,144 4,144 0.0 - Serwc ter heat - e wa ‘3 Dermnd MBH 273 273 0.0 Electric Energy kWh 10,699 10,699 0.0 Elevator r Dermnd kW 5 5 0.0 ' W . Exterior lighting Electric Energy k h 4,380 4,3 80 0 0 Damnd kW 1 1 0.0 Total Annual Energy Use kBTU 991,218 980,138 1.1 Energy Totals Annual Process Energy kBTU 235,056 235,056 0.0 Table 5.5: performance rating summary table for baseline and design cases showing energy consumption values of each building component. Table 5.5 shows the impact of shading device use on each energy consumption category for each system component considered in the whole-building simulation. Values are related to their specific energy source, either electric or natural gas. Major savings are related to electrical consumption, especially for space heating and cooling components and for interior fan systems. Taken one at a time, each of these energy saving values seem consistent. Energy use for cooling interior spaces decreases by 15.6%, and the energy used to run the interior fan system decreases by 10.8%. However, energy reductions for other gas based systems are not as large as shown in the final summary table 5.6 below. 103 Energy Type Electric Natural Gas TOTAL (Model Outputs) Baseline Design Proposed Design Percent Savings Energy Use Cost (5) Energy Use Cost (5) Energy Use Cost 120.287 ' kWh 34.082 116.420 kWh 32.988 3,2 3,2 5.808 Therm 11.885 5.756 Therm 1 1.779 0,9 0,9 991.218 kBTU 45.967 972.592 kBTU 44.767 2,6 2,6 Table 5. 6: annual energy consumption summary table for baseline and design cases located in Trentino. 5.5 Whole-Building Analysis - Multiple Locations. In order to test the validity of the results and to see if they were dependent on this specific location the researcher evaluated the same baseline and design case buildings in three other locations in southern Europe. The whole-building energy modelslwere tested for various locations which varying weather conditions, latitude and morphological aspects of the surrounding areas. Three other European cities were chosen as case-study locations ' including: Naples (Italy), Valencia (Spain) and Frankfurt (Germany). Figure 5.9 reported below shows a map of Europe with the four location selected for the whole-building simulation. 104 Figure 5. 9: map of Europe showing locations of Arco, Valencia, Naples and Frankfurt. Source: Alabama Maps — website. Naples — Italy — The choice of Naples as one of the locations was determined by considerations specifically related to varying weather conditions, latitude and the morphological aspects of the surrounding areas. The city of Naples is located in the south part of Italy, by the Mediterranean sea coast. Its location is almost flat, and is substantially different from the conditions set for the previous model, situated in the Alps. Moreover, weather conditions of Naples are very different fiom the previous ones due to its proximity to the Mediterranean sea. The whole-building energy simulation for Naples conditions was run for both design and baseline cases, always considering the first as the one with fixed shading devices, the second as the original Arco school design. Also for Naples, as for each location 105 considered, all analysis and result categories cited for chapter 5.3 were performed. Only a summary is reported here, the complete results for whole-building multiple locations is reported in appendix E. The goal of this section is to provide a general overview and summary related 'to total annual energy consumptions, as shown in table 5.7 below. Proposed Deskn Baseline Deshn Percent Savings Energy‘lype Energy Use Cost (S) Energy Use Cost (S) E. Use Cost Electric 120,514 kWh 34,146 117,181 kWh 33,202 2.8 2.8 Natural Gas 5,817 Therm 11,903 5,814 Therm 11,898 0.1 0.0 TOTAL (Model Outputs) 992,049 kBTU 46,049 981,242 kBTU 45,1(I) 1. 1 2.1 Table 5. 7: annual energy consumption summary table for baseline and design cases located in Naples. The energy simulation results were similar to those of the Arco whole-building analysis. Energy savings of 2.8 % from annual electrical energy consumptions is somewhat offset by small natural gas savings. However, once again the use of fixed shading devices substantially impacted the annual electrical energy consumption related to HVAC components- Under this design case results showed an annual electrical energy cost of $10,129 against the $ 11,078 of the baseline case. In other words an annual electrical energy saving of 8.5%, very similar to the 8.45% previously obtained for the Arco location. These savings are also reflected in the total electrical energy consumption which goes from the 120,514 kWh of the baseline case to the 117181 kWh of the design case with a percentage saving of 2.7 %. 106 Valencia - Spain — This specific location was chosen to confirm the results obtained for the previous location. From many points of view Naples and Valencia are two similar cities. Both are located by the Mediterranean at approximately the same latitude and also have similar the morphological characteristics. However, weather conditions are different, especially when considering precipitation and cloud cover. In fact, Valencia is surrounded by a small mountain chain that keeps most of all atmospheric disturbances away from the city area. This yields higher sun exposure and solar gains in buildings. The whole-building energy simulation was conducted following the previous model settings. No major changes were noticed between the Naples and Valencia models. Total energy consumption calculated on annual basis was similar, with some minor variation in a 0.2 % range. Also annual total cost savings between baseline and design cases were similar with, 2.7 % for Valencia against the 2.8 % for the previous location. Summary values are reported in table 5.11 below. fioposed Deskn Baselne Deskn Percent Savhgs Energy‘l'ype Energy Use Cost (S) Energy Use Cost (S) E. Use Cost Electric 120,389 kWh 34,111 117,181 kWh 33,202 2.7 2.7 Natural Gas 5,812 Therm 11,893 5,814 Therm 11,898 0.0 0.0 TOTAL (Model Outputs) 992,948 kBTU 46,“)4 981,242 kBTU 45,1(X) 1.2 2.0 Table 5. 8: annual energy consumption summary table for baseline and design cases located in Valencia. As detected for the previous cases, the main energy savings were related to electrical energy consumptions, especially for HVAC systems. In terms of costs, the optimum 107 shading device led to an annual 9 % saving for HVAC component electrical energy consumption. This was reflected in the total annual electrical energy consumption as a 2.76 % saving resulting from the difference between the 120,389 kWh of the baseline case and the 1 17,181 kWh of the design case. An interesting observation is that electrical energy savings calculated for the original Arco locations resulted in higher savings than the ones found for Naples and Valencia locations. The main elements that affect electrical savings are HVAC components and, more specifically cooling loads. Because of these considerations researchers expected higher electrical energy savings for warmer weather locations but analysis didn’t reflect this prediction. In order to partially verify these results researchers decided to pick a northern Europe city as the last whole-building location test. The city chosen was Frankfurt in central-westem Germany. Frankfurt — Germany — Based on the consideration listed above the whole-building energy model was run on the basis of Frankfurt area settings. In this case, the characteristics of the area are similar to the Valencia case, except for the proximity to the sea. The height above sea level is the same, as well as, the morphology of the surrounding area and the urban area extension. Researchers didn’t pick a location in the north of Europe, such as Norway or Sweden for example, because weather conditions would have been too different from those of Arco. The building was originally designed to perform in the northern Italian area. Drastic weather and location changes could heavily impact the building response not only from 108 an energy consumption standpoint but also for other aspects such as material or window- floor area required ratio values. For this case the results met the researcher’s original expectations. The total electrical energy consumption calculated on an annual basis decreased by approximately 1 %. In fact, looking at Naples case-study annual consumption values for electrical energy went fi'om 120,514 kWh to a 119,391 kWh. Moreover, natural gas saving values related to the implementation of fixed shading devices were negative. The issue is explainable by considering solar gains which provide heat to the building. In the Arco school building natural gas is used to produce heat during winter. Fixed shading devices stop part of the solar radiation that heats the building and, because of that, they have a positive effect during the summer but a negative impact during winter. The loss of solar heat caused by the implementation of the shading devices is reflected by the increment of natural gas consumption in the design case. However, both in terms of cost and energy performance, energy savings from reductions in cooling load during the summer period exceeded the heating looses during the winter period. This consideration is demonstrated by the total annual energy savings values which reached 1.9 % for both energy use and cost parameters. Table 5.9 below reports the summary values for the present case-study. Proposed Deskn Baselne Deskn Percent Savings Energy Type Energy Use Cost (S) Energy Use Cost (S) E. Use Cost Electrlc 119,391 kWh 33,828 116,218 kWh 32,929 2.7 2.7 Natural Gas 5,817 Therm 11,%4 5,828 Therm 1 1,9 26 -0.2 -0.2 TOTAL (Nbdel Outputs) 989,071 kBTU 45,732 979,312 kBTU 44,855 1.0 l .9 109 Table 5. 9: annual energy consumption summary table for baseline and design cases located in Frankfurt. Whole-building analysis results for different location are summarized in figure 5.10 below. Energy {KBTUl 995000 990000 985000 980000 975000 970000 965000 960000 Consumption +-—-———.+--—-+-———+- I l l 9 Baseline design a Preposed design Location Table 5.10: annual energy consumption summary graph for baseline and design cases related to Arco, Naples, Valencia and Frankfurt locations. 110 [II 0. ,... s—Al 5.6 Chapter summary Chapter Five describes the whole-building analysis process used by the researchers. The original whole-building characteristics related to the Arco project that were used as input . files for the energy simulation are reported. The chapter also describes the choice of the several geographical locations selected to help validate the whole-building analysis. Analysis results obtained fiom different whole-building energy simulations, each of them located in different areas, are reported, explained and compared. 11] — CHAPTER 6 - CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY 112 6.1 Introduction. Chapters Four and Five addressed the single Space analyses and whole building analyses respectively. This final chapter addresses conclusions and recommendations that the researchers drew from the research, discusses limitations of the study and suggests areas for future research. 6.2 Single-Space Analysis. 6.2.] Single-Space Analysis Limitations The impact of fixed shading devices on single-space energy use varies as a function of the space design characteristics, window proportion and thermal mass. Four single- space analysis were performed in order to identify the optimum solution for shading devices in relation to window configuration. Results varied as a function of window configuration. In some cases, such as with the single and multiple 5-by-6 feet punctured window spaces, gaps between energy consumption values were even bigger because of the secondary effect of thermal mass. These considerations led researchers to focus on the single-space result limitations and the range of applicability of the results. They concluded that the impact of fixed shading devices on single-space energy consumption can not be generalized to all types of single- space designs. However, they can be considered valid for categories of single-space design. The main design features that characterized the sample single space were the floor area, the window area, the orientation and the geometrical shape. From a design point of view, the single space used as a case-study is a middle-school classroom characterized by standard features. In Italy, as well as in Europe and in the US, classroom spaces are required to have a maximum occupancy coefficient which establishes the maximum ratio between area and number of students. Codes require 113 classrooms to be designed with a minimum window-floor area ratio, as well as, minimum lighting levels, air flow rates and air conditioning systems. From this point of view, the single space selected to determine the shading device optimum solution could be considered common and certainly standardized. Therefore, results obtained from the single-space analysis could be implemented as general guideline by project teams that are designing a classroom similar to the one used for the present research. Another point that has to be considered is the impact of thermal mass on energy consumption. The concept of thermal mass is strictly related to the density of material used, the ratio between window and wall surface and the ratio between space volume and total space contact area intended as the sum of all walls, windows, floor and ceiling areas. However, national codes fix the values for all these coefficients except for the density of the material used. That aspect is a function of the material type and can vary from case to case. While the study did address changes in thermal mass, there were primarily the result of changing window size and not construction systems. This study did not address changes in construction type (i.e from heavy construction to light construction) so the results and conclusion are not necessarily valid for “light” buildings. Further research would be necessary to address changes in construction type. Another issue is related to the specific location that was chosen to run the single-space analysis. As previously explained in chapter Three, all single-space simulations had the city of Arco as location input data. From the HAP software point of view, the main aspect that affects the single-space model is the latitude, which is related to the sun irradiance angle in different periods of the year. For the scope of this thesis ll4 researchers didn’t verify the impact of such variable on the single-Space analysis results. Therefore, all values obtained can be considered valid only for single space simulation characterized by the same latitude of Arco. However, the researchers did explore this impact later during the whole building analysis. 6.2.2 Single-Space Analysis Conclusions. On the basis of these considerations, information obtained from the single-space analysis that could be used for other cases are: Qualitative impact of fixed shading devices on single-space annual energy consumption. All single-space analysis developed during the present research showed that a single space without shading devices requires more energy than a Space characterized by shaded windows. This effect is caused by the positive impact of shading devices on cooling loads during the summer which resulted always larger than the negative impact on heating loads during the winter. In other words, the implementation of fixed shading devices improves single- space annual energy performances. Qualitative identification of fixed shading device characteristics for obtaining best annual energy performances. Single-space analysis results showed that shading device projection length is the most impacting variable for energy consumptions. As explained in the previous paragraph, the main improvement arises from the cooling gains obtained during the summer period. Therefore, fixed shading devices with a length range between 40 and 60 inches led to better energy performance that shorter ones. Identification of the best combination of geometric variables for fixed shading devices. On the basis of the considerations reported in chapter four 115 the optimum shading device that led to the highest annual energy savings for the single-space had a length of 56 inches, an extension beyond window borders of 4 inches and a distance from the top window border of 12 inches. 0 Quantitative identification of the percentage savings introduced by the implementation of the optimum shading device solution on the basis of annual energy consumption. For this research researchers considered only the last two case-studies, in which thermal mass had only smaller impact. Here values of savings for annual energy consumption ranged between 8.1 % of the five 5-by-6 windows space and the 13.7 % of the single 31-by—6 window Space. However, these values represent the energy consumption gaps between optimum shading devices use and spaces without shading devices. Within the range of shading device use the difference between the optimum and the worst combination of variables was 2.4 % for the five punctured windows and 8.7 % for the single wide window. Specific values of all single-space analysis are reported in appendix C. 6.3 Whole-building analysis The whole-building simulation process was described in chapter Five. In order to identify the information that could be used as reliable conclusions for future projects, researchers focused on the limitations of the specific experiment. On the basis of these limitations, a list of general conclusion was developed. 6.3.1 Whole-Building Analysis Limitations. 116 A primary limitation of the research was the use of a single case-study building. Other building conditions and configurations could have led to other possible results. The main variables that could affect analysis and conclusions are building design and location. From the design point of view, the Arco school could be considered typical for the region. Shapes of either single rooms and of the entire complex are simple and squared. Moreover, as previously explained in section 6.1 for single-space limitations, geometric features of educational institutions are heavily standardized by local and governmental codes. However, other aspects, such as, high window configuration and space orientation are specifically related to this single project. Final conclusions about the whole-building Simulation results certainly won’t be valid for all possible school building designs. Therefore it’s important to identify some key elements of the building that affected the energy model analysis and that could be used as reference parameters to calibrate the applicability of final conclusions. For the scope of the analysis, researchers identified the following main categories: 0 Space design related elements: floor area, ceiling height, building weight, average light consumption (Watts per Square Foot), space occupancy, type of activities performed, wall/window area ratio, type of walls and interior partitions. 0 Mechanical system related elements: thermostat cutoffs, thermal efficiency, ventilation system type, operating schedule, heating plant settings, cooling system components. 117 Specific values related to the whole-building analysis input data are reported in appendix D. Future project teams will be able to implement the whole-building analysis information listed below only after comparing the proposed design with the Arco school project. Under the whole-building analysis section the researcher considered cost savings only as total annual energy cost reduction. The analysis of costs related to installation and maintenance of fixed projecting shading devices was not in the scope of this research and therefore it was not taken into account. Another aspect that has to be considered prior to drawing final conclusions is the limited number of locations investigated. In order to prove the consistency of the data obtained the whole-building simulation was run for four locations, intended as weather conditions and geographical coordinates. Researchers chose four cities respectively located in Italy, Spain and Germany. For each simulation output values were considered; the total annual energy cost, the total energy consumption and the annual cost of each mechanical system component. The considerations related to final results and reported in the next paragraph were confirmed by all four simulations. However, results can not be considered valid for all location inside the selected countries. The fact that all four analysis results coincide gives researchers 3 high probability, but not the certainty, that same considerations could be applied to contiguous locations. 118 6.3.2 Whole-Building Analysis Conclusions. On the basis of these considerations, information obtained from the whole-space analysis that could be implemented for other cases are: Qualitative and quantitative impact of optimum fixed shading devices on whole-building energy consumption. All energy simulations conducted for the whole-building model implementing fixed shading devices characterized by the optimum combination of variables showed an annual energy consumption improvement. Percentage savings obtained from the analyses ranged between 1.1 % and 2.6 %, considering all kinds of energy use of the building. Two different energy sources were considered for the whole-building supply; natural gas and electrical energy. Qualitative and quantitative impact of optimum fixed shading devices on system components. Percentage savings resulting for whole-building total energy consumption proceeded from annual energy savings of each group of system components. Two main groups were identified; HV AC and non- HV AC devices. HVAC components included cooling loads, pre-cooling coil loads, pre-heating coil loads, heating coil loads, fans, pumps and part of the boiler heating loads. All other loads and of energy consuming elements implemented in the building, such as, process loads and lighting loads, were listed under the non-HVAC components section. As HAP analysis results Showed, the impact of fixed shading device implementation is different for different system components. The highest shading device impact was noticed for the annual electrical energy consumption HV AC. Under this point, percentage savings calculated for the four case-studies ranged between the 8.15 % of the Valencia simulation and the 8.63 % of the Frankfurt simulation. 119 These values were interpreted by researchers as the consequence of shading device impact on cooling loads during the summer period. On the other hand, savings related to annual consumption of natural gas, which in the Arco project was mainly used for heating purposes, didn’t undergo any considerable changes. Percentage savings related to natural gas annual consumption ranged between - 0.2 % and 0.9 %. It is important to highlight the negative value obtained for the Frankfurt case-study. Researchers interpreted this as the consequence of heating losses caused y the implementation of shading devices during the winter period. Especially in northern areas characterized by rigid winter temperatures, heating gains caused by direct solar irradiation play an important role in whole-building energy balance. The presence of fixed shading device has a negative impact on solar gain. However, such losses are abundantly overbalanced by cooling gains during the summer related to HV AC electrical energy consumption. Qualitative and quantitative impact of optimum fixed shading devices on electrical energy consumption. Performance improvements highlighted for HVAC energy consumption are reflected also on the total annual building electrical energy balance. Under this particular point, savings due to shading device use ranged between the 2.7 % for the Valencia case-study and the 3.2 % for the original Arco simulation. These values are substantially smaller than the ones cited above for the single HVAC electrical consumption and that is explainable by considering building process and lighting loads. In fact, these types of loads cover an important part of the total electrical energy consumption and they were considered constant for all simulations analyzed. 120 More specific data related to electrical energy consumption values are reported in appendix D. 6.4 Development of Researcher Recommendations On the basis of these considerations, the following recommendations are made for researchers as follows: 0 Investigate the types of loads that could be affected by the implementation of fixed projecting shading devices. 0 Determine general rules and equations applicable to whole-building systems to quantify the impact of fixed shading device impact on cooling loads versus heating loads. 0 Determine the qualitative and quantitative impact of fixed shading device use on different types of energy sources in relationship to mechanical system settings. 0 Determine optimum weather conditions and geographical location which could maximize the positive impact of the fixed shading device use on whole building energy performance. 6.5 General Conclusions All work done for the present thesis increased the researcher’s knowledge and confidence in shading-device-related issues. Information has been used to explore their impact on energy use. The researchers have developed the following conclusions about the impact of frxed shading device on building energy performance. 121 The implementation of fixed shading device has a positive impact on building energy performance and glare-related issues. All simulation results showed the increment of energy savings due to the implementation of such devices. On the other hand, glare control issues were not considered within the scope of the research but fixed shading devices certainly constitute one possible way to adjust them. Shading devices could possibly have also negative impact on daylight parameters. This issue was not specifically tested during the research but is implied by the literature. Implementation of fixed shading devices is strongly recommended in buildings characterized by large cooling loads and cooling-related mechanical systems. Longer projections of shading devices lead to better energy performance compared to short-projecting ones. Overall impact of shading devices is closely related also to window size and configuration, as well as, thermal mass characteristics of the building. 6.6 Impact of Fixed Shading Devices on LEED® Buildings. The use of fixed shading devices has a positive impact on achieving LEED® credits. The main advantages arise from whole-building energy savings calculated on an annual period basis. The initial baseline case simulated for the original Arco School design showed a total annual energy consumption of 1,867,656 kBTU. In this case, the whole building was set up using basic default parameters assigned by LEED®, in accordance with the ASHRAE 90.1. On the other hand, the Arco School proposed design showed a total annual energy consumption of 991,218 kBTU with a 122 comprehensive annual saving of 47 %. Implementation of fixed shading devices showed an additional annual percentage energy saving of 2.6 % with reference to the proposed design. As the LEED® ranking list for energy savings shows, values of annual savings have a superior order of magnitude. For example, the proposed Arco School building earned 10 credit points exceeding 42% of annual energy saving. However, even a small gain such as the one due to shading device use could be very useful for the scope of the LEED® certification helping designers to achieve better energy performance levels. Researchers found that, for LEED® purposes, use of fixed shading devices should not be considered as a major-effect element that heavily impacts the whole building accreditation process. However, it should always be considered as a possible solution to earn potentially one to two additional point under the EA Credit 1 section. 6.7 Areas for Future Research The present research investigated a very specific element related to the use of fixed shading devices. Therefore, this thesis has, as previously explained, many limitations that were already considered throughout the whole text. However, limitations can also be seen as opportunities to develop other research studies and eventually to validate the information discussed previously. From this point of view, researchers considered the following fields. Analysis results showed that annual energy savings due to fixed shading device use result from cooling gains during the summer period. However, fixed shading devices have a negative impact during the winter period due to the sun heating losses that they 123 cause. An interesting aspect could be the impact of movable shading devices on whole-building performance. Movable devices could provide both cooling gains during the summer and heating gains during the winter. Theoretically this solution should have a positive impact on the whole-building energy balance and other researchers could focus on how effective this solution could be in terms of percentage savings. For the scope of the present research the whole-building analysis were nm for a limited number of locations. AS already explained above, researchers can not extend the applicability of the results to different locations. However, all data implemented for the current whole-building analysis could be used as a platform to run other energy simulations with different location settings. This operation would integrate the work done for the present research and will also assign a higher value to all data obtained. Another area of interest for future research is related to building design. For the present thesis the Arco school building was chosen as a case-study design and tested under different conditions. Using the conclusions of this work as a starting platform, other researchers could apply the same process to different building designs in order to verify how fixed shading devices could impact whole-building energy consumption for various designs. Depending on the results obtained, researchers could then identify some main design parameters that affect the impact of shading devices on energy performance. 124 6.8 Chapter Summary. In this chapter researchers summarized and explained the most important conclusions identified during the research. Considerations of limitations and area of fiiture research are also presented. 125 — APPENDICIES — 126 - APPENDIX A — The LEED® System 127 A.l The LEED and USGBC Background During the early 1990’s the green building movement begun to take hold. The hopes of the American Society of Testing and Material (ASTM) of creating a sustainability standard failed. The movement’s supporters begun looking for an alternative organization willing to develOp a rating system. The U.S. Department of Energy became an ally of green building followers and by 1996 had contracted with Public Technology, Inc. (PTI) and United States Green Building Council (USGBC) to develop the “Sustainable Buiding Technical Manual: Green Building Design, Construction and Operations” (PTI 1996). The manual was written under contract, including editorial contributions from people closely aligned with USGBC. The first paragraph of the Manual firmishes a good idea of how this movement was conceived: Public Technology, Inc. developed this manual to address the growing demand for information on the design and construction of green buildings. The manual was jointly sponsored by PT I ’3 Urban Consortium Environmental and Energy Task Forces. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) worked with P77 to develop the manual. David Gottfiied of Gottfried Technology Inc., served as managing editor. An Advisory Committee of local-government and private-sector representatives assisted in developing the manual. The manual underwent a consensus review process by members of the USGBC and was peer reviewed by U.S. DOE and U.S. EPA oflicials. Source: “American Wood Council " website — www.awc. org The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system is a credit-driven assessment program for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential buildings. Evaluation of environmental 128 performance is made from a "whole building" perspective over a building's life cycle, and a standard scale is provided to define what constitutes a " green building." These overall ratings are awarded based on how many points are accumulated. Assessment and point scoring is conducted by LEED accredited designers. USGBC also accredits these design professionals and provides third-party review of the building’s compliance with LEED. A.2 LEED Overview The LEED Green Building Rating System was developed by the U.S. Green Building Council as a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high- performance, sustainable building projects. According to USGBC, LEED was created for the following reasons: 0 Facilitate positive results for the environment, occupant health and financial return 0 Define “green building” by establishing a common standard for measurement 0 Prevent “greenwashing” (false or exaggerated claims) 0 Promote whole-building, integrated design processes 0 Recognize environmental leadership in the building industry 0 Stimulate green competition 0 Raise consumer awareness of green building benefits 0 Transform the “building market” Source: Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association website (http://www.newmoa.org) 129 A wide variety of benefits can be achieved by building green buildings to comply with LEED. These benefits include energy savings, economic benefits, improved health of building occupants and conservation of precious resources. Benefits range from being fairly predictable (energy, waste and water savings) to relatively uncertain (productivity / health benefits). The LEED system utilizes a list of performance based “credits” worth up to 69 points. Organizations pursuing LEED certification voluntarily adopt and document compliance with selected standards, and upon achieving various thresholds of compliance, step levels of LEED certification ratings are achieved. There are 4 prerequisite areas that every building must meet and several credit options in each area. These 69 credits are divided into six categories: Sustainable Sites (SS); Water Efficiency (WE); Energy and Atmosphere (EA); Materials and Resources (MR); Indoor Environmental Quality (IA); and Innovation & Design Process (ID). In order to attain LEED certification, a minimum of 26 points must be achieved. A Silver rating is achieved by earning between 33 and 38 points, Gold between 39-51 and Platinum between 52 and 69 points. The distribution of points by general category is ‘Shown in Tables 1.1 - 1.2 — 1.3 below. This could be considered as the main LEED Organic structure. The LEED classification systems had been developed under the supervision of USGBC committees, in relationship with the USGBC politic and processes. Some differences between the definition and further application of each credits come up depending on the considered building. The most general one is the LEED NC (New Construction) that relies up to 69 credits. It is just one more product between the Whole range of classification systems that are taking place among the LEED world. These files could be summarized as follows: 130 LEED SYSTEM 1 [LEED NC] [LEED EB] [LEED c1] [LEED cs] [ LEED H J [ I LEED ND1 # Source: www.usgbc.org (visited on 17th February 2008) Figure A. 1: LEED System organization Credits Points % 8 Sustainable Sites (SS) 14 22% 3 Water Efficiency (WE) 5 8% 6 Energy and Atmosphere (EA) 17 27% 7 Materials and Resources (MR) 13 20% 8 Indoor Environmental Quality (IQ) Q 23% 64 Design Process and Innovation (ID) 4 LEED Accredited Professional 1 Total Points Available 69 Table A2: LEED NC Point Distribution Source: LEED NC v. 2.2 Reference Manual 131 I Energy & Atmosphere I Indoor Environmental Quality I Sustainable Site D Water Efficiency 0 Material & Resources Figure A.3: LEED Credit Categories Source: www. usgbccrg (visited on 1 7'h February 2008) Certification Level Required Points Certified 26-32 points Silver 33-38 points Gold 39-51 points Platinum 52+ points 69 possible points Table A.4: LEED Certification Levels Source: USGBC 4, 2005 The following lists were extracted from the LEED NC reference manual and describes the principal concepts of each chapter: LEED SS Credits: are designed to develop only appropriate sites, reuse existing bUildings and / or sites, protect natural and agricultural areas, reduce the need for automobile use and protect and / or restore natural sites. The principal arguments covered under this chapter are: 0 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention; 132 0 Site Selection; 0 Development Density & Community Connectivity; o Brownfield Redevelopment; 0 Alternative Transportation: (Public, Bicycle Storage, Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles, Parking Capacity); 0 Site Development; 0 Storm water Design; 0 Heat Island Effect; 0 Light Pollution Reduction. LEED WE Credits: aim to reduce the quantity of water needed for a building and to reduce municipal water supply and treatment burden. The main arguments covered under this chapter are: 0 Water Efficient Landscaping; 0 Innovative Wastewater Technologies; 0 Water Use Reduction; LEED EA Credits: are based on the main idea of building energy performances. The cOlnpliance with them provides a high-efficiency energy-use performance for the building and for its utilities. The main arguments covered under this chapter are: 0 Commissioning Authority and Commissioning Process (accounted as a system-and-building check-up team) 0 Minimum Building Energy Performance 0 Refrigerant System Management 0 Energy Performance Optimization 133 o On—Site Renewable Energy Use 0 Measurement & Verification Approach 0 Renewable Energy Use LEED MR Credits: support the appropriate evaluation and choice of materials used inside the building, either for design, construction, health and recycling issues. The main arguments covered under this chapter are: 0 Recyclables Materials and Systems 0 Building Reuse 0 Construction Waste Management 0 Materials Reuse 0 Use of Regional Materials 0 Use of Renewable Materials 0 Use of Certified Wood LEED EQ Credits: are pointed toward the building indoor quality improvement. An effort to achieve a high quality standard for the indoor environment based on air quality, pollutant avoidance and chemical products use. The main arguments covered urider this chapter are: 0 Tobacco Smoke Control 0 Air and Ventilation Monitoring 0 Use of Low-Emitting Materials 0 Pollutant Source Control 0 Thermal Comfort Systems 134 LEED ID Credits: are designated to push all constructions toward the use of new technologies, ways and methods to improve the building performance. Under this chapter are also considered the assignment of extra point due to some high performance achievement under the previous credit chapters. Except for these last ones the main arguments covered under this chapter are: 0 Innovation in Design 0 Presence of a LEED Accredited Professional 135 — APPENDIX B — Implementation of the LEED® System. 136 B. 1 The LEED World-Wide Status to Date. The LEED system has been growing up very quickly during the last years, starting from a national dimension it founded a very positive international feedback. Every country, afier the early creation of the US GBC, started developing their own Green Building Councils. The World GBC held its founding meeting in November of 1999 in San Francisco, California USA, with eight countries in attendance including: U.S. Green Building Council; Green Building Council of Australia; Spain Green Building Council; United Kingdom Green Building Council; Japan Green Building Council; United Arab Emirates; Russia. Source: World GBC - www.worldgbc.org (visited 02/27/2008) Global awareness of the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other eITIVironmental degradation mandates the rapid formation of green building councils around the world. Buildings are responsible for 40% or more of greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world (www. worldgbc. org). The World Green Building Council was created as a union of national councils whose mission is to accelerate the transformation of the global property industry towards sustainability. 137 World GBC members have been leading the movement that is globalizing environmentally and socially responsible building practices. Its objective is to rapidly build an international coalition that represents the entire global property industry. Now a day the World GBC is a business-led coalition. Green Building Councils are consensus-based not-for-profit organizations with no private ownership, and diverse and integrated representation from all sectors of the property industry. Business are considered as a powerful solution-provider, and the main purpose will be to improve frameworks that harness business's ability to deliver. Another important goal of the World GBC is to coordinate efforts with other international forces to optimize everyone's effectiveness. World GBC has partnered the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), and supports UNEP's Sustainable Building and Construction Initiative, and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development's Zero-energy Buildings Project. In Europe, Spain already created its own GBC in 1996 and now Italy is following the Sartre path, starting from some prototype-projects in the Trentino Region. Also in the “Old Continent”, especially concerning public and important projects, many countries and companies are now leading toward massive green building construction, that is Caused by the always increasing needs of sustainability and, on the other hand, by the Wish of these companies and countries to improve their image by developing Sustainable and therefore innovative buildings. Some statistical data concerning the Canadian LEED system (one of the most representative ones) growth during the last years are given below in order to support these claims. Its development is fairly larger in the US (when it started in the early 90ies) rather than in the rest of the World. Despite of that numbers and information 138 are typically the ones of an international relationship with LEED strong of a constant increase of budget, constructions and governments involved. 63 a 57 56 7 4242 45 46 “ll ,2 1 Y My August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Ian. Feb. Mar. April INew MembersZNSuNewMembenlOMerewMemberleO? Figure 8.1: CaGBC membership growth by month (last update May 2007). Source: www.worldgbc.orgldocs/Canadappt (visited 03/20/2008). These new construction systems and technologies are experiencing rapid growth. For this main reason the research team decided to focus on LEED and its potential development. From a professional point of view the relative newness of these Councils and certification systems is opening a large number of potential development and growth fields. However, they still present some weaknesses and Substantial problems that need to be solved. The well-established presence of the US Green Building Council has already developed out guidelines that other institutions 0Child, and in some cases will have to, follow. Especially for the very recent councils, different realities of different countries will have to be compared. The presence of Specific laws and requirements strongly affects the approach to the LEED system and therefore, could become very difficult and complicated under certain conditions. One Of the main concepts that will have to be considered for the development of this research project is the current need of comparison guidelines that could support the 139 European use of the LEED protocol, with respect to the US Green Building Council standards. After consulting some authoritarian parties, such as Spanish GBC experts, faculty professors and LEED AP professionals, leading to a preliminary analysis of the potential issues, the four basic problems that currently can be identified in Europe are: l. The need for developing a “Commissioning System” similar to that in the USA. Legal, institutional and occupational comparison between the two different social and professional structures and creation of a standard process model showing how this professional task could be exported to the European system, where it still doesn’t exist. Coordination between the growth and the improvement of the Indian, Spanish and Italian Green Building Councils is needed. Most European manufacturers are currently unable to supply materials for LEED projects because their products have not been certified according to the US standards. A comparison between the main protocols that regulate the product certifications inside the American and European systems and eventual application limits to the LEED Standard purpose is needed. The “Energy and Atmosphere” chapter contained in the US LEED Manual is the most important for all issues related to building energy performance. An equivalent European management system for these aspects of LEED has not been created yet. Comparison and adjustment of the European standards to American requirements is needed. Implementation of architectural and design solutions concerning screening and shading devices for buildings needs to be 140 developed in order to meet environmental standards, especially for what concerns the summer-period issues. The forth of these problems will be addressed by the proposed research. In this field, because of their nature itself and for the purpose of a research project with a wide' range of applicability, the use and implementation of screening and shading devices plays a main role beside other architectural features such as building exposure and use of natural ventilation. The implementation of the last ones can not be extended to some general project conditions because their effect on building performances depends on too many unpredictable variables and therefore such a research project would not result accurate. Climate, wind and exposure characteristics can vary deeply between different zones, even if considering reduced portion of land, whereas shading devices and strategies depend on fewer, predictable and standard features like site latitude, season (sun position) and building orientation A research based on shading devices effects would provide more measurable, Comparable and therefore accurate results. 3.2 ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide for Small Office Buildings This standard is strictly connected with the previous document (ASHRAE Standard) and provides a simplified approach for small office buildings. The possibility to fOllow easy approaches for minor constructions has a big importance given that its applicability would cover a large number of cases. Although this would not be as issue because the cost reduction arising from calculation processes cut down will allow the owners to meet some basic requirement with no extra expenses. The results Of this research will have to be applicable to different situations, not only considering 141 the main constructions, but also the minor ones. Therefore is important to have an acknowledgment of the requirement listed under this document which includes: 0 Integrated Process to Achieve Energy Savings during the different project stages: Pre-Design Phase, Design Phase, Construction, Acceptance, Occupancy, Maintenance and Other Operation. 0 Recommendations by Climate: the choice of the area has to fall upon one of the eight zone-types provided, depending on the project site characteristics. Improvement of building features through implementation of recommendation: quality assurance, envelope, opaque envelope components, vertical glazing (envelope), window design guidelines for thermal conditions, window design guidelines for daylight, lighting, day lighting, day lighting controls, electric lighting design, HVAC, service water heating, bonus savings, plug loads, exterior lighting. 0 Envelope Thermal Performance Factors. Source: www.ashrae.org (visited on 03/20/2008) 142 — APPENDIX C — Single-Space Analysis Results. 143 CI The LEED and USGBC Background 1 WINDOW OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Depth. :23: Cooling Unit :23; :23: TOTAL TOTAL height. Coil Load Eqpt. Cool. Coil Load Coil Input LOAD 'NPUT edLes Load Input (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 0.0.00 1697 1697 130 14932 4376 18326 4.0.00 1558 1558 120 15272 4476 18388 4596 4.0.12-12 1557 1557 120 15272 4476 18386 4596 4.0.16-16 1557 1557 120 15272 4476 18386 4596 4.0.4-4 1558 1558 120 15272 4476 18388 4596 4.0.8-8 1557 1557 120 15272 4476 18386 4596 4.12.00 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.12.12-12 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.12.16-16 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.12.4-4 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.12.8-8 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.16.00 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.16.12-12 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.16.16-16 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.16.4-4 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.16.8-8 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.4.00 1561 1561 120 15224 4462 18346 4582 4.4.12-12 1561 1561 120 15224 4462 18346 4582 4.4.16-16 1561 1561 120 15224 4462 18346 4582 4.4.4-4 1561 1561 120 15224 4462 18346 4582 4.4.8-8 1561 1561 120 15224 4462 18346 4582 4.8.00 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.8.12-12 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.8.16-16 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.8.4-4 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 4.8.8-8 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 8.0.00 1551 1551 119 15415 4518 18517 4637 8.0.12-12 1551 1551 119 15426 4521 18528 4640 8.0.16-16 1551 1551 119 15426 4521 18528 4640 8.0.4-4 1551 1551 119 15426 4521 18528 4640 8.0.8-8 1551 1551 119 15426 4521 18528 4640 8.12.00 1561 1561 120 15219 4460 18341 4580 144 1 WINDOW OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Depth. 32;: Cooling Unit 32:3; :23: TOTAL TOTAL height. Co" Load Eqpt. Cool. Co" Load Co" Input LOAD INPUT edges Load Input (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 8.12.12-12 1561 1561 120 15219 4460 18341 4580 8.12.16-16 1561 1561 120 15219 4460 18341 4580 8.12.4-4 1561 1561 120 15219 4460 18341 4580 8.12.8-8 1561 1561 120 15219 4460 18341 4580 8.16.00 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 8.16.12-12 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 8.16.16-16 1562 1562 120 152 13 4458 18337 4578 8.16.44 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 8.16.8-8 1562 1562 120 15213 4458 18337 4578 8.4.00 1556 1556 120 15215 4459 18327 4579 8.4.1242 1556 1556 120 15245 4468 18357 4588 8.4.1646 1556 1556 120 15245 4468 183 57 4588 8.4.4-4 1556 1556 120 15245 4468 18357 4588 8.4.8-8 1556 1556 120 15245 4468 18357 4588 8.8.00 1559 1559 120 15223 4461 18341 4581 8.8.1242 1559 1559 120 15223 4461 18341 4581 8.8.16-16 1559 1559 120 15223 4461 18341 4581 8.8.4-4 1559 1559 120 15223 4461 18341 4581 8.8.8-8 1559 1559 120 15223 4461 18341 4581 12.0.00 1544 1544 119 15407 4515 18495 4634 12.0.12-12 1543 1543 119 15422 4520 18508 4639 12.0.16-16 1543 1543 119 15422 4520 18508 4639 12.0.4-4 1543 1543 119 15422 4520 18508 4639 12.0.8-8 1543 1543 119 15422 4520 18508 4639 12.12.00 1558 1558 120 15234 4465 18350 4585 12.12.12-12 1558 1558 120 15241 4467 18357 4587 12.12.1646 1558 1558 120 15241 4467 18357 4587 12.12.44 1558 1558 120 15241 4467 18357 4587 12.12.8-8 1558 1558 120 15241 4467 18357 4587 12.16.00 1559 1559 120 15235 4465 18353 4585 12.16.12-12 1559 1559 120 15235 4465 18353 4585 12.16.1646 1559 1559 120 15235 4465 18353 4585 12.16.44 1559 1559 120 15235 4465 18353 4585 12.16.8-8 1559 1559 120 15235 4465 18353 4585 12.4.00 1549 1549 119 15290 4481 18388 4600 145 1 WINDOW OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Depth. 522;: Cooling Unit 32$; :33; TOTAL row. height. Coil Load Eqpt. Cool. Coil Load Coil Input LOAD INPUT edges Load Input (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 12.4.12-12 1549 1549 119 15289 4481 18387 4600 12.4.16-16 1549 1549 119 15289 4481 18387 4600 12.4.4-4 1549 1549 119 15289 4481 18387 4600 12.4.8-8 1549 1549 119 15289 4481 18387 4600 12.8.00 1554 1554 120 15250 4469 18358 4589 12.8.12-12 1554 1554 120 15238 4466 18346 4586 12.8.16-16 1554 1554 120 15238 4466 18346 4586 12.8.4-4 1554 1554 120 15238 4466 18346 4586 12.8.8-8 1554 1554 120 15238 4466 18346 4586 16.0.00 1539 1539 119 15389 4510 18467 4629 16.0.12-12 1538 1538 119 15383 4508 18459 4627 16.0.16-16 1538 1538 119 15383 4508 18459 4627 16.0.44 1537 1537 119 15383 4508 18457 4627 16.0.8-8 1538 1538 119 15383 4508 18459 4627 16.12.00 1552 1552 120 15238 4466 18342 4586 16.12.12-12 1551 1551 120 15242 4467 18344 4587 16.12.16-16 1551 1551 120 15242 4467 18344 4587 16.12.4-4 1551 1551 120 15242 4467 18344 4587 16.12.8-8 1551 1551 120 15242 4467 18344 4587 16.16.00 1556 1556 120 15242 4467 18354 4587 16.16.12-12 1556 1556 120 15229 4463 18341 4583 16.16.16-16 1556 1556 120 15229 4463 18341 4583 16.16.44 1556 1556 120 15229 4463 18341 4583 16.16.8-8 1556 1556 120 15229 4463 18341 4583 16.4.00 1543 1543 119 15402 4514 18488 4633 16.4.1242 1542 1542 119 15402 4514 18486 4633 16.4.16-16 1542 1542 119 15402 4514 18486 4633 16.4.4-4 1542 1542 119 15402 4514 18486 4633 16.4.8-8 1542 1542 119 15402 4514 18486 4633 16.8.00 1548 1548 119 15295 4483 18391 4602 16.8.12-12 1547 1547 119 15305 4486 18399 4605 16.8.16-16 1547 1547 119 15305 4486 18399 4605 16.8.44 1547 1547 119 15305 4486 18399 4605 16.8.8-8 1547 1547 119 15305 4486 18399 4605 20.0.00 1532 1532 118 15420 4519 18484 4637 146 1 WINDOW OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Depth. 222;: Cooling Unit :23: 32:; TOTAL TOTAL height. Coil Load Eqpt. Cool. Coil Load Coil Input LOAD INPUT edges Load Input (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 20.0.12-12 1530 1530 118 15365 4503 18425 462 1 20.0.16-16 1530 1530 118 15365 4503 18425 462 1 20.0.44 1530 1530 118 15374 4506 18434 4624 20.0.8-8 1530 1530 118 15365 4503 18425 4621 20.12.00 1547 1547 119 15291 4481 18385 4600 20.12.12-12 1546 1546 119 15283 4479 18375 4598 20.12.16-16 1546 1546 119 15283 4479 18375 4598 20.12.4-4 1546 1546 119 15273 4476 18365 4595 20.12.8-8 1546 1546 119 15283 4479 18375 4598 20.16.00 1550 1550 119 15251 4470 18351 4589 20.16.12-12 1549 1549 119 15241 4467 18339 4586 20.16.16-16 1549 1549 119 15241 4467 18339 4586 20.16.44 1549 1549 119 15239 4466 18337 4585 20.16.88 1549 1549 119 15241 4467 18339 4586 20.4.00 1538 1538 119 15394 4512 18470 4631 20.4.12-12 1537 1537 118 15387 4510 18461 4628 20.4.1646 1537 1537 118 15387 4510 18461 4628 20.4.4-4 1537 1537 118 15403 4514 18477 4632 20.4.8-8 1537 1537 118 15387 4510 18461 4628 20.8.00 1542 1542 119 15331 4493 18415 4612 20.8.12-12 1542 1542 119 15323 4491 18407 4610 20.8.16-16 1542 1542 119 15323 4491 18407 4610 20.8.4-4 1542 1542 119 15312 4487 18396 4606 20.8.8-8 1542 1542 119 15323 4491 18407 4610 24.0.00 1528 1528 118 15371 4505 18427 4623 24.0.12-12 1526 1526 118 15367 4504 18419 4622 24.0.16-16 1526 1526 118 15367 4504 18419 4622 24.0.4-4 1526 1526 118 15388 4510 18440 4628 24.0.8-8 1526 1526 118 15367 4504 18419 4622 24.12.00 1543 1543 119 15321 4490 18407 4609 24.12.12-12 1541 1541 119 15339 4495 18421 4614 24.12.16-16 1541 1541 119 15339 4495 18421 4614 24.12.44 1542 1542 119 15300 4484 18384 4603 24.12.8-8 1541 1541 119 15338 4495 18420 4614 24.16.00 1547 1547 119 15252 4470 18346 4589 147 1 WINDOW OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Depth. 3;: Cooling Unit 52:3; :23: TOTAL TOTAL 23:: Coil Load :12: 2':th Coll Load Coil Input LOAD 'NPUT (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 24.16.1242 1545 1545 119 15268 4475 18358 4594 24.16.1646 1545 1545 119 15268 4475 18358 4594 24.16.44 1546 1546 119 15243 4467 18335 4586 24.16.8-8 1545 1545 119 15265 4474 18355 4593 24.4.00 1532 1532 118 15379 4507 18443 4625 24.4.1242 1529 1529 118 15337 4495 18395 4613 24.4.1646 1529 1529 118 15337 4495 18395 4613 24.4.44 1530 1530 118 15361 4502 18421 4620 24.4.88 1529 1529 118 15337 4495 18395 4613 24.8.00 1538 1538 119 15354 4500 18430 4619 24.8.1242 1536 1536 118 15362 4502 18434 4620 24.8.1646 1536 1536 118 15355 4500 18427 4618 24.8.4-4 1536 1536 118 15379 4507 18451 4625 24.8.88 1529 1529 118 15337 4495 18395 4613 28.0.00 1523 1523 118 15347 4498 18393 4616 28.0.1242 1521 1521 117 15317 4489 18359 4606 28.0.1646 1521 1521 117 15317 4489 18359 4606 28.0.44 1522 1522 117 15308 4486 18352 4603 28.0.8-8 1521 1521 117 15336 4494 18378 4611 28.12.00 1538 1538 119 15353 4500 18429 4619 28.12.1242 1535 1535 118 15326 4492 18396 4610 28.12.1646 1535 1535 118 15326 4492 18396 4610 28.12.44 1536 1536 118 15346 4497 18418 4615 28.12.8-8 1535 1535 118 15337 4495 18407 4613 28.16.00 1542 1542 119 15308 4486 18392 4605 28.16.1242 1540 1540 119 15291 4481 18371 4600 28.16.1646 1540 1540 119 15291 4481 18371 4600 28.16.44 1541 1541 119 15297 4483 18379 4602 28.16.8-8 1540 1540 119 15286 4480 18366 4599 28.4.00 1529 1529 118 15321 4490 18379 4608 28.4.1242 1526 1526 118 15375 4506 18427 4624 28.4.1646 1526 1526 118 15375 4506 18427 4624 28.4.44 1527 1527 118 15359 4501 18413 4619 28.4.8-8 1526 1526 118 15370 4505 18422 4623 28.8.00 1532 1532 118 15354 4500 18418 4618 148 1 WINDOW OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Depth. 33;: Cooling Unit :23; :3; TOTAL TOTAL Egg? Coil Load Egg: 5:)th Coil Load Coil Input LOAD INPUT (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 28.8.1242 1530 1530 118 15373 4505 18433 4623 28.8.1646 1530 1530 118 15373 4505 18433 4623 28.8.44 1530 1530 118 15336 4494 18396 4612 28.8.8-8 1530 1530 118 15379 4507 18439 4625 32.0.00 1521 1521 117 15305 4486 18347 4603 32.0.1242 1518 1518 117 15359 4501 18395 4618 32.0.1646 1518 1518 117 15356 4500 18392 4617 32.0.4-4 1519 1519 117 15362 4502 18400 4619 32.0.8-8 1519 1519 117 15358 4501 18396 4618 32.12.00 1532 1532 118 15321 4490 18385 4608 32.12.1242 1529 1529 118 15322 4490 18380 4608 32.12.1646 1529 1529 118 15322 4490 18380 4608 32.12.44 1531 1531 118 15325 4491 18387 4609 32.12.8-8 1530 1530 118 15329 4492 18389 4610 32.16.00 1538 1538 119 15321 4490 18397 4609 32.16.1242 1535 1535 118 15334 4494 18404 4612 32.16.1646 1535 1535 118 15314 4488 18384 4606 32.16.44 1537 1537 118 15304 4485 18378 4603 32.16.88 1535 1535 118 15325 4491 18395 4609 32.4.00 1525 1525 118 15363 4503 18413 4621 32.4.1242 1522 1522 117 15355 4500 18399 4617 32.4.1646 1521 1521 117 15334 4494 18376 4611 324.44 1522 1522 117 15388 4510 18432 4627 32.4.8-8 1521 1521 117 15346 4498 18388 4615 32.8.00 1530 1530 118 15322 4490 18382 4608 32.8.1242 1526 1526 118 15369 4504 18421 4622 32.8.1646 1526 1526 118 15367 4504 18419 4622 32.8.4-4 1528 1528 118 15344 4497 18400 4615 32.8.8-8 1527 1527 118 15314 4488 18368 4606 36.0.00 1520 1520 117 15285 4480 18325 4597 36.0.1242 1515 1515 117 15372 4505 18402 4622 36.0.1646 1515 1515 117 15376 4506 18406 4623 36.0.44 1517 1517 117 15345 4497 18379 4614 36.0.8-8 1515 1515 117 15350 4499 18380 4616 36.12.00 1531 1531 118 15318 4489 18380 4607 149 1 WINDOW OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Depth. 532;: Cooling Unit :23: 5:23;; TOTAL TOTAL hai‘m' Coil Load Eqpt' cm" Coil Load Coil Input LOAD "m” edges Load Input (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 36.12.1242 1526 1526 118 15354 4500 18406 4618 36.12.1646 1527 1527 118 15364 4503 18418 4621 36.12.44 1528 1528 118 15343 4497 18399 4615 36.12.88 1527 1527 118 15350 4499 18404 4617 36.16.00 1534 1534 118 15312 4488 18380 4606 36.16.1242 1530 1530 118 15306 4486 18366 4604 36.16.1646 1530 1530 118 15306 4486 18366 4604 36.16.44 1532 1532 118 15326 4492 18390 4610 36.16.8-8 1531 1531 118 15319 4490 18381 4608 36.4.00 1522 1522 117 15382 4508 18426 4625 36.4.1242 1519 1519 117 15392 4511 18430 4628 36.4.1646 1518 1518 117 15380 4507 18416 4624 36.4.44 1520 1520 117 15366 4503 18406 4620 36.4.8-8 1519 1519 117 15375 4506 18413 4623 36.8.00 1526 1526 118 15372 4505 18424 4623 36.8.1242 1522 1522 117 15363 4503 18407 4620 36.8.1646 1522 1522 117 15372 4505 18416 4622 36.8.44 1524 1524 118 15364 4503 18412 4621 36.8.8-8 1521 1521 117 15348 4498 18390 4615 40.0.00 1518 1518 117 15346 4497 18382 4614 40.0.1242 1513 1513 117 15354 4500 18380 4617 40.0.1646 1512 1512 117 15341 4496 18365 4613 40.0.44 1515 1515 117 15366 4503 18396 4620 40.0.38 1514 1514 117 15361 4502 18389 4619 40.12.00 1528 1528 118 15325 4491 18381 4609 40.12.1242 1522 1522 117 15312 4488 18356 4605 40.12.1646 1523 1523 117 15328 4492 18374 4609 40.12.44 1525 1525 118 15348 4498 18398 4616 40.12.8-8 1524 1524 118 15341 4496 18389 4614 40.16.00 1531 1531 118 15316 4489 18378 4607 40.16.1242 1527 1527 118 15328 4492 18382 4610 40.16.1646 1526 1526 118 15346 4498 18398 4616 40.16.44 1529 1529 118 15337 4495 18395 4613 40.16.88 1528 1528 118 15357 4501 18413 4619 40.4.00 1521 1521 117 15380 4507 18422 4624 150 1 WINDOW OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Depth. 32;: Cooling Unit :23; figs; TOTAL TOTAL height. Coil Load Eqpt. Cool. Coil Load Coil Input LOAD INPUT edge: Load Input (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 40.4.12-12 1516 1516 117 15342 4496 18374 4613 40.4.1646 1515 1515 117 15339 4496 18369 4613 40.4.4-4 1518 1518 117 15389 4510 18425 4627 40.4.8-8 1516 1516 117 15356 4501 18388 4618 40.8.00 1523 1523 117 15387 4509 18433 4626 40.8.12-12 1519 1519 117 15392 4511 18430 4628 40.8.16-16 1518 1518 117 15347 4498 18383 4615 40.8.4-4 1521 1521 117 15356 4500 18398 4617 40.8.8-8 1518 1518 117 15378 4507 18414 4624 44.0.00 1516 1516 117 15357 4501 18389 4618 44.0.1242 1511 1511 117 15405 4515 18427 4632 44.0.16-16 1510 1510 117 15399 4513 18419 4630 44.0.4-4 1514 1514 117 15362 4502 18390 4619 44.0.8-8 1512 1512 117 15382 4508 18406 4625 44.12.00 1526 1526 118 15332 4493 18384 4611 44.12.12-12 1519 1519 117 15374 4506 18412 4623 44.12.16-16 1520 1520 117 15334 4494 18374 4611 44.12.44 1523 1523 117 15367 4504 18413 4621 44.12.8-8 1520 1520 117 15409 4516 18449 4633 44.16.00 1529 1529 118 15269 4475 18327 4593 44.16.12-12 1523 1523 117 15319 4490 18365 4607 44.16.1646 1522 1522 117 15343 4496 18387 4613 44.16.44 1527 1527 118 15320 4490 18374 4608 44.16.8-8 1525 1525 118 15332 4493 18382 4611 44.4.00 1519 1519 117 15378 4507 18416 4624 44.4.12-12 1513 1513 117 15414 4517 18440 4634 44.4.16-16 1513 1513 117 15388 4510 18414 4627 44.4.4-4 1517 1517 117 15309 4486 18343 4603 44.4.8-8 1515 1515 117 15392 4511 18422 4628 44.8.00 1522 1522 117 15392 4511 18436 4628 44.8.12-12 1516 1516 117 15374 4506 18406 4623 44.8.16-16 1516 1516 117 15382 4508 18414 4625 44.8.44 1518 1518 117 15419 4519 18455 4636 44.8.8-8 1517 1517 117 15346 4497 18380 4614 48.0.00 1515 1515 117 15373 4505 18403 4622 151 1 WINDOW OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Depth. 323:; Cooling Unit 3:3: :23: TOTAL TOTAL height. Coil Load Eqpt. Cool. Coll Load Coll Input LOAD INPUT edges Load Input (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 48.0.1242 1510 1510 117 15458 4530 18478 4647 48.0.1646 1508 1508 116 15481 4537 18497 4653 48.0.44 1513 1513 117 15412 4517 18438 4634 48.0.84 1511 1511 117 15461 4531 18483 4648 48.12.00 1524 1524 118 15380 4507 18428 4625 48.12.1242 1517 1517 117 15398 4513 18432 4630 48.12.1646 1516 1516 117 15415 4518 18447 4635 48.12.44 1520 1520 117 15394 4511 18434 4628 48.12.38 1518 1518 117 15401 4513 18437 4630 48.16.00 1527 1527 118 15315 4488 18369 4606 48.16.1242 1520 1520 117 15301 4484 18341 4601 48.16.1646 1519 1519 117 15312 4487 18350 4604 48.16.44 1524 1524 118 15303 4485 18351 4603 48.16.8-8 1521 1521 117 15289 4481 18331 4598 48.4.00 1518 1518 117 15364 4503 18400 4620 48.4.1242 1512 1512 117 15435 4524 18459 4641 48.4.1646 1511 1511 117 15408 4516 18430 4633 48.4.44 1515 1515 117 15372 4505 18402 4622 48.4.8-8 1513 1513 117 15406 4515 18432 4632 48.8.00 1520 1520 117 15383 4508 18423 4625 48.8.1242 1514 1514 117 15388 4510 18416 4627 48.8.1646 1514 1514 117 15383 4508 18411 4625 48.13.44 1518 1518 117 15373 4505 18409 4622 48.8.8-8 1516 1516 117 15412 4517 18444 4634 52.0.00 1515 1515 117 15357 4501 18387 4618 52.0.1242 1509 1509 116 15463 4532 18481 4648 52.0.1646 1507 1507 116 15476 4535 18490 4651 52.0.44 1512 1512 117 15463 4532 18487 4649 52.0.8-8 1510 1510 117 15465 4532 18485 4649 52.12.00 1522 1522 117 15422 4520 18466 4637 52.12.1242 1515 1515 117 15394 4511 18424 4628 52.12.1646 1514 1514 117 15441 4525 18469 4642 52.12.44 1522 1522 117 15422 4520 18466 4637 52.12.8-8 1517 1517 117 15354 4500 18388 4617 52.16.00 1526 1526 118 15349 4498 18401 4616 152 1 WINDOW OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Depth. 222;: Cooling Unit :23; 32:3; TOTAL TOTAL height. Coil Load Eqpt. Cool. CoII Load Coil Input LOAD INPUT edges Load Input (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 52.16.1242 1518 1518 117 15387 4509 18423 4626 52.16.16-16 1517 1517 117 15379 4507 18413 4624 52.16.44 1520 1520 117 15399 4513 18439 4630 52.16.8-8 1519 1519 117 15386 4509 18424 4626 52.4.00 1518 1518 117 15361 4502 18397 4619 52.4.12-12 1510 1510 117 15435 4524 18455 4641 52.4.16-16 1510 1510 117 15422 4520 18442 4637 52.4.4-4 1514 1514 117 15395 4512 18423 4629 52.4.8-8 1512 1512 117 15393 4511 18417 4628 52.8.00 1520 1520 117 15387 4509 18427 4626 52.8.1242 1512 1512 117 15404 4514 18428 4631 52.8.1646 1512 1512 117 15423 4520 18447 4637 52.8.4-4 1517 1517 117 15347 4498 18381 4615 52.8.8-8 1515 1515 117 15346 4497 18376 4614 56.0.00 1514 1514 117 15426 4521 18454 4638 56.0.1242 1508 1508 116 15485 4538 18501 4654 56.0.16-16 1507 1507 116 15485 4538 18499 4654 56.0.44 1512 1512 117 15501 4543 18525 4660 56.0.8-8 1510 1510 117 15484 4538 18504 4655 56.12.00 1522 1522 117 15377 4506 18421 4623 56.12.12-12 1514 1514 117 15430 4522 18458 4639 56.12.16-16 1513 1513 117 15389 4510 18415 4627 56.12.44 1518 1518 117 15396 4512 18432 4629 56.12.8-8 1516 1516 117 15405 4515 18437 4632 56.16.00 1523 1523 118 15340 4496 18386 4614 56.16.1242 1516 1516 117 15442 4526 18474 4643 56.16.1646 1515 1515 117 15398 4513 18428 4630 56.16.4-4 1520 1520 117 15399 4513 18439 4630 56.16.8-8 1518 1518 117 15403 4514 18439 4631 56.4.00 1517 1517 117 15370 4504 18404 4621 56.4.12-12 1510 1510 117 15469 4533 18489 4650 56.4.1646 1508 1508 116 15485 4538 18501 4654 56.4.44 1513 1513 117 15404 4515 18430 4632 56.4.8-8 1511 1511 117 15427 4521 18449 4638 56.8.00 1520 1520 117 15369 4504 18409 4621 153 1 WINDOW OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Depth. 5:23;; Cooling Unit 3:23;; :23: TOTAL TOTAL height. Coil Load Eqpt. Cool. Coil Load Coil Input LOAD INPUT edges Load Input (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 56.8.12-12 1512 1512 117 15400 4513 18424 4630 56.8.1646 1511 1511 117 15409 4516 18431 4633 56.8.44 1517 1517 117 15348 4498 18382 4615 56.8.8-8 1514 1514 117 15378 4507 18406 4624 60.0.00 1514 1514 117 15459 4531 18487 4648 60.0.1242 1507 1507 116 15504 4544 18518 4660 60.0.16-16 1506 1506 116 15495 4541 18507 4657 60.0.4-4 1511 1511 117 15504 4544 18526 4661 60.0.8-8 1510 1510 117 15496 4541 18516 4658 60.12.00 1521 1521 117 15412 4517 18454 4634 60.12.12-12 1513 1513 117 15420 4519 18446 4636 60.12.1646 1512 1512 117 15417 4518 18441 4635 60.12.44 1518 1518 117 15420 4519 18456 4636 60.12.8-8 1516 1516 117 15367 4504 18399 4621 60.16.00 1523 1523 117 15372 4505 18418 4622 60.16.12-12 1515 1515 117 15409 4516 18439 4633 60.16.16-16 1514 1514 117 15416 4518 18444 4635 60.16.4-4 1519 1519 117 15417 4518 18455 4635 60.16.8-8 1517 1517 117 15410 4516 18444 4633 60.4.00 1517 1517 117 15332 4493 18366 4610 60.4.12-12 1510 1510 117 15487 4539 18507 4656 60.4.16-16 1508 1508 116 15461 4531 18477 4647 60.4.4-4 1513 1513 117 15426 4521 18452 4638 60.4.8-8 1511 1511 117 15501 4543 18523 4660 60.8.00 1519 1519 117 15341 4496 18379 4613 60.8.1242 1511 1511 117 15414 4517 18436 4634 60.8.1646 1510 1510 117 15458 4530 18478 4647 60.8.44 1516 1516 117 15376 4506 18408 4623 60.8.8-8 1513 1513 117 15433 4523 18459 4640 MINIMUM 18325 MAX 18528 154 C.2 Single-Space Analysis B Results. 2 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Central Central 3:22? Cooling Cooling Unit Heating :23; TOTAL TOTAL edges Coil Eqpt. Cooling Coil Coil Input LOAD INPUT Load Load Input Load (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 0.0.00 2120 2120 161 14785 4333 19025 4494 4.0.00 1840 1840 140 15081 4420 18761 4560 4.0.1242 1840 1840 140 15081 4420 18761 4560 4.0.16-16 1840 1840 140 15081 4420 18761 4560 4.0.4-4 1840 1840 140 15081 4420 18761 4560 4.0.8-8 1840 1840 140 15081 4420 18761 4560 4.12.00 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.12.12-12 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.12.16-16 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.12.44 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.12.8-8 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.16.00 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.16.12-12 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.16.16-16 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.16.4-4 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.16.8-8 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.4.00 1848 1848 141 15036 4407 18732 4548 4.4.12-12 1848 1848 141 15036 4407 18732 4548 4.4.16-16 1848 1848 141 15036 4407 18732 4548 4.4.4-4 1848 1848 141 15036 4407 18732 4548 4.4.8-8 1848 1848 141 15036 4407 18732 4548 4.8.00 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.8.1242 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.8.1646 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.8.4-4 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 4.8.8-8 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 8.0.00 1821 1821 139 15055 4412 18697 4551 8.0.12-12 1821 1821 139 15051 4411 18693 4550 8.0.16-16 1821 1821 139 15051 4411 18693 4550 8.0.4-4 1821 1821 139 15051 4411 18693 4550 8.0.8-8 1821 1821 139 15051 4411 18693 4550 8.12.00 1850 1850 141 15045 4409 18745 4550 155 2 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth. Central Central Central Central Central height. Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL edges Coil Eqpt. Cooling COlI Coil Input LOAD INPUT Load Load Input Load (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 8.12.12-12 1850 1850 141 15045 4409 18745 4550 8.12.16-16 1850 1850 141 15045 4409 18745 4550 8.12.4-4 1850 1850 141 15045 4409 18745 4550 8.12.8-8 1850 1850 141 15045 4409 18745 4550 8.16.00 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 8.16.12-12 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 8.16.16-16 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 8.16.4-4 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 8.16.8-8 1852 1852 141 15032 4406 18736 4547 8.4.00 1833 1833 140 15073 4417 18739 4557 8.4.1242 1833 1833 140 15073 4417 18739 4557 8.4.16-16 1833 1833 140 15073 4417 18739 4557 8.4.4-4 1833 1833 140 15073 4417 18739 4557 8.4.8-8 1833 1833 140 15073 4417 18739 4557 8.8.00 1844 1844 141 15062 4414 18750 4555 8.8.1242 1844 1844 141 15062 4414 18750 4555 8.8.1646 1844 1844 141 15062 4414 18750 4555 8.8.4-4 1844 1844 141 15062 4414 18750 4555 8.8.8-8 1844 1844 141 15062 4414 18750 4555 12.0.00 1805 1805 138 15046 4410 18656 4548 12.0.12-12 1804 1804 138 15033 4406 18641 4544 12.0.1646 1804 1804 138 15033 4406 18641 4544 12.0.4-4 1804 1804 138 15033 4406 18641 4544 12.0.8-8 1804 1804 138 15033 4406 18641 4544 12.12.00 1838 1838 140 15057 4413 18733 4553 12.12.12-12 1838 1838 140 15057 4413 18733 4553 12.12.1646 1838 1838 140 15057 4413 18733 4553 12.12.4-4 1838 1838 140 15057 4413 18733 4553 12.12.8-8 1838 1838 140 15057 4413 18733 4553 12.16.00 1844 1844 141 15051 4411 18739 4552 12.16.1242 1844 1844 141 15052 4411 18740 4552 12.16.16-16 1844 1844 141 15052 4411 18740 4552 12.16.4-4 1844 1844 141 15052 4411 18740 4552 12.16.8-8 1844 1844 141 15052 4411 18740 4552 12.4.00 1818 1818 139 15039 4407 18675 4546 156 2 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET De pth. Central Central Central Central Central height. Cooling Cooling Unlt Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL edges Coil Eqpt. Cooling Coil Coil Input LOAD INPUT Load Load Input Load (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 12.4.12-12 1818 1818 139 15046 4409 18682 4548 12.4.1646 1818 1818 139 15046 4409 18682 4548 12.4.4-4 1818 1818 139 15046 4409 18682 4548 12.4.8-8 1818 1818 139 15046 4409 18682 4548 12.8.00 1828 1828 140 15043 4409 18699 4549 12.8.1242 1828 1828 140 15044 4409 18700 4549 12.8.16-16 1828 1828 140 15044 4409 18700 4549 12.8.4-4 1828 1828 140 15044 4409 18700 4549 12.8.8-8 1828 1828 140 15044 4409 18700 4549 16.0.00 1790 1790 137 15054 4412 18634 4549 16.0.12-12 1789 1789 137 15066 4415 18644 4552 16.0.16-16 1789 1789 137 15066 4415 18644 4552 16.0.4-4 1789 1789 137 15066 4415 18644 4552 16.0.8-8 1789 1789 137 15066 4415 18644 4552 16.12.00 1824 1824 139 15069 4416 18717 4555 16.12.12-12 1824 1824 139 15077 4419 18725 4558 16.12.16-16 1824 1824 139 15077 4419 18725 4558 16.12.4-4 1824 1824 139 . 15077 4419 18725 4558 16.12.8-8 1824 1824 139 15077 4419 18725 4558 16.16.00 1833 1833 140 15078 4419 18744 4559 16.16.1242 1832 1832 140 15078 4419 18742 4559 16.16.16-16 1832 1832 140 15078 4419 18742 4559 16.16.4-4 1832 1832 140 15078 4419 18742 4559 16.16.8-8 1832 1832 140 15078 4419 18742 4559 16.4.00 1802 1802 138 15010 4399 18614 4537 16.4.1242 1802 1802 138 15008 4398 18612 4536 16.4.16-16 1802 1802 138 15008 4398 18612 4536 16.4.4-4 1802 1802 138 15008 4398 18612 4536 16.4.8-8 1802 1802 138 15008 4398 18612 4536 16.8.00 1816 1816 139 15079 4419 18711 4558 16.8.1242 1815 1815 139 15070 4417 18700 4556 16.8.1646 1815 1815 139 15070 4417 18700 4556 16.8.44 1815 1815 139 15070 4417 18700 4556 16.8.88 1815 1815 139 15070 4417 18700 4556 20.0.00 1774 1774 136 15011 4399 18559 4535 157 2 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth. Central Central Central Central Central height. Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL edges Coil Eqpt. Cooling COII Coil Input LOAD INPUT Load Load Input Load (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 20.0.12-12 1773 1773 136 15018 4401 18564 4537 20.0.16-16 1773 1773 136 15018 4401 18564 4537 20.0.44 1773 1773 136 15029 4405 18575 4541 20.0.8-8 1773 1773 136 15018 4401 18564 4537 20.12.00 1812 1812 138 15043 4409 18667 4547 20.12.1242 1812 1812 138 15039 4407 18663 4545 20.12.16-16 1812 1812 138 15039 4407 18663 4545 20.12.44 1812 1812 138 15040 4408 18664 4546 20.12.8-8 1812 1812 138 15039 4407 18663 4545 20.16.00 1822 1822 139 15060 4414 18704 4553 20.16.12-12 1821 1821 139 15065 4415 18707 4554 20.16.16-16 1821 1821 139 15065 4415 18707 4554 20.16.44 1821 1821 139 15064 4415 18706 4554 20.16.8-8 1821 1821 139 15065 4415 18707 4554 20.4.00 1789 1789 137 15035 4406 18613 4543 20.4.12-12 1787 1787 137 15026 4404 18600 4541 20.4.16-16 1787 1787 137 15026 4404 18600 4541 20.4.44 1787 1787 137 15027 4404 18601 4541 20.4.8-8 1787 1787 137 15026 4404 18600 4541 20.8.00 1800 1800 138 15018 4401 18618 4539 20.8.1242 1798 1798 137 14994 4394 18590 4531 20.8.16-16 1798 1798 137 14994 4394 18590 4531 20.8.44 1799 1799 138 14996 4395 18594 4533 A 20.8.8-8 1798 1798 137 14994 4394 18590 4531 24.0.00 1765 1765 135 15135 4436 18665 4571 24.0.1242 1762 1762 135 15117 4430 18641 4565 24.0.1646 1762 1762 135 15117 4430 18641 4565 24.0.44 1763 1763 135 15128 4434 18654 4569 24.0.8-8 1762 1762 135 15117 4430 18641 4565 24.12.00 1800 1800 138 14993 4394 18593 4532 24.12.12-12 1797 1797 137 14988 4393 18582 4530 24.12.16-16 1797 1797 137 14988 4393 18582 4530 24.12.44 1798 1798 137 14985 4392 18581 4529 24.12.8-8 1797 1797 137 14988 4393 18582 4530 24.16.00 1811 1811 138 15026 4404 18648 4542 158 2 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth. Central Central Central Central Central height. Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL edges Coil Eqpt. Cooling Coil Coil Input LOAD INPUT Load Load Input Load (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 24.16.12-12 1809 1809 138 15018 4401 18636 4539 24.16.16-16 1809 1809 138 15018 4401 18636 4539 24.16.4-4 1810 1810 138 15020 4402 18640 4540 24.16.8-8 1809 1809 138 15018 4401 18636 4539 24.4.00 1775 1775 136 15030 4405 18580 4541 24.4.12-12 1772 1772 136 15041 4408 18585 4544 24.4.1646 1772 1772 136 15041 4408 18585 4544 24.4.4-4 1773 1773 136 15013 4400 18559 4536 24.4.8-8 1772 1772 136 15019 4402 18563 4538 24.8.00 1788 1788 137 15028 4404 18604 4541 24.8.12-12 1786 1786 137 15029 4405 18601 4542 24.8.1646 1786 1786 137 15027 4404 18599 4541 24.8.4-4 1787 1787 137 15042 4408 18616 4545 24.8.8-8 1772 1772 136 15019 4402 18563 4538 28.0.00 1753 1753 134 15181 4449 18687 4583 28.0.1242 1750 1750 134 15231 4464 18731 4598 28.0.1646 1750 1750 134 15240 4466 18740 4600 28.0.4-4 1751 1751 134 15261 4473 18763 4607 28.0.8-8 1750 1750 134 15235 4465 18735 4599 28.12.00 1786 1786 137 14989 4393 18561 4530 28.12.1242 1784 1784 136 15011 4399 18579 4535 28.12.1646 1784 1784 136 15011 4399 18579 4535 28.12.44 1785 1785 137 15014 4400 18584 4537 28.12.84 1785 1785 136 14998 4396 18568 4532 28.16.00 1798 1798 137 14979 4390 18575 4527 28.16.12-12 1796 1796 137 14983 4391 18575 4528 28.16.16-16 1796 1796 137 14983 4391 18575 4528 28.16.4-4 1797 1797 137 15004 4397 18598 4534 28.16.8-8 1796 1796 137 14983 4391 18575 4528 28.4.00 1766 1766 135 15039 4407 18571 4542 28.4.1242 1761 1761 135 15032 4405 18554 4540 28.4.16-16 1761 1761 135 15032 4405 18554 4540 28.4.4-4 1763 1763 135 15030 4405 18556 4540 28.4.8-8 1762 1762 135 15032 4405 18556 4540 28.8.00 1775 1775 136 15084 4421 18634 4557 159 2 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET De pth. Central Central Central Central Central height. Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL edges Coil Eqpt. Cooling Coil Coil Input LOAD INPUT Load Load Input Load (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 28.8.12-12 1772 1772 136 15042 4408 18586 4544 28.8.1646 1772 1772 136 15042 4408 18586 4544 28.8.4-4 1773 1773 136 15045 4409 18591 4545 28,8.8-8 1773 1773 136 15042 4408 18588 4544 32.0.00 1744 1744 134 15258 4472 18746 4606 32.0.12-12 1740 1740 133 15278 4478 18758 4611 32.0.16-16 1739 1739 133 15279 4478 18757 4611 32.0.44 1742 1742 133 15243 4467 18727 4600 32.0.8-8 1740 1740 133 15257 4471 18737 4604 32.12.00 1774 1774 136 15058 4413 18606 4549 32.12.1242 1771 1771 136 15044 4409 18586 4545 32.12.16-16 1771 1771 136 15039 4407 18581 4543 32.12.4-4 1772 1772 136 15031 4405 18575 4541 32.12.8-8 1772 1772 136 15029 4405 18573 4541 32.16.00 1785 1785 137 14966 4386 18536 4523 32.16.12—12 1783 1783 136 15005 4398 18571 4534 32.16.16-16 1782 1782 136 15005 4398 18569 4534 32.16.4-4 1784 1784 136 14999 4396 18567 4532 32.16.8-8 1783 1783 136 15002 4397 18568 4533 32.4.00 1754 1754 134 15169 4446 18677 4580 32.4.1242 1749 1749 134 15148 4439 18646 4573 32.4.16-16 1749 1749 134 15144 4438 18642 4572 32.4.4-4 1752 1752 134 15152 4441 18656 4575 32.4.8-8 1750 1750 134 15127 4433 18627 4567 32.8.00 1766 1766 135 15041 4408 18573 4543 32.8.12-12 1761 1761 135 15031 4405 18553 4540 32.8.16-16 1761 1761 135 15062 4414 18584 4549 32.8.4-4 1764 1764 135 15020 4402 18548 4537 32.8.8-8 1762 1762 135 15020 4402 18544 4537 36.0.00 1738 1738 133 15311 4487 18787 4620 36.0.1242 1732 1732 133 15353 4499 18817 4632 36.0.16-16 1732 1732 133 15334 4494 18798 4627 36.0.4-4 1735 1735 133 15313 4488 18783 4621 36.0.8-8 1733 1733 133 15319 4489 18785 4622 36.12.00 1767 1767 135 15046 4410 18580 4545 160 2 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Central Central 3:23;: Cooling Cooling Unit Heating :23; TOTAL TOTAL edges Coil Eqpt. Cooling Coil Coil Input LOAD INPUT Load Load Input Load (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 36.12.12-12 1762 1762 135 15060 4414 18584 4549 36.12.16-16 1761 1761 135 15065 4415 18587 4550 36.12.4-4 1765 1765 135 15040 4408 18570 4543 36.12.8-8 1763 1763 135 15041 4408 18567 4543 36.16.00 1775 1775 136 15053 4411 18603 4547 36.16.12-12 1770 1770 135 15072 4417 18612 4552 36.16.16-16 1770 1770 135 15084 442 1 18624 4556 36.16.44 1773 1773 136 15057 4413 18603 4549 36.16.8-8 1771 1771 136 15074 4418 18616 4554 36.4.00 1747 1747 134 15185 4450 18679 4584 36.4.12-12 1740 1740 133 15176 4448 18656 4581 36.4.16-16 1740 1740 133 15184 4450 18664 4583 36.4.4-4 1744 1744 134 15162 4444 18650 4578 36.4.8-8 1742 1742 133 15167 4445 18651 4578 36.8.00 1756 1756 134 15116 4430 18628 4564 36.8.12-12 1751 1751 134 15110 4428 18612 4562 36.8.16-16 1750 1750 134 15138 4436 18638 4570 36.8.4-4 1753 1753 134 15136 4436 18642 4570 36.8.8-8 1752 1752 134 15158 4443 18662 4577 40.0.00 1730 1730 133 15369 4504 18829 4637 40.0.12-12 1723 1723 132 15403 4514 18849 4646 40.0.1646 1723 1723 132 15403 4514 18849 4646 40.0.44 1728 1728 132 15339 4495 18795 4627 40.0.8-8 1724 1724 132 15377 4506 18825 4638 40.12.00 1759 1759 135 15065 4415 18583 4550 40.12.12-12 1752 1752 134 15130 4434 18634 4568 40.12.16-16 1751 1751 134 15149 4440 18651 4574 40.12.44 1756 1756 134 15088 4422 18600 4556 40.12.8-8 1753 1753 134 15144 4438 18650 4572 40.16.00 1769 1769 135 15015 4401 18553 4536 40.16.12-12 1763 1763 135 15031 4405 18557 4540 40.16.1646 1761 1761 135 15028 4404 18550 4539 40.16.44 1765 1765 135 15007 4398 18537 4533 40.16.8-8 1764 1764 135 15028 4404 18556 4539 40.4.00 1740 1740 133 15284 4479 18764 4612 161 2 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth. Central Central Central Central Central height. Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL edges Coil Eqpt. Cooling Coil Coil Input LOAD INPUT Load Load Input Load (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 40.4.1242 1734 1734 133 15291 4481 18759 4614 40.4.1646 1733 1733 133 15328 4492 18794 4625 40.4.4-4 1737 1737 133 15261 4473 18735 4606 40.4.8-8 1735 1735 133 15300 4484 18770 4617 40.8.00 1749 1749 134 15168 4445 18666 4579 40.8.1242 1743 1743 134 15196 4453 18682 4587 40.8.1646 1741 1741 133 15198 4454 18680 4587 40.8.4-4 1746 1746 134 15165 4444 18657 4578 40.8.8-8 1745 1745 134 15174 4447 18664 4581 44.0.00 1723 1723 132 15402 4514 18848 4646 44.0.1242 1715 1715 132 15434 4523 18864 4655 44.0.1646 1715 1715 132 15438 4524 18868 4656 44.0.4-4 1720 1720 132 15420 4519 18860 4651 44.0.8-8 1716 1716 132 15373 4505 18805 4637 44.12.00 1751 1751 134 15150 4440 18652 4574 44.12.1242 1745 1745 134 15163 4444 18653 4578 44.12.1646 1743 1743 133 15165 4444 18651 4577 44.12.4-4 1748 1748 134 15120 4431 18616 4565 44.12.8-8 1745 1745 134 15143 4438 18633 4572 44.16.00 1760 1760 135 15080 4420 18600 4555 44.16.1242 1753 1753 134 15123 4432 18629 4566 44.16.1646 1752 1752 134 15141 4438 18645 4572 44.16.44 1757 1757 135 15086 4421 18600 4556 44.16.8—8 1754 1754 134 15128 4434 18636 4568 44.4.00 1734 1734 133 15316 4489 18784 4622 44.4.1242 1726 1726 132 15353 4500 18805 4632 44.4.1646 1725 1725 132 15355 4500 18805 4632 44.4.44 1731 1731 133 15290 4481 18752 4614 44.4.8-8 1728 1728 132 15317 4489 18773 4621 44.8.00 1743 1743 134 15222 4461 18708 4595 44.8.1242 1736 1736 133 15226 4462 18698 4595 44.8.1646 1734 1734 133 15257 4471 18725 4604 44.8.44 1739 1739 133 15239 4466 18717 4599 44.8.8-8 1737 1737 133 15240 4466 18714 4599 48.0.00 1718 1718 132 15409 4516 18845 4648 162 2 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Central Central 33:12: Cooling Cooling Unit Heating xxx; TOTAL TOTAL edges Coil Eqpt. Cooling Coil Coil Input LOAD INPUT Load Load Input Load (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 48.0.1242 1710 1710 131 15459 4531 18879 4662 48.0.1646 1709 1709 131 15448 4527 18866 4658 48.0.4-4 1714 1714 132 15436 4524 18864 4656 48.0.8~8 1711 1711 131 15444 4526 18866 4657 48.12.00 1744 1744 134 15235 4465 18723 4599 48.12.1242 1737 1737 133 15240 4466 18714 4599 48.12.1646 1736 1736 133 15230 4463 18702 4596 48.12.4-4 1742 1742 133 15217 4460 18701 4593 48.12.8-8 1738 1738 133 15227 4463 18703 4596 48.16.00 1753 1753 134 15167 4445 18673 4579 48.16.1242 1745 1745 134 15123 4432 18613 4566 48.16.1646 1744 1744 134 15099 4425 18587 4559 48.16.44 1750 1750 134 15167 4445 18667 4579 48.16.8-8 1747 1747 134 15133 4435 18627 4569 48.4.00 1728 1728 133 15361 4502 18817 4635 48.4.1242 1719 1719 132 15476 4536 18914 4668 48.4.1646 1718 1718 132 15395 4512 18831 4644 48.4.44 1724 1724 132 15377 4507 18825 4639 48.4.8-8 1721 1721 132 15414 4517 18856 4649 48.8.00 1737 1737 133 15300 4484 18774 4617 48.8.1242 1728 1728 132 15331 4493 18787 4625 48.8.1646 1727 1727 132 15332 4493 18786 4625 48.8.44 1733 1733 133 15261 4472 18727 4605 48.8.8-8 1731 1731 133 15318 4489 18780 4622 52.0.00 1714 1714 131 15454 4529 18882 4660 52.0.1242 1707 1707 131 15480 4537 18894 4668 52.0.1646 1706 1706 131 15453 4529 18865 4660 52.0.44 1710 1710 131 15484 4538 18904 4669 52.0.8-8 1708 1708 131 15459 4531 18875 4662 52.12.00 1739 1739 133 15220 4461 18698 4594 52.12.1242 1730 1730 133 15285 4480 18745 4613 52.12.1646 1729 1729 133 15279 4478 18737 4611 52.12.44 1739 1739 133 15220 4461 18698 4594 52.12.8-8 1732 1732 133 15305 4485 18769 4618 52.16.00 1748 1748 134 15196 4454 18692 4588 163 2 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Central Central :33? Cooling Cooling Unit Heating :23; TOTAL TOTAL edges Coil Eqpt. Cooling Coil Coil Input LOAD INPUT Load Load Input Load (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 52.16.1242 1739 1739 133 15235 4465 18713 4598 52.16.1646 1738 1738 133 15249 4469 18725 4602 52.16.4-4 1738 1738 133 15183 4450 18659 4583 52.16.8-8 1742 1742 133 15200 4455 18684 4588 52.4.00 1722 1722 132 15376 4506 18820 4638 52.4.1242 1712 1712 131 15468 4533 18892 4664 52.4.1646 1711 1711 131 15449 4528 18871 4659 52.4.44 1717 1717 132 15386 4509 18820 4641 52.4.8-8 1715 1715 132 15371 4505 18801 4637 52.8.00 1732 1732 133 15304 4485 18768 4618 52.8.1242 1723 1723 132 15363 4502 18809 4634 52.8.1646 1721 1721 132 15391 4511 18833 4643 52.8.44 1728 1728 132 15329 4493 18785 4625 52.8.8-8 1725 1725 132 15353 4500 18803 4632 56.0.00 1711 1711 131 15443 4526 18865 4657 56.0.1242 1704 1704 131 15402 4514 18810 4645 56.0.1646 1704 1704 131 15415 4518 18823 4649 56.0.4-4 1708 1708 131 15439 4525 18855 4656 56.0.8-8 1705 1705 131 15436 4524 18846 4655 56.12.00 1735 1735 133 15284 4479 18754 4612 56.12.1242 1725 1725 132 15354 4500 18804 4632 56.12.1646 1723 1723 132 15318 4489 18764 4621 56.12.4-4 1731 1731 133 15296 4483 18758 4616 56.12.8-8 1727 1727 132 15304 4485 18758 4617 56.16.00 1742 1742 133 15207 4457 18691 4590 56.16.1242 1733 1733 133 15293 4482 18759 4615 56.16.1646 1731 1731 133 15316 4489 18778 4622 56.16.4-4 1738 1738 133 15183 4450 18659 4583 56.16.8-8 1735 1735 133 15212 4458 18682 4591 56.4.00 1718 1718 132 15462 4532 18898 4664 56.4.1242 1708 1708 131 15473 4535 18889 4666 56.4.1646 1707 1707 131 15502 4543 18916 4674 56.4.4-4 1713 1713 131 15517 4548 18943 4679 56.4.8-8 1711 1711 131 15486 4539 18908 4670 56.8.00 1726 1726 132 15385 4509 18837 4641 164 2 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth. Central Central Central Central Central height. Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL edges Coil Eqpt. Cooling Cori Coil Input LOAD INPUT Load Load Input Load (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 56.8.1242 1715 _ 1715 132 15444 4526 18874 4658 56.8.1646 1713 1713 131 15391 4511 18817 4642 56.8.44 1721 1721 132 15389 4510 18831 4642 56.8.8-8 1716 1716 132 15443 4526 18875 4658 60.0.00 1710 1710 131 15408 4516 18828 4647 60.0.1242 1702 1702 131 15447 4527 18851 4658 60.0.1646 1701 1701 131 15421 4519 18823 4650 60.0.4-4 1706 1706 131 15414 4517 18826 4648 60.0.8-8 1703 1703 131 15385 4509 18791 4640 60.12.00 1730 1730 133 15294 4482 18754 4615 60.12.1242 1717 1717 132 15384 4509 18818 4641 60.12.1646 1715 1715 132 15416 4518 18846 4650 60.12.44 1725 1725 132 15335 4494 18785 4626 60.12.8-8 1721 1721 132 15366 4503 18808 4635 60.16.00 1736 1736 133 15282 4479 18754 4612 60.16.1242 1726 1726 132 15342 4496 18794 4628 60.16.1646 1725 1725 132 15303 4485 18753 4617 60.16.44 1733 1733 133 15270 4475 18736 4608 60.16.84 1730 1730 133 15351 4499 18811 4632 60.4.00 1714 1714 131 15432 4523 18860 4654 60.4.1242 1706 1706 131 15433 4523 18845 4654 60.4.1646 1705 1705 131 15448 4527 18858 4658 60.4.4-4 1710 1710 131 15456 4530 18876 4661 60.4.88 1708 1708 131 15469 4533 18885 4664 60.8.00 1722 1722 132 15409 4516 18853 4648 60.8.1242 1711 1711 131 15462 4531 18884 4662 60.8.1646 1710 1710 131 15447 4527 18867 4658 60.8.44 1717 1717 132 15435 4523 18869 4655 60.8.8-8 1713 1713 131 15427 4521 18853 4652 MIN 18536 MAX 19025 165 C.3 Single-Space Analysis C Results. 5 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Central Central 33:3: Cooling $23: Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL Edges Coil Eq pt Load Cooling Coil Coil LOAD INPUT Load Input Load Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 0.0.00 3753 3753 274 14278 4184 21784 4458 4.0.00 2872 2872 214 14743 4321 20487 4535 4.0.1242 2872 2872 214 14743 4321 20487 4535 4.0.1646 2872 2872 214 14743 4321 20487 4535 4.0.4-4 2872 2872 214 14743 4321 20487 4535 4.0.8-8 2872 2872 214 14743 4321 20487 4535 4.12.00 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.12.1242 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.12.1646 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.12.44 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.12.8-8 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.16.00 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.16.1242 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.16.1646 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.16.4-4 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.16.8-8 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.4.00 2911 2911 216 14656 4295 20478 4511 4.4.1242 2911 2911 216 14656 4295 20478 4511 4.4.1646 2911 2911 216 14656 4295 20478 4511 4.4.4-4 2911 2911 216 14656 4295 20478 4511 4.4.8-8 2911 2911 216 14656 4295 20478 4511 4.8.00 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.8.1242 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.8.1646 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.8.4-4 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 4.8.8-8 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 8.0.00 2816 2816 210 14852 4353 20484 4563 8.0.1242 2815 2815 210 14852 4353 20482 4563 8.0.1646 2815 2815 210 14852 4353 20482 4563 8.0.4-4 2815 2815 210 14852 4353 20482 4563 8.0.8-8 2815 2815 210 14852 4353 20482 4563 8.12.00 2912 2912 216 14670 4299 20494 4515 166 5 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth _ Central Central Central Central Central l-leigh _ Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL Edges Coil Eqpt Load Cooling Coil Coil LOAD INPUT Load Input Load Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 8.12.1242 2912 2912 216 14670 4299 20494 4515 8.12.1646 2912 2912 216 14670 4299 20494 4515 8.12.44 2912 2912 216 14670 4299 20494 4515 8.12.8-8 2912 2912 216 14670 4299 20494 4515 8.16.00 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 8.16.1242 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 8.16.1646 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 8.16.44 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 8.16.8-8 2915 2915 217 14681 4303 20511 4520 8.4.00 2868 2868 213 14723 4315 20459 4528 8.4.1242 2868 2868 213 14723 4315 20459 4528 8.4.1646 2868 2868 213 14723 4315 20459 4528 8.4.4-4 2868 2868 213 14723 4315 20459 4528 8.4.8-8 2868 2868 213 14723 4315 20459 4528 8.8.00 2899 2899 215 14653 4295 20451 4510 8.8.1242 2899 2899 215 14653 4295 20451 4510 8.8.1646 2899 2899 215 14653 4295 20451 4510 8.8.4-4 2899 2899 215 14653 4295 20451 4510 8.8.8-8 2899 2899 215 14653 4295 20451 4510 12.0.00 2762 2762 206 14852 4353 20376 4559 12.0.1242 2762 2762 206 14871 4358 20395 4564 12.0.1646 2762 2762 206 14871 4358 20395 4564 12.0.4-4 2762 2762 206 14871 4358 20395 4564 12.0.8-8 2762 2762 206 14871 4358 20395 4564 12.12.00 2882 2882 214 14678 4302 20442 4516 12.12.1242 2882 2882 214 14676 4301 20440 4515 12.12.1646 2882 2882 214 14676 4301 20440 4515 12.12.44 2882 2882 214 14676 4301 20440 4515 12.12.8-8 - 2882 2882 214 14676 4301 20440 4515 12.16.00 2901 2901 216 14678 4302 20480 4518 12.16.1242 2901 2901 216 14679 4302 20481 4518 12.16.1646 2901 2901 216 14679 4302 20481 4518 12.16.44 2901 2901 216 14679 4302 20481 4518 12.16.8-8 2901 2901 216 14679 4302 20481 4518 12.4.00 2802 2802 209 14810 4340 20414 4549 167 5 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth _ Central Central Central Central Central Heigh _ Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL Edges Coil Eqpt Load Cooling Coil Coil LOAD INPUT Load Input Load Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 12.4.1242 2800 2800 209 14815 4342 20415 4551 12.4.1646 2800 2800 209 14815 4342 20415 4551 12.4.4-4 2800 2800 209 14815 4342 20415 4551 12.4.8-8 2800 2800 209 14815 4342 20415 4551 12.8.00 2854 2854 212 14655 4295 20363 4507 12.8.1242 2853 2853 212 14658 4296 20364 4508 12.8.1646 2853 2853 212 14658 4296 20364 4508 12.8.4-4 2853 2853 212 14658 4296 20364 4508 12.8.8-8 2853 2853 212 14658 4296 20364 4508 16.0.00 2711 2711 202 14958 4384 20380 4586 16.0.1242 2708 2708 202 14971 4388 20387 4590 16.0.1646 2708 2708 202 14971 4388 20387 4590 16.0.44 2709 2709 202 14973 4388 20391 4590 16.0.8-8 2708 2708 202 14971 4388 20387 4590 16.12.00 2835 2835 211 14654 4295 20324 4506 16.12.1242 2835 2835 211 14663 4297 20333 4508 16.12.1646 2835 2835 211 14663 4297 20333 4508 16.12.44 2834 2834 211 14662 4297 20330 4508 16.12.8-8 2835 2835 211 14663 4297 20333 4508 16.16.00 2869 2869 213 14659 4296 20397 4509 16.16.1242 2868 2868 213 14660 4296 20396 4509 16.16.1646 2868 2868 213 14660 4296 20396 4509 16.16.4-4 2868 2868 213 14660 4296 20396 4509 16.16.8-8 2868 2868 213 14660 4296 20396 4509 16.4.00 2753 2753 205 14833 4347 20339 4552 16.4.1242 2755 2755 205 14829 4346 20339 4551 16.4.1646 2755 2755 205 14829 4346 20339 4551 16.4.44 2754 2754 205 14830 4346 20338 4551 16.4.8-8 2755 2755 205 14829 4346 20339 4551 16.8.00 2793 2793 208 14796 4336 20382 4544 16.8.1242 2791 2791 208 14802 4338 20384 4546 16.8.1646 2791 2791 208 14802 4338 20384 4546 16.8.4-4 2791 2791 208 14802 4338 20384 4546 16.8.8-8 2791 2791 208 14802 4338 20384 4546 20.0.00 2657 2657 199 15033 4406 20347 4605 168 S WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Central Central Central Central :33: : Cooling 522:; Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL Edges Coil Eq pt Load Cooling COII COII LOAD INPUT Load Input Load Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 20.0.1242 2651 2651 198 15037 4407 20339 4605 20.0.1646 2651 2651 198 15037 4407 20339 4605 20.0.44 2652 2652 198 15049 4410 20353 4608 20.0.8-8 2651 2651 198 15037 4407 20339 4605 20.12.00 2798 2798 208 14697 4307 20293 4515 20.12.1242 2796 2796 208 14712 4312 20304 4520 20.12.1646 2796 2796 208 14712 4312 20304 4520 20.12.4-4 2796 2796 208 14712 4312 20304 4520 20.12.8-8 2796 2796 208 14712 4312 20304 4520 20.16.00 2823 2823 210 14660 4296 20306 4506 20.16.1242 2820 2820 210 14641 4291 20281 4501 20.16.1646 2820 2820 210 14641 4291 20281 4501 20.16.44 2820 2820 210 14641 4291 20281 4501 20.16.8-8 2820 2820 210 14641 4291 20281 4501 20.4.00 2712 2712 202 14854 4353 20278 4555 20.4.1242 2710 2710 202 14839 4349 20259 4551 20.4.1646 2710 2710 202 14839 4349 20259 4551 20.4.4-4 2711 2711 202 14863 4356 20285 4558 20.4.8-8 2710 2710 202 14839 4349 20259 4551 20.8.00 2757 2757 205 14720 4314 20234 4519 20.8.1242 2752 2752 205 14741 4320 20245 4525 20.8.1646 2752 2752 205 14741 4320 20245 4525 20.8.4-4 2752 2752 205 14752 4323 20256 4528 20.8.8-8 2752 2752 205 14741 4320 20245 4525 24.0.00 2614 2614 196 15032 4406 20260 4602 24.0.1242 2608 2608 195 15044 4409 20260 4604 24.0.1646 2608 2608 195 15044 4409 20260 4604 24.0.44 2610 2610 195 15021 4402 20241 4597 24.0.8-8 2608 2608 195 15033 4406 20249 4601 24.12.00 2749 2749 205 14667 4299 20165 4504 24.12.1242 2744 2744 205 14683 4303 20171 4508 24.12.1646 2744 2744 205 14683 4303 20171 4508 24.12.44 2748 2748 205 14674 4300 20170 4505 24.12.8-8 2745 2745 205 14675 4301 20165 4506 24.16.00 2786 2786 207 14755 4324 20327 4531 169 5 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth _ Central Central Central Central Central Heigh _ Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL Edges Coil Eqpt Load Cooling Coil Coil LOAD INPUT Load Input Load Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 24.16.1242 2784 2784 207 14710 4311 20278 4518 24.16.1646 2784 2784 207 14710 4311 20278 4518 24.16.44 2784 2784 207 14721 4314 20289 4521 24.16.8-8 2785 2785 207 14710 4311 20280 4518 24.4.00 2665 2665 199 14982 4391 20312 4590 24.4.1242 2658 2658 199 14959 4384 20275 4583 24.4.1646 2658 2658 199 14959 4384 20275 4583 24.4.4-4 2662 2662 199 14957 4384 20281 4583 24.4.” 2659 2659 199 14959 4384 20277 4583 24.8.00 2710 2710 202 14797 4337 20217 4539 24.8.1242 2707 2707 202 14812 4341 20226 4543 24.8.1646 2707 2707 202 14812 4341 20226 4543 24.8.4-4 2709 2709 202 14793 4335 20211 4537 24.8.8-8 2659 2659 199 14959 4384 20277 4583 28.0.00 2572 2572 193 15128 4434 20272 4627 28.0.1242 2566 2566 192 15142 4438 20274 4630 28.0.1646 2566 2566 192 15142 4438 20274 4630 28.0.44 2568 2568 192 15109 4428 20245 4620 28.0.8-8 2567 2567 192 15110 4428 20244 4620 28.12.00 2708 2708 202 14838 4349 20254 4551 28.12.1242 2701 2701 202 14815 4342 20217 4544 28.12.1646 2701 2701 202 14815 4342 20217 4544 28.12.44 2704 2704 202 14819 4343 20227 4545 28.12.8-8 2701 2701 202 14806 4339 20208 4541 28.16.00 2745 2745 205 14748 4322 20238 4527 28.16.1242 2739 2739 204 14757 4325 20235 4529 28.16.1646 2739 2739 204 14757 4325 20235 4529 28.16.44 2741 2741 204 14739 4320 20221 4524 28.16.8-8 ‘2740 2740 204 14749 4322 20229 4526 28.4.00 2617 2617 196 14960 4384 20194 4580 28.4.1242 2609 2609 195 14981 4390 20199 4585 28.4.1646 2609 2609 195 14981 4390 20199 4585 28.4.44 2612 2612 196 14974 4388 20198 4584 28.4.8-8 2610 2610 195 14991 4394 20211 4589 28.8.00 2665 2665 199 14896 4365 20226 4564 170 5 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth _ Central Central Central Central Central Heigh _ Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL Edges Coil Eqpt Load Cooling Coil Coll LOAD INPUT Load Input Load Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 28.8.1242 2657 2657 199 14972 4388 20286 4587 28.8.1646 2657 2657 199 14972 4388 20286 4587 28.8.44 2661 2661 199 14920 4372 20242 4571 28.8.8.8 2659 2659 199 14971 4388 20289 4587 32.0.00 2540 2540 191 15224 4462 20304 4653 32.0.1242 2534 2534 190 15185 4450 20253 4640 32.0.1646 2534 2534 190 15185 4450 20253 4640 32.0.44 2536 2536 190 15187 4451 20259 4641 32.0.8-8 2535 2535 190 15180 4449 20250 4639 32.12.00 2665 2665 199 14919 4372 20249 4571 32.12.1242 2657 2657 199 14910 4370 20224 4569 32.12.1646 2657 2657 199 14914 4371 20228 4570 32.12.4-4 2661 2661 199 14915 4371 20237 4570 32.12.8-8 2659 2659 199 14916 4371 20234 4570 32.16.00 2701 2701 202 14774 4330 20176 4532 32.16.1242 2696 2696 201 14742 4320 20134 4521 32.16.1646 2696 2696 201 14746 4321 20138 4522 32.16.44 2701 2701 202 14750 4323 20152 4525 32.16.8-8 2697 2697 201 14738 4319 20132 4520 32.4.00 2575 2575 193 15067 4416 20217 4609 32.4.1242 2566 2566 192 15105 4427 20237 4619 32.4.1646 2565 2565 192 15113 4429 20243 4621 32.4.4-4 2571 2571 193 15109 4428 20251 4621 32.4.8-8 2566 2566 192 15098 4425 20230 4617 32.8.00 2622 2622 196 15034 4406 20278 4602 32.8.1242 2615 2615 196 15004 4397 20234 4593 32.8.1646 2615 2615 196 15009 4399 20239 4595 32.8.44 2618 2618 196 14977 4389 20213 4585 32.8.8-8 2615 2615 196 14990 4393 20220 4589 36.0.00 2507 2507 188 15174 4447 20188 4635 36.0.1242 2501 2501 188 15131 4435 20133 4623 36.0.1646 2501 2501 188 15148 4439 20150 4627 36.0.44 2505 2505 188 15137 4436 20147 4624 36.0.8-8 2504 2504 188 15151 4440 20159 4628 36.12.00 2631 2631 197 14931 4376 20193 4573 171 S WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth _ Central Central Central Central Central Heigh _ Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL Edges Coll Eq pt Load Cooling Coil Coil LOAD INPUT Load Input Load Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 36.12.1242 2623 2623 196 14907 4369 20153 4565 36.12.1646 2621 2621 196 14927 4375 20169 4571 36.12.44 2628 2628 197 14947 4380 20203 4577 36.12.8-8 2625 2625 196 14919 4372 20169 4568 36.16.00 2662 2662 199 14913 4370 20237 4569 36.16.1242 2658 2658 199 14901 4367 20217 4566 36.16.1646 2655 2655 198 14890 4364 20200 4562 36.16.44 2659 2659 199 14865 4356 20183 4555 36.16.8-8 2657 2657 199 14887 4363 20201 4562 36.4.00 2550 2550 191 15135 4436 20235 4627 36.4.1242 2543 2543 191 15179 4448 20265 4639 36.4.1646 2542 2542 191 15201 4455 20285 4646 36.4.4-4 2549 2549 191 15176 4448 20274 4639 36.4.8-8 2544 2544 191 15170 4446 20258 4637 36.8.00 2585 2585 194 15018 4401 20188 4595 36.8.1242 2578 2578 193 15009 4399 20165 4592 36.8.1646 2577 2577 193 15021 4402 20175 4595 36.8.4-4 2581 2581 193 15018 4401 20180 4594 36.8.8-8 2579 2579 193 15039 4407 20197 4600 40.0.00 2483 2483 187 15164 4444 20130 4631 40.0.1242 2468 2468 186 15178 4448 20114 4634 40.0.1646 2467 2467 185 15186 4451 20120 4636 40.0.44 2474 2474 186 15180 4449 20128 4635 40.0.8-8 2470 2470 186 15188 4451 20128 4637 40.12.00 2594 2594 194 14997 4395 20185 4589 40.12.1242 2585 2585 194 14931 4376 20101 4570 40.12.1646 2582 2582 193 14941 4379 20105 4572 40.12.44 2591 2591 194 14869 4358 20051 4552 40.12.8-8 2587 2587 194 14927 4375 20101 4569 40.16.00 2630 2630 197 14849 4352 20109 4549 40.16.1242 2622 2622 196 14873 4359 20117 4555 40.16.1646 2619 2619 196 14841 4350 20079 4546 40.16.4-4 2627 2627 196 14881 4361 20135 4557 40.16.8-8 2625 2625 196 14875 4359 20125 4555 40.4.00 2522 2522 189 15165 4444 20209 4633 172 5 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth _ Central Central Central Central Central Heigh - Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL Edges Coil Eqpt Load Cooling COII Coil LOAD INPUT Load Input Load Input Inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 40.4.1242 2511 2511 189 15132 4435 20154 4624 40.4.1646 2510 2510 189 15123 4432 20143 4621 40.4.4-4 2518 2518 189 15120 4431 20156 4620 40.4.8.8 2513 2513 189 15103 4426 20129 4615 40.8.00 2555 2555 192 15150 4440 20260 4632 40.8.1242 2546 2546 191 15129 4434 20221 4625 40.8.1646 2546 2546 191 15129 4434 20221 4625 40.8.44 2552 2552 191 15137 4436 20241 4627 40.8.8-8 2549 2549 191 15140 4437 20238 4628 44.0.00 2464 2464 185 15326 4491 20254 4676 44.0.1242 2448 2448 184 15307 4486 20203 4670 44.0.1646 2447 2447 184 15320 4490 20214 4674 44.0.4-4 2456 2456 185 15337 4495 20249 4680 44.0.8-8 2452 2452 184 15300 4484 20204 4668 44.12.00 2564 2564 192 15062 4414 20190 4606 44.12.1242 2551 2551 191 15088 4422 20190 4613 44.12.1646 2549 2549 191 15064 4415 20162 4606 44.12.4-4 2558 2558 192 15085 4421 20201 4613 44.12.8-8 2553 2553 191 15086 4421 20192 4612 44.16.00 2610 2610 195 14890 4364 20110 4559 44.16.1242 2597 2597 194 14929 4375 20123 4569 44.16.1646 2594 2594 194 14914 4371 20102 4565 44.16.44 2600 2600 195 14888 4363 20088 4558 44.16.8-8 2599 2599 195 14904 4368 20102 4563 44.4.00 2489 2489 187 15117 4430 20095 4617 44.4.1242 2477 2477 186 15142 4438 20096 4624 44.4.1646 2475 2475 186 15139 4437 20089 4623 44.4.44 2485 2485 187 15112 4429 20082 4616 44.4.8-8 2478 2478 186 15144 4438 20100 4624 44.8.00 2534 2534 190 15146 4439 20214 4629 44.8.1242 2523 2523 189 15120 4431 20166 4620 44.8.1646 2520 2520 189 15125 4433 20165 4622 44.8.4-4 2528 2528 190 15137 4436 20193 4626 44.8.8-8 2525 2525 189 15121 4431 20171 4620 48.0.00 2437 2437 183 15376 4506 20250 4689 173 S WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth _ Central Central Central Central Central Heigh _ Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL Edges Coil Eqpt Load Cooling Coil Coil LOAD INPUT Load Input Load Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 48.0.1242 2421 2421 182 15453 4529 20295 4711 48.0.1646 2421 2421 182 15456 4530 20298 4712 48.0.44 2431 2431 183 15403 4514 20265 4697 48.0.8-8 2425 2425 183 15410 4516 20260 4699 48.12.00 2544 2544 191 15153 4441 20241 4632 48.12.1242 2531 2531 190 15175 4447 20237 4637 48.12.1646 2528 2528 190 15187 4451 20243 4641 48.12.44 2538 2538 190 15166 4445 20242 4635 48.12.88 2534 2534 190 15176 4448 20244 4638 48.16.00 2574 2574 193 15022 4403 20170 4596 48.16.1242 2563 2563 192 15030 4405 20156 4597 48.16.1646 2561 2561 192 15016 4401 20138 4593 48.16.44 2569 2569 193 15031 4405 20169 4598 48.16.8-8 2566 2566 192 15024 4403 20156 4595 48.4.00 2475 2475 186 15184 4450 20134 4636 48.4.1242 2460 2460 185 15247 4468 20167 4653 48.4.1646 2459 2459 185 15230 4463 20148 4648 48.4.44 2469 2469 186 15173 4447 20111 4633 48.4.8-8 2462 2462 185 15240 4466 20164 4651 48.8.00 2501 2501 188 15100 4425 20102 4613 48.8.1242 2487 2487 187 15125 4433 20099 4620 48.8.1646 2486 2486 187 15139 4437 20111 4624 48.8.44 2495 2495 187 15131 4434 20121 4621 48.8.8-8 2491 2491 187 15153 4441 20135 4628 52.0.00 2427 2427 183 15480 4537 20334 4720 52.0.1242 2411 2411 182 15530 4551 20352 4733 52.0.1646 2410 2410 181 15542 4555 20362 4736 52.0.4-4 2418 2418 182 15487 4539 20323 4721 52.0.8-8 2413 2413 182 15517 4548 20343 4730 52.12.00 2523 2523 189 15150 4440 20196 4629 52.12.1242 2508 2508 188 15151 4440 20167 4628 52.12.1646 2505 2505 188 15186 4450 20196 4638 52.12.44 2523 2523 189 15150 4440 20196 4629 52.12.8-8 2513 2513 189 15171 4446 20197 4635 52.16.00 2547 2547 191 15106 4427 20200 4618 174 S WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth _ Central Central Central Central Central Heigh _ Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL Edges Coil Eqpt Load Cooling Coil Coil LOAD INPUT Load Input Load Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 52.16.1242 2535 2535 190 15054 4412 20124 4602 52.16.1646 2533 2533 190 ' 15052 4411 20118 4601 52.16.4-4 2525 2525 189 15104 4427 20154 4616 52.16.8-8 2539 2539 190 15096 4424 20174 4614 52.4.00 2456 2456 185 15345 4497 20257 4682 52.4.1242 2442 2442 184 15445 4527 20329 4711 52.4.1646 2441 2441 184 15471 4534 20353 4718 52.4.44 2452 2452 184 15377 4506 20281 4690 52.4.8-8 2444 2444 184 15423 4520 20311 4704 52.8.00 2482 2482 187 15104 4427 20068 4614 52.8.1242 2465 2465 185 15249 4469 20179 4654 52.8.1646 2463 2463 185 15224 4462 20150 4647 52.8.44 2477 2477 186 15086 4421 20040 4607 52.8.8-8 2470 2470 186 15189 4451 20129 4637 56.0.00 2416 2416 182 15493 4541 20325 4723 56.0.1242 2400 2400 181 15526 4550 20326 4731 56.0.1646 2400 2400 181 15502 4543 20302 4724 56.0.44 2409 2409 181 15482 4537 20300 4718 56.0.8-8 2403 2403 181 15501 4543 20307 4724 56.12.00 - 2491 2491 187 15091 4423 20073 4610 56.12.1242 2477 2477 186 15100 4425 20054 4611 56.12.1646 2474 2474 186 15089 4422 20037 4608 56.12.4-4 2486 2486 187 15047 4410 20019 4597 56.12.8-8 2480 2480 186 15063 4415 20023 4601 56.16.00 2527 2527 190 15104 4427 20158 4617 56.16.1242 2515 2515 189 15128 4433 20158 4622 56.16.1646 2511 2511 189 15148 4440 20170 4629 56.16.4-4 2525 2525 189 15104 4427 20154 4616 56.16.8-8 2519 2519 189 15097 4425 20135 4614 56.4.00 2435 2435 183 15487 4539 20357 4722 56.4.1242 2417 2417 182 15541 4555 20375 4737 56.4.1646 2415 2415 182 15534 4553 20364 4735 56.4.4-4 2427 2427 183 15451 4528 20305 4711 56.4.8-8 2422 2422 182 15463 4532 20307 4714 56.8.00 2467 2467 186 15256 4471 20190 4657 175 5 WINDOWS OF 5 BY 6 FEET Depth _ Central Central Central Central Central Heigh _ Cooling Cooling Unit Heating Heating TOTAL TOTAL Edges Coil Eqpt Load Cooling Coil Coil LOAD INPUT Load Input Load Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) 56.8.1242 2448 ' 2448 184 15315 4488 20211 4672 56.8.1646 2446 2446 184 15314 4488 20206 4672 56.8.44 2461 2461 185 15275 4477 20197 4662 56.8.8-8 2454 2454 185 15307 4486 20215 4671 60.0.00 2401 2401 181 15512 4546 20314 4727 60.0.1242 2381 2381 179 15497 4542 20259 4721 60.0.1646 2379 2379 179 15497 4542 20255 4721 60.0.44 2393 2393 180 15462 4531 20248 4711 60.0.8-8 2387 2387 180 15492 4540 20266 4720 60.12.00 2478 2478 186 15162 4444 20118 4630 60.12.1242 2463 2463 185 15242 4467 20168 4652 60.12.1646 2459 2459 185 15247 4468 20165 4653 60.12.4-4 2473 2473 186 15226 4462 20172 4648 60.12.8-8 2469 2469 186 15192 4452 20130 4638 60.16.00 2508 2508 188 15054 4412 20070 4600 60.16.1242 2493 2493 187 15104 4426 20090 4613 60.16.1646 2491 2491 187 15146 4439 20128 4626 60.16.4-4 2502 2502 188 15087 4422 20091 4610 60.16.8-8 2498 2498 188 15111 4429 20107 4617 60.4.00 2426 2426 183 15501 4543 20353 4726 60.4.1242 2407 2407 181 15481 4537 20295 4718 60.4.1646 2406 2406 181 15514 4547 20326 4728 60.4.4-4 2417 2417 182 15521 4549 20355 4731 60.4.8-8 2411 2411 182 15496 4541 20318 4723 60.8.00 2445 2445 184 15388 4510 20278 4694 60.8.1242 2427 2427 183 15472 4535 20326 4718 60.8.1646 2425 2425 183 15455 4529 20305 4712 60.8.4-4 2438 2438 183 15372 4505 20248 4688 60.8.8-8 2434 2434 183 15384 4509 20252 4692 MIN 20019 MAX 21784 176 C.4 Single-Space Analysis D Results SINGLE 31 BY 7 FEET WINDOW Depth - Central Central Central Central Central Unit . . TOTAL Heigh - Cooling Cooling Cooling Heating Heating LOAD Edges Coil Load Eqpt Load Input Coil Load Coil Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 0.0.00 4297 4297 314 16348 4791 24943 4.12.00 3352 3352 250 16880 4948 23584 4.12.1242 3351 3351 249 16877 4947 23579 4.12.1646 3351 3351 249 16874 4946 23575 4.12.4-4 3350 3350 249 16871 4945 23571 4.12.8-8 3349 3349 249 16868 4944 23567 4.16.00 3349 3349 249 16866 4943 23563 4.16.1242 3348 3348 249 16863 4942 23559 4.16.1646 3348 3348 249 16860 4942 23555 4.16.4-4 3347 3347 249 16857 4941 23551 4.16.8-8 3346 3346 249 16854 4940 23547 4.8.00 3346 3346 249 16851 4939 23543 4.8.1242 3345 3345 249 16848 4938 23538 4.8.1646 3345 3345 249 16845 4937 23534 4.8.4-4 3344 3344 249 16842 4936 23530 4.8.8—8 3344 3344 249 16839 4936 23526 8.16.00 3343 3343 249 16836 4935 23522 8.16.1242 3342 3342 249 16833 4934 23518 8.16.1646 3342 3342 249 16830 4933 23514 8.16.4-4 3341 3341 249 16827 4932 23510 8.16.8-8 3341 3341 249 16824 4931 23506 8.12.00 3337 3337 247 16809 4926 23482 8.12.1242 3336 3336 247 16806 4925 23478 8.12.1646 3335 3335 247 16803 4924 23474 8.12.4-4 3335 3335 247 16800 4923 23470 8.12.8-8 3334 3334 247 16797 4922 23466 4.0.00 3288 3288 245 16878 4947 23454 4.0.1242 3287 3287 245 16875 4946 23449 4.0.1646 3287 3287 245 16872 4945 23445 4.0.4-4 3286 3286 245 16869 4944 23441 4.0.8-8 3286 3286 245 16866 4943 23437 177 SINGLE 31 BY 7 FEET WINDOW Central Depth - Central Central Unit Central Central TOTAL Heigh - Cooling Cooling Cooling Heating Heating LOAD Edges Coil Load Eqpt Load Input Coil Load Coil Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 8.0.00 3221 3221 240 16988 4979 23430 8.0.1242 3219 3219 240 16985 4978 23423 8.0.1646 3219 3219 240 16982 4977 23419 8.0.4-4 3218 3218 240 16979 4976 23415 8.0.8-8 3218 3218 240 16976 4975 23411 12.16.1242 3315 3315 247 16775 4916 23406 12.16.1646 3315 3315 247 16772 4915 23402 12.16.4-4 3314 3314 247 16769 4915 23397 12.16.8-8 3314 3314 247 16766 4914 23393 12.16.00 3313 3313 247 16762 4913 23388 4.4.00 3324 3324 247 16734 4904 23382 4.4.1242 3323 3323 247 16731 4903 23378 4.4.1646 3323 3323 247 16728 4902 23374 4.4.4-4 3322 3322 246 16725 4901 23369 4.4.8-8 3321 3321 246 16722 4901 23365 8.4.00 3272 3272 243 16796 4923 23340 8.4.1242 3271 3271 243 16793 4922 23336 8.4.1646 3271 3271 243 16790 4921 23331 8.4.4-4 3270 3270 243 16787 4920 23327 8.4.8-8 3270 3270 243 16784 4919 23323 8.8.00 3304 3304 245 16701 4895 23310 8.8.1242 3304 3304 245 16699 4895 23306 8.8.1646 3303 3303 245 16696 4894 23302 8.8.4-4 3303 3303 245 16693 4893 23298 8.8.8-8 3302 3302 245 16690 4892 23294 12.12.00 3282 3282 244 16715 4899 23279 12.12.1242 3281 3281 244 16710 4897 23273 12.12.1646 3281 3281 244 16707 4896 23269 12.12.4-4 3280 3280 244 16704 4895 23265 12.12.8-8 3280 3280 244 16701 4895 23261 12.4.1242 3186 3186 238 16857 4940 23228 12.4.1646 3185 3185 238 16854 4939 23224 12.4.4-4 3185 3185 238 16851 4939 23220 12.4.8-8 3184 3184 238 16848 4938 23216 178 SINGLE 31 BY 7 FEET WINDOW Depth - Central Central Central Central Central Unit TOTAL Heigh - Cooling Cooling Cooling Heating Heating LOAD Edges Coil Load Eqpt Load Input Coil Load Coil Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 12.4.00 3186 3186 238 16839 4935 23211 16.16.00 3261 3261 242 16664 4884 23187 16.16.1242 3260 3260 242 16663 4883 23182 16.16.1646 3259 3259 242 16660 4882 23178 16.16.4-4 3259 3259 242 16657 4881 23174 16.16.8-8 3258 3258 242 16654 4880 23170 12.0.1242 3137 3137 234 16890 4950 23165 12.0.1646 3137 3137 234 16888 4949 23161 12.0.4-4 3136 3136 234 16885 4948 23156 12.0.8-8 3135 3135 234 16882 4947 23152 16.0.4-4 3075 3075 229 16994 4980 23144 16.0.1242 3073 3073 229 16989 4980 23135 16.0.1646 3072 3072 229 16986 4979 23131 16.0.8-8 3072 3072 229 16983 4978 23127 16.8.1242 3166 3166 236 16788 4920 23120 16.8.1646 3165 3165 236 16785 4919 23115 16.8.4-4 3164 3164 236 16783 4918 23111 16.8.8-8 3164 3164 236 16780 4918 23107 16.8.00 ‘ 3166 3166 236 16770 4914 23101 16.0.00 3072 3072 229 16950 4968 23095 12.0.00 3129 3129 233 16827 4932 23086 56.4.1242 2738 2738 206 17605 5160 23081 12.8.1242 3231 3231 240 16602 4866 23064 12.8.1646 3231 3231 240 16599 4865 23060 12.8.4-4 3230 3230 240 16596 4864 23056 12.8.8-8 3230 3230 240 16593 4863 23052 56.4.1646 2733 2733 206 17581 5153 23048 12.8.00 3230 3230 240 16584 4860 23043 3.0.1646 2727 2727 205 17584 5154 23038 56.4.00 2754 2754 207 17519 5135 23028 604.44 2734 2734 206 17554 5145 23022 20,0.4-4 2999 2999 . 224 17017 4987 23015 5274,1646 2760 2760 208 17492 5126 23011 2742 2742 207 17522 5135 23007 179 SINGLE 31 BY 7 FEET WINDOW Central Depth - Central Central Unit Central Central TOTAL Heigh - Cooling Cooling Cooling Heating Heating LOAD Edges Coil Load Eqpt Load Input Coil Load Coil Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 52.0.1242 2725 2725 206 17552 5144 23002 20.0.00 3002 3002 225 16987 4979 22992 52.0.8-8 2726 2726 206 17531 5138 22984 16.4.00 3110 3110 232 16755 4910 22975 16.4.1242 3111 3111 232 16748 4908 22971 16.4.1646 3111 3111 231 16745 4908 22967 16.4.8-8 3110 3110 231 16742 4907 22963 20.0.1242 2992 2992 224 16974 4975 22959 20.0.1646 2992 2992 223 16971 4974 22955 20.0.8-8 2991 2991 223 16968 4973 22951 16.4.4-4 3107 3107 231 16731 4903 22945 52.0.00 2738 2738 206 17461 5118 22937 16.12.1242 3197 3197 238 16537 4846 22932 16.12.1646 3197 3197. 238 16534 4845 22927 16.12.8-8 3196 3196 238 16531 4844 22923 16.12.4-4 3194 3194 238 16527 4844 22916 52.4.1242 2752 2752 207 17407 5102 22911 24.16.00 3139 3139 233 16626 4872 22904 56.0.1242 2704 2704 204 17492 5126 22899 60.4.1646 2710 2710 204 17475 5122 22895 60.8.1242 2733 2733 206 17425 5107 22891 56.0.00 2720 2720 205 17445 5113 22886 16.12.00 3192 3192 238 16497 4835 22881 52.0.4-4 2722 2722 205 17432 5109 22876 60.4.8-8 2713 2713 205 17439 5110 22866 60.0.00 2702 2702 204 17454 5115 22857 24.4.00 2998 2998 224 16855 4940 22851 52.4.8-8 2749 2749 207 17348 5084 22846 56.0.8-8 2702 2702 204 17432 5109 22837 56.4.8-8 2723 2723 205 17387 5096 22833 20.16.00 3174 3174 236 16481 4830 22828 56.4.4-4 2728 2728 206 17367 5089 22823 60.8.1646 2725 2725 206 17368 5090 22819 20.12.1242 3142 3142 234 16530 4845 22814 180 SINGLE 31 BY 7 FEET WINDOW Depth - Central Central cent'a' Central Central Heigh - Cooling Cooling (:3: Heating Heating 12:; Edges Coil Load Eqpt Load Inputs Coil Load Coil Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 20.12.1646 3141 3141 234 16527 4844 22810 20.12.4-4 3140 3140 234 16525 4843 22805 20.12.8-8 3140 3140 234 16522 4842 22801 32.0.00 2852 2852 214 17094 5010 22797 56.0.1646 2694 2694 203 17403 5100 22791 56.0.4-4 2704 2704 203 17377 5092 22785 48.0.1646 2717 2717 204 17345 5084 22778 48.0.1242 2716 2716 204 17338 5082 22771 60.4.1242 2700 2700 203 17367 5090 22767 20.12.00 3138 3138 233 16484 4831 22761 24.16.4-4 3122 3122 232 16508 4838 22752 28.8.8-8 2981 2981 223 16785 4920 22748 28.8.1242 2978 2978 223 16784 4919 22741 28.8.1646 2978 2978 223 16781 4918 22737 20.4.4-4 3038 3038 226 16655 4881 22731 36.4.1646 2848 2848 214 17031 4991 22727 20.16.1242 3159 3159 235 16401 4807 22719 20.16.1646 3158 3158 235 16398 4806 22715 20.16.44 3158 3158 235 16395 4805 22711 20.16.8-8 3157 3157 235 16392 4804 22707 24.4.4-4 2980 2980 223 16743 4907 22703 52.4.4-4 2744 2744 206 17210 5043 22698 24.16.8-8 3116 3116 232 16460 4824 22693 20.4.00 3034 3034 226 16619 4870 22687 24.16.1242 3114 3114 232 16455 4822 22683 24.16.1646 3114 3114 232 I 16452 4821 22679 32.8.00 2932 2932 219 16811 4927 22675 60.8.00 2734 2734 206 17204 5042 22671 24.4.8-8 2972 2972 222 16721 4900 22666 24.8.8-8 2972 2972 222 16718 4900 22662 24.4.1242 2970 2970 222 16715 4899 22655 24.4.1646 2970 2970 222 16712 4898 22651 28.0.1242 2866 2866 214 16914 4957 22646 28.0.1646 2866 2866 214 16911 4956 22642 181 SINGLE 31 BY 7 FEET WINDOW Depth - Central Central Central Central Central Unit TOTAL Heigh - Cooling Cooling Cooling Heating Heating LOAD Edges Coil Load Eqpt Load Input Coil Load Coil Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 36.4.4-4 2846 2846 213 16946 4967 22638 28.0.00 2871 2871 215 16889 4950 22632 60.0.8-8 2664 2664 201 17292 5068 22621 36.4.1242 2838 2838 213 16940 4964 22616 48.0.4-4 2713 2713 204 17187 5037 22612 24.0.00 2916 2916 219 16770 4915 22602 24.0.1242 2909 2909 218 16780 4918 22598 24.0.1646 2908 2908 217 16777 4917 22594 40.8.00 2849 2849 214 16892 4951 22590 48.0.8-8 2703 2703 204 17179 5034 22586 20.4.1242 3021 3021 225 16540 4847 22581 20.4.1646 3020 3020 225 16537 4847 22577 20.4.8-8 3019 3019 225 16534 4846 22573 32.0.4-4 2825 2825 212 16918 4958 22569 60.0.1242 2652 2652 199 17261 5059 22564 36.4.8-8 2833 2833 213 16893 4951 22559 52.4.00 2735 2735 206 17085 5007 22554 20.8.4-4 3064 3064 228 16422 4812 22549 60.0.1646 2648 2648 199 17248 5055 22544 28.12.00 3013 3013 225 16512 4840 22539 44.0.00 2741 2741 206 17052 4997 22535 32.0.1242 2819 2819 211 16892 4950 22529 32.0.1646 2818 2818 211 16889 4949 22525 60.8.8-8 2707, 2707 203 17107 5014 22520 32.4.4-4 2858 2858 215 16798 4923 22515 32.0.8-8 2818 2818 211 16874 4946 22510 48.0.00 2708 2708 203 17089 5008 22506 24.0.8-8 2898 2898 217 16705 4896 22501 32.12.00 2961 2961 221 16575 4857 22497 44.0.4-4 2728 2728 205 17036 4993 22493 60.0.4-4 2658 2658 200 17172 5032 22487 60.8.4-4 2707 2707 203 17069 5002 22483 20.8.1242 3055 3055 228 16365 4796 22476 20.8.1646 3055 3055 228 16363 4795 22472 182 SINGLE 31 BY 7 FEET WINDOW Depth - Central Central Central Central Central Unit TOTAL Heigh - Cooling Cooling Cooling Heating Heating LOAD Edges Coil Load Eqpt Load Input Coil Load Coil Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 20.8.8-8 3054 3054 228 16360 4794 22468 28.0.4-4 2849 2849 213 16765 4913 22464 28.0.8-8 2848 2848 213 16763 4912 22459 48.12.8-8 2811 2811 211 16833 4934 22455 32.4.1646 2845 2845 213 16760 4912 22449 48.12.1646 2803 2803 211 16839 4935 22445 28.8.4-4 2950 2950 221 16540 4847 22440 48.12.44 2813 2813 211 16810 4927 22436 24.0.4-4 2892 2892 216 16646 4878 22431 40.8.4-4 2828 2828 212 16772 4915 22427 48.12.00 2818 2818 212 16786 4920 22423 32.8.1646 2896 2896 217 16624 4872 22417 ’ 28.16.00 3040 3040 227 16332 4786 22412 40.8.8-8 2822 2822 211 16763 4913 22408 32.12.44 2946 2946 220 16511 4839 22402 32.4.1242 2840 2840 213 16718 4900 22398 36.16.00 2946. 2946 220 16503 4836 22394 48.12.1242 2800 2800 210 16790 4920 22390 28.16.1242 3030 3030 226 16324 4784 22384 28.16.1646 3029 3029 226 16321 4783 22380 36.4.00 2820 2820 211 ‘ 16736 4905 22376 20.8.00 3048 3048 227 16274 4770 22371 32.12.8-8 2939 2939 220 16488 4832 22367 32.8.1242 2890 2890 217 16582 4860 22363 32.4.8-8 2835 2835 212 16683 4890 22354 28.16.8-8 3027 3027 225 16295 4775 22349 32.12.1646 2935 2935 220 16474 4828 22344 28.12.4-4 2986 2986 223 16366 4796 22339 24.8.1242 2989 2989 223 16355 4793 22334 24.8.1646 2989 2989 223 16352 4792 22330 28.8.00 2942 2942 220 16442 4818 22325 32.12.1242 2932 2932 220 16455 4823 22319 28.16.4-4 3024 3024 225 16263 4767 22312 40.8.1242 2809 2809 211 16690 4892 22308 183 SINGLE 31 BY 7 FEET WINDOW Depth - Central Central Central Central Central . Unit TOTAL Heigh - Cooling Cooling Cooling Heating Heating LOAD Edges Coil Load Eqpt Load Input Coil Load Coil Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 40.8.1646 2808 2808 211 16687 4891 22304 32.8.8-8 2884 2884 216 16531 4845 22299 24.8.00 2988 2988 223 16315 4782 22291 28.12.1242 2978 2978 223 16332 4787 22287 28.12.1646 2977 2977 223 16329 4786 22283 32.4.00 2838 2838 213 16604 4866 22279 36.16.1242 2929 2929 219 16418 4812 22275 56.8.8-8 2703 2703 204 16862 4942 22269 44.0.1646 2695 2695 203 16873 4945 22264 44.8.00 2790 2790 209 16679 4888 22260 32.8.4-4 2882 2882 216 16490 4832 22255 24.8.4-4 2982 2982 222 16284 4772 22248 28.4.8-8 2873 2873 215 16499 4836 22244 56.8.1242 2694 2694 202 16853 4939 22240 40.4.00 2775 2775 208 16685 4889 22234 28.12.8-8 2971 2971 222 16287 4773 22229 56.8.1646 2690 2690 202 16842 4936 22223 44.0.8-8 2696 2696 202 16824 4931 22216 36.12.4-4 2889 2889 217 16433 4815 22211 44.0.1242 2691 2691 202 16825 4931 22207 36.16.8-8 2920 2920 219 16361 4795 22201 44.12.44 2811 2811 211 16575 4858 22197 36.16.1646 2917 2917 218 16358 4794 22192 52.16.00 2798 2798 210 16592 4863 22188 28.4.1242 2865 2865 214 16452 4821 22183 28.4.1646 2865 2865 214 16449 4820 22179 28.4.4-4 2867 2867 215 16438 4817 22173 36.8.8-8 2831 2831 212 16507 4837 22168 52.12.8-8 2758 2758 207 16649 4879 22164 56.8.4-4 2700 2700 203 16760 4912 22160 52.12.00 2768 2768 207 16620 4871 22155 52.12.1646 2747 2747 206 16656 4881 22151 52.12.44 2767 2767 207 16613 4869 22147 28.4.00 2869 2869 215 16402 4807 22141 184 SINGLE 31 BY 7 FEET WINDOW Central Depth - Central Central Unit Central Central TOTAL Heigh - Cooling Cooling Cooling Heating Heating LOAD Edges Coil Load Eqpt Load Input Coil Load Coil Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 36.12.00 2884 2884 216 16367 4797 22136 44.8.4-4 2771 2771 208 16590 4862 22132 44.12.8-8 2798 2798 209 16531 4845 22126 44.12.00 2809 2809 210 16502 4836 22120 44.12.1242 2794 2794 209 16527 4844 22116 56.8.00 2702 2702 204 16708 4897 22112 36.0.00 2745 2745 206 16616 4869 22106 36.8.00 2830 2830 212 16442 4818 22102 40.12.00 2839 2839 212 16416 4811 22095 36.16.44 2910 2910 218 16268 4767 22088 36.8.4-4 2824 2824 211 16433 4816 22081 52.8.1242 2697 2697 202 16682 4889 22076 32.16.00 2954 2954 221 16160 4736 22069 36.8.1646 2818 2818 211 16427 4814 22063 52.16.8-8 2776 2776 208 16506 4837 22058 60.12.44 2703 2703 203 16645 4878 22052 24.12.1242 2999 2999 224 16049 4703 22047 24.12.1646 2999 2999 224 16046 4702 22043 44.8.8-8 2759 2759 207 16521 4841 22039 24.12.4-4 3002 3002 224 16030 4697 22034 48.16.00 2811 2811 211 16407 4809 22030 56.16.1646 2742 2742 206 16542 4848 22026 36.12.1646 2862 2862 214 16297 4777 22021 36.12.8-8 2865 2865 214 16286 4772 22016 48.16.44 2804 2804 211 16405 4808 22012 60.12.1242 2688 2688 202 16632 4874 22007 48.4.1242 2684 2684 202 16634 4875 22002 52.12.1242 2736 2736 205 16527 4843 21998 44.8.1242 2752 2752 206 16490 4832 21993 24.12.00 2998 2998 224 15993 4688 21988 24.12.8-8 2993 2993 223 15999 4689 21984 36.8.1242 2810 2810 210 16360 4795 21980 44.8.1646 2746 2746 206 16483 4831 21976 60.12.1646 2679 2679 202 16613 4868 21972 185 SINGLE 31 BY 7 FEET WINDOW Depth - Central Central Central Central Central Unit TOTAL Heigh - Cooling Cooling Cooling Heating Heating LOAD Edges Coil Load Eqpt Load Input Coil Load Coil Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 48.4.8-8 2682 2682 202 16602 4865 21967 44.12.1646 2776 2776 208 16408 4809 21960 36.0.8-8 2727 2727 205 16499 4835 21953 56.16.00 2751 2751 207 16445 4820 21948 56.16.1242 2738 2738 206 16468 4826 21944 40.4.4-4 2741 2741 206 16457 4823 21938 48.16.1242 2789 2789 209 16356 4794 21934 48.16.8-8 2792 2792 ' 209 16346 4790 21930 40.4.1242 2731 2731 206 16461 4824 21924 52.16.44 2746 2746 206 16427 4815 21919 56.16.4-4 2746 2746 206 16424 4814 21915 36.12.1242 2852 2852 213 16207 4750 21910 32.16.44 2936 2936 220 16033 4699 21905 36.0.1646 2718 2718 204 16463 4824 21899 52.8.1646 2676 2676 201 16542 4848 21895 48.4.1646 2671 2671 201 16546 4849 21889 36.0.4—4 2721 2721 204 16442 4818 21884 40.4.1646 2726 2726 205 16424 4813 21875 32.16.1646 2927 2927 218 16011 4692 21866 48.16.1646 2780 2780 208 16301 4778 21862 40.16.4-4 2851 2851 213 16152 4733 21855 48.8.8-8 2703 2703 203 16444 4819 21851 56.16.8-8 2733 2733 205 16380 4801 21846 32.16.1242 2925 2925 218 15992 4686 21841 48.4.00 2684 2684 202 16469 4826 21837 36.0.1242 2712 2712 204 16408 4809 21832 32.16.8-8 2924 2924 218 15979 4683 21827 40.0.00 2692 2692 203 16438 4817 21821 60.12.8-8 2676 2676 202 16465 4825 21817 40.4.8-8 2723 2723 205 16366 4796 21812 52.8.8-8 2676 2676 202 16456 4822 21808 40.0.4-4 2680 2680 201 16443 4819 21803 40.0.8-8 2675 2675 201 16449 4820 21799 60.16.1646 2697 2697 202 16400 4807 21795 186 SINGLE 31 BY 7 FEET WINDOW Central Depth - Central Central Unit Central Central TOTAL Heigh - Cooling Cooling Cooling Heating Heating LOAD Edges Coil Load Eqpt Load Input Coil Load Coil Input inch (kBTU) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) (kWh) (kBTU) 40.16.8-8 2842 2842 212 16104 4719 21787 52.16.1242 2744 2744 206 16294 4776 21782 44.16.1242 2810 2810 210 16156 4735 21777 48.8.4-4 2700 2700 202 16372 4798 21771 40.0.1646 2669 2669 200 16428 4815 21766 52.16.1646 2740 2740 206 16280 4771 21760 60.12.00 2680 2680 201 16396 4806 21756 40.16.1242 2835 2835 212 16081 4713 21751 40.0.1242 2668 2668 ' 201 16407 4808 21743 48.4.4-4 2668 2668 201 16399 4806 21736 48.8.1646 2686 2686 202 16359 4795 21732 44.16.00 2820 2820 211 16087 4715 21727 40.16.00 2841 2841 213 16040 4701 21722 60.16.8-8 2698 2698 203 16320 4783 21716 40.12.1646 2788 2788 208 16133 4728 21709 44.16.1646 2800 2800 209 16101 4719 21702 44.16.8-8 2805 2805 210 16087 4715 21698 48.8.00 2699 2699 203 16296 4775 21694 40.12.1242 2789 2789 209 16111 4722 21689 40.12.8-8 2791 2791 209 16103 4720 21685 44.4.8-8 2673 2673 201 16334 4787 21680 48.8.1242 2682 2682 202 16311 4781 21675 44.4.1242 2671 2671 201 16326 4785 21668 44.4.00 2683 2683 202 16296 4776 21662 60.16.44 2697 2697 203 16261 4766 21654 60.16.1242 2686 2686 202 16276 4769 21649 44.4.1646 2667 2667 200 16311 4780 21644 44.16.4-4 2801 2801 210 16037 4700 21639 44.4.4-4 2676 2676 201 16276 4770 21628 40.16.1646 2820 2820 211 15981 4684 21621 56.12.00 2682 2682 201 16247 4762 21611 60.16.00 2700 2700 202 16204 4749 21603 52.8.00 2671 2671 201 16255 4764 21597 56.12.1242 2665 2665 200 16248 4761 21578 187 40.12.4-4 2787 2787 209 15996 4688 2 1571 52.8.4-4 2664 2664 200 16227 4755 2 1555 56.12.1646 2661 2661 200 16227 4755 21548 56.12.8-8 2666 2666 200 16196 4747 21529 56.12.44 2672 2672 201 16176 4741 2 1520 MIN 2 1520 MAX 24943 188 — APPENDIX D — Detailed Report of the Whole-Building Analysis Input Data. 189 D.l Entire Arco School Input Data 1. General Details: Building Name ................................ Entire Arco School 2. Plants Included in this Building: Plant Name Arco heating plant 3. Air Systems Included in this Building: System Name Mult. East thermal block 1 North thermal block 1 South thermal block I West thermal block I 4: Miscellaneous Energy Name PM” Enemmel Peak Use Schedule Load Type Process energy Yes Electric 12.3 kW Arco school Service water heater No Natural Gas 273.0 MBH Arco school classroom Elevator Yes Electric 5.0 kW Arco school Exterior lighting No Electric 1.0 kW Exterior lighting Receptacle load Yes Electric 21.0 kW Arco school classroom 5: Meters Electric ....................................................... Arco electric Natural Gas ......................................... Arco natural gas 6: Miscellaneous Data 190 Average Building Power Factor ....................... 100.00 % Source Electric Generating Efficiency ............... 28.00 % Additional Floor Area ................................... 28426.0 ft2 D.2 Arco Heating Plant Input Data I . General Details: Plant Name ....................................... Arco heating plant Plant Type ................................ Hot Water Boiler Plant 2. Air Systems served by Plant: Air System Name Mult. East thermal block 1 North thermal block 1 South thermal block 1 West thermal block 1 3. Configuration Boiler Sizing ............... User-Specified Boiler Capacity Boiler Name ................................... Arco heating boiler Est. Max Load ......................................................... 192.3 MBH Full Load Capacity .................................................. 493.0 MBH Hot Water Flow Rate ................................................ 20.0 F° 4. Distribution Distribution System 191 Type Primary/Secondary, Variable Speed Secondary Coil Delta-T at Design .............................................. 20.0 F ° Pipe Heat Loss Factor ................................................. 0.0 % Pump Performance .................................................. ft wg Fluid Properties Name .......................................................... Fresh Water Density ...................................................................... 60.6 lb/fi3 Specific Heat ............................................................. 1.00 BTU / (lb - F°) Primary Loop Head Mechanical Electrical Pump for... Flow (ft w g) Efficiency Efficiency (%) (%) 34 20.0 F° 15.0 80.0 94.0 Secondary Loop Head Mechanical Electrical Flow (ft w ) Efficiency Efficiency 3 (%) (%) Design 20.0 F° 20.0 80.0 94.0 Control Head ............................................................... 0.0 fl wg Minimum Pump Flow ............................................. 100.0 % D.3 East Thermal Block Input Data 1. General Details: 192 Air System Name ............................ East thermal block Equipment Type ............................................. Split AHU Air System Type .............. CAV with Terminal Reheat Number of zones ............................................................ l 2. System Components: Ventilation Air Data: Airflow Control ................................. Scheduled control Ventilation Sizing Method ......... ASHRAE Std 62-2001 Schedule .................................... Arco school classroom Damper Leak Rate ......................................................... 0 % Outdoor Air C02 Level ............................................. 400 ppm Economizer Data: Control ............................. Integrated enthalpy control Upper Cutoff ............................................................. 73.0 F° Lower Cutoff ........................................................ -60.0 F° Ventilation Reclaim Data: Reclaim Type ........................................... Sensible Heat Thermal Efficiency ...................................................... 90 % Input kW ................................................................. 0.000 kW Schedule .......................................... JFMAMJJASOND Central Cooling Data: Supply Air Temperature ........................................... 55.0 F° 193 Coil Bypass Factor .................................................. 0.100 Cooling Source ....................................... Air-Cooled DX Schedule .......................................... JFMAMJJASOND Capacity Control Temperature Reset by Greatest Zone Demand Max. Supply Temperature ........................................ 65.0 F° Supply Fan Data: Fan Type ............................................. Forward Curved Configuration ................................................ Draw-thru Fan Performance ....................................................... 1.00 in wg Overall Efficiency ........................................................ 54 % Duct System Data: Supply Duct Data: . Duct Heat Gain ......................................... . .................... 0 % Duct Leakage ................................................................. 0 % Return Duct or Plenum Data: Return Air Via ........................................ Ducted Return 3. Zone Components: Space Assignments: Zone 1: Zone 1 2-07 Classroom xl 2-08 Classroom x1 2nd floor toilet rooms X] 340 Physics Lab x1 194 3-11 Storage X] 342 Music Room x1 3rd floor toilet room x1 4-07 Physics Lab x1 4-08 Storage xl 4-09 Classroom xl Thermostats and Zone Data: Zone ........................................................................... All Cooling T—stat: Occ. .................................................. 75.0 Cooling T-stat: Unocc. .............................................. 85.0 Heating T-stat: Occ. .................................................. 70.0 Heating T-stat: Unocc. .............................................. 60.0 T-stat Throttling Range ............................................. 3.00 Diversity Factor ................................ . ........................ 100 . Direct Exhaust Airflow ........... , .............. .................... 0.0 Direct Exhaust Fan kW ............................................... 0.0 Thermostat Schedule ........ Arco equipment thermostat . Unoccupied Cooling is .............................. . ..... Available Supply Terminals Data: . Zone ........................................................................... All . Terminal Type .................................................... Diffuser Minimum Airflow ..................................................... 0.00 Zone Heating Units: 195 F0 F0 F0 F0 F0 % CFM kW CFM/person Zone ........................................................................... All Zone Heating Unit Type Baseboard, room T-stat control Zone Unit Heat Source .................................. Hot Water Zone Heating Unit Schedule ........... JFMAMJJASOND 4. Sizing Data (Computer-Generated): System Sizing Data: Cooling Supply Temperature .................................... 55.0 F ° Supply Fan Airflow ............................................... 2644.2 CFM Ventilation Airflow ............................................... 2644.2 CFM Hydronic Sizing Specifications: Chilled Water Delta-T ............................................... 10.0 F ° Hot .Water Delta-T .................................................... 20.0 F° Safety Factors: Cooling Sensible ............................................................ 0 % Cooling Latent ............................................................... 0 % Heating ........................................................................... 0 % Zone Sizing Data: Zone Airflow Sizing Method Sum of space airflow rates Space Airflow Sizing Method Individual peak space loads Zone Supply Airflow Zone Htg Unit Reheat Coil - (CFM) (MBH) (MBH) (CF M) 1 2644.2 57.5 - 196 5. Equipment Data Central Cooling Unit - Air-Cooled DX Estimated Maximum Load ...................................... 117.7 . Design OAT .............................................. ., ............... 95.0 Equipment Sizing .......................................... Auto-Sized Capacity Oversizing Factor ......................................... 0.0 ARI Performance Rating ......................................... 15.00 Conventional Cutoff OAT ........................................ 55.0 Low Temperature Operation ................................... Used Low Temperature Cutoff OAT ................................... 0.0 BA West Thermal Block Input Data 1. General Details: Air System Name ........................... West thermal block Equipment Type ............................................. Split AHU Air System Type .............. CAV with Terminal Reheat Number of zones ............................................................ l 2. System Components: Ventilation Air Data: Airflow Control ................................. Scheduled control Ventilation Sizing Method ......... ASHRAE Std 62-2001 197 MBH F0 % EER FO Schedule .................................... Arco school classroom Damper Leak Rate ......................................................... 0 Outdoor Air C02 Level ............................................. 400 Economizer Data: Control ............................. Integrated enthalpy control Upper Cutoff ............................................................. 73.0 Lower Cutoff ........................................................... -60.0 Ventilation Reclaim Data: Reelaim Type ........................................... Sensible Heat Thermal Efficiency ...................................................... 90 Input kW ................................................................. 0.000 Schedule .......................................... J FMAMJJASOND Central Cooling Data: Supply Air Temperature ........................................... 55.0 . Coil Bypass Factor .................................................. 0.100 Cooling Source ....................................... Air-Cooled DX Schedule .......................................... J FMAMJJASOND % PPm F0 F0 % kW F0 Capacity Control Temperature Reset by Greatest Zone Demand Max. Supply Temperature ........................................ 65.0 F° Supply Fan Data: Fan Type ............................................. Forward Curved Configuration ................................................ Draw-thru Fan Performance ....................................................... 1.00. in wg 198 Overall Efficiency ........................................................ 54 % Duct System Data: Supply Duct Data: Duct Heat Gain .............................................................. 0 % Duct Leakage ................................................................. 0 % Return Duct or Plenum Data: Return Air Via ........................................ Ducted Return 3. Zone Components: Space Assignments: Zone 1: Zone 1 2-03 Classroom x1 2-04 Classroom xl 3-02 Secretary office x1 3-03 3-04 toilets x1 3-06 Porters lodge x1 3-07 Teachers-Library x1 4-01 Classroom x1 4-02 Storage x1 4-03 Classroom xl Refectory x1 Thermostats and Zone Data: Zone ........................................................................... All Cooling T-stat: Occ. .................................................. 75.0 F ° Cooling T-stat: Unocc. .............................................. 85.0 F° Heating T-stat: Occ. .................................................. 70.0 F° Heating T-stat: Unocc. .............................................. 60.0 F° 199 T-stat Throttling Range ............................................. 3.00 F° Diversity Factor ......................................................... 100 % Direct Exhaust Airflow ............................................... 0.0 CF M Direct Exhaust Fan kW ............................................... 0.0 kW Thermostat Schedule ........ Arco equipment thermostat . Unoccupied Cooling is .................................... Available Supply Terminals Data: Zone ........................................................................... All Terminal Type ......................................... .. .......... Diffuser Minimum Airflow ..................................................... 0.00 CF M/person Zone Heating Units: Zone ........................................................................... All Zone Heating Unit Type Baseboard, room T-stat control Zone Unit Heat Source .................................. Hot Water Zone Heating Unit Schedule ........... JFMAMJJASON D 4. Sizing Data (Computer-Generated): System Sizing Data: Cooling Supply Temperature .................................... 55.0 F ° Supply Fan Airflow ............................................... 5370.9 CFM Ventilation Airflow ............................................... 5370.9 CFM 200 Hydronic Sizing Specifications: Chilled Water Delta-T ............................................... 10.0 F ° Hot Water Delta-T .................................................... 20.0 F° Safety Factors: Cooling Sensible ............................................................ 0 % Cooling Latent ............................................................... 0 % Heating ........................................................................... 0 % Zone Sizing Data: Zone Airflow Sizing Method Sum of space airflow rates Space Airflow Sizing Method Individual peak space loads Zone Supply Airflow Zone Htg Unit Reheat Coil - (CFM) (MBH) (MBH) (CFM) 1 53 70.9 1 14.1, - 201 5. Equipment Data Central Cooling Unit - Air-Cooled DX Estimated Maximum Load ...................................... 153.7 Design OAT .............................................................. 95.0 Equipment Sizing .......................................... Auto-Sized Capacity Oversizing Factor ......................................... 0.0 ARI Performance Rating ......................................... 15.00 Conventional Cutoff OAT ........................................ 55.0 Low Temperature Operation ................................... Used Low Temperature Cutoff OAT ................................... 9.0 D.5 North Thermal Block Input Data 1. General Details: Air System Name ......................... North thermal block Equipment Type ............................................. Split AHU Air System Type .............. CAV with Terminal Reheat Number of zones ............................................................ l 2. System Components: Ventilation Air Data: Airflow Control ................................. Scheduled control Ventilation Sizing Method ......... ASHRAE Std 62-2001 202 MBH F0 % EER F0 F0 Schedule .................................... Arco school classroom Damper Leak Rate ......................................................... 0 Outdoor Air C02 Level ............................................. 400 Economizer Data: Control ............................. Integrated enthalpy control Upper Cutoff ............................................................. 73.0 Lower Cutoff ........................................................... -60.0 Ventilation Reclaim Data: Reclaim Type ........................................... Sensible Heat Thermal Efficiency ...................................................... 90 Input kW ................................................................. 0.000 Schedule .......................................... JFMAMJJASOND Central Cooling Data: Supply Air Temperature ........................................... 55.0 Coil Bypass Factor .................................................. 0.100 Cooling Source ....................................... Air-Cooled DX Schedule .......................................... JFMAMJJASOND % PPm F0 F0 % kW F0 Capacity Control Temperature Reset by Greatest Zone Demand Max. Supply Temperature ........................................ 65.0 F° Supply Fan Data: Fan Type ............................................. Forward Curved Configuration ................................................ Draw-thru Fan Performance ....................................................... 1.00 in wg 203 Overall Efficiency ........................................................ 54 % Duct System Data: Supply Duct Data: Duct Heat Gain .............................................................. 0 % Duct Leakage ................................................................. 0 % Return Duct or Plenum Data: Return Air Via ........................................ Ducted Return 3. Zone Components: Space Assignments: Zone 1: Zone 1 4—16 Classroom x1 4th floor toilet room x1 Core-Atrium x1 Thermostats and Zone Data: Zone ........................................................................... All Cooling T-stat: Occ. .................................................. 75.0 F° Cooling T-stat: Unocc. .............................................. 85.0 F° Heating T-stat: Occ. .................................................. 70.0 F° Heating T-stat: Unocc. .............................................. 60.0 F ° T-stat Throttling Range ............................................. 3.00 F° Diversity Factor ......................................................... 100 % Direct Exhaust Airflow ............................................... 0.0 CFM 204 Direct Exhaust Fan kW ............................................... 0.0 kW Thermostat Schedule ........ Arco equipment thermostat Unoccupied Cooling is .................................... Available Supply Terminals Data: Zone ........................................................................... All Terminal Type .................................................... Diffuser Minimum Airflow ..................................................... 0.00 CF M/person Zone Heating Units: Zone ........................................................................... All Zone Heating Unit Type Baseboard, room T-stat control Zone Unit Heat Source .................................. Hot Water Zone Heating Unit Schedule ........... JFMAMJJASOND 4. Sizing Data (Computer-Generated): System Sizing Data: Cooling Supply Temperature .................................... 55.0 F° Supply Fan Airflow ............................................... 1829.7 CFM Ventilation Airflow ............................................... 1074.6 CFM Hydronic Sizing Specifications: Chilled Water Delta-T ............................................... 10.0 F ° .Hot Water Delta-T .................................................... 20.0 F° Safety Factors: Cooling Sensible ............................................................ 0 % 205 Cooling Latent ............................................................... 0 % Heating ........................................................................... 0 % Zone Sizing Data: Zone Airflow Sizing Method Sum of space airflow rates Space Airflow Sizing Method Individual peak space loads Zone Supply Airflow Zone Htg Unit Reheat Coil - (CFM) (MBH) (MBH) (CFM) 1 1829.7 45.4 - D.6 South Thermal Block Input Data 1. General Details: Air System Name .......................... South thermal block Equipment Type ............................................. Split AHU Air System Type .............. CAV with Terminal Reheat Number of zones ............................................................ 1 2. System Components: Ventilation Air Data: Airflow Control ................................. Scheduled control Ventilation Sizing Method ......... ASHRAE Std 62—2001 Schedule .................................... Arco school classroom Damper Leak Rate ......................................................... 0 % Outdoor Air C02 Level ............................................. 400 ppm 206 Economizer Data: Control ............................. Integrated enthalpy control Upper Cutoff ............................................................. 73.0 F ° Lower Cutoff ........................................................... -60.0 F° Ventilation Reclaim Data: Reclaim Type ........................................... Sensible Heat Thermal Efficiency ...................................................... 90 % Input kW ................................................................. 0.000 kW Schedule .......................................... JFMAMJJASOND Central Cooling Data: Supply Air Temperature ........................................... 55.0 F ° Coil Bypass Factor .................................................. 0.100 Cooling Source ....................................... Air-Cooled DX Schedule .......................................... JFMAMJJASON D Capacity Control Temperature Reset by Greatest Zone Demand Max. Supply Temperature ........................................ 65.0 F° Supply Fan Data: Fan Type ............................................. Forward Curved Configuration ..................................... . .......... Draw-thru Fan Performance ....................................................... 1.00 in wg Overall Efficiency ........................................................ 54 % Duct System Data: Supply Duct Data: 207 Duct Heat Gain .............................................................. 0 % Duct Leakage ................................................................. 0 . % Return Duct or Plenum Data: Return Air Via ........................................ Ducted Return 3. Zone Components: Space Assignments: Zone 1: Zone 1 2-05 Classroom x1 2-06 Classroom x1 3-08 Classroom x1 3-09 Language Lab xl 4-04 Classroom x1 4-05 Storage x1 4-06 Language Lab x1 Gymnasium x1 Locker room x1 South Filter (stairwell) x1 Thermostats and Zone Data: Zone ........................................................................... All Cooling T-stat: Occ. .................................................. 75.0 Cooling T-stat: Unocc. .............................................. 85.0 Heating T-stat: Occ. .................................................. 70.0 Heating T-stat: Unocc. .............................................. 60.0 T-stat Throttling Range ............................................. 3.00 Diversity Factor ......................................................... 100 208 F0 F0 F0 F0 F0 % . Direct Exhaust Airflow ............................................... 0.0 CF M Direct Exhaust Fan kW ............................................... 0.0 kW Thermostat Schedule ........ Arco equipment thermostat Unoccupied Cooling is .................................... Available Supply Terminals Data: . Zone ........................................................................... All Terminal Type .................................................... Diffuser Minimum Airflow ..................................................... 0.00 CFM/person Zone Heating Units: Zone .......................................... . ................................ All Zone Heating Unit Type Baseboard, room T-stat control Zone Unit Heat Source .................................. Hot Water Zone Heating Unit Schedule ........... J FMAMJJASOND 4. Sizing Data (Computer-Generated): System Sizing Data: Cooling Supply Temperature .................................... 55.0 F° Supply Fan Airflow ............................................... 5400.6 CFM. Ventilation Airflow ............................................... 3066.8 CF M Hydronic Sizing Specifications: Chilled Water Delta-T ............................................... 10.0 F° Hot Water Delta-T 20.0 F° 209 Safety Factors: Cooling Sensible ............................................................ 0 % Cooling Latent .............................................................. -. 0 % Heating ........................................................................... 0 % Zone Sizing Data: Zone Airflow Sizing Method Sum of space airflow rates Space Airflow Sizing Method Individual peak space loads Zone Zone Htg Unit Reheat Coil Supply Airflow - (CFM) (MBH) (MBH) (CFM) 1 5400.6 157.5 - 5. Equipment Data Central Cooling Unit - Air-Cooled DX Estimated Maximum Load ...................................... 195.9 MBH Design OAT .............................................................. 95.0 F° Equipment Sizing .......................................... Auto-Sized Capacity Oversizing Factor ......................................... 0.0 % ARI Performance Rating ......................................... 15.00 EER Conventional Cutoff OAT ........................................ 55.0 F ° Low Temperature Operation ................................... Used Low Temperature Cutoff OAT ................................... 0.0 F° 210 — APPENDIX E — Whole-Building Analysis Results: Multiple Geographical Locations. 211 E.l Location # 1: Naples - Italy. NAPLES - DESIGN CASE RESULTS Table 1. Annual Costs Entire Arco school AC Components 6,710 Gas 3,419 AC Sub-Total 10,129 AC Components 26,492 Gas 8,479 34,971 Total 45,100 Table 2. Annual Entire Arco school AC (kWh) 23,682 Gas (Therm) 1,671 AC Components (kWh) atural Gas (Therm) otals (kWh) 117,181 Gas (Therm) 5,814 NAPLES - BASELINE CASE Table 1. Annual Costs AC Components Electric Gas AC Sub-Total AC Electric Gas AC Sub-Total Total Table 2. Annual AC Components (kWh) Gas (Therm) AC Components (kWh) Gas (Therm) otals (kWh) Gas (Therm) 212 Entire Arco school 7,654 3,424 11,078 26,492 8,479 34,971 46,049 Entire Arco school 27,015 1,673 120,514 5,817 NAPLES - DESIGN CASE RESULTS Table 3. Annual Cost per Unit Floor Area Component Entire Arco school shading (S) HVAC Components Electric 0.108 Natural Gas 0.055 Metal 0.163 Non-H VAC Components Electric 0.426 Natural Gas 0.136 Non-HVAC Sub-Total 0.562 Grand Total 0.725 Gross Floor Area (ft’) 62227.5 Conditioned Floor Area (ft’) 33801.5 Table 4. Component Cost as a Percentage of Total Cost Component Entire Arco school shading (S) HVAC Components Electric 14.9 Natural Gas 7.6 HVAC Sub-Total 22.5 Non-H VAC Components Electric 58.7 Natural Gas 18.8 men. 77.5 Grand Total 100 213 NAPLES — BASELINE CASE Table 3. Annual Cost per Unit Floor Area Component Entire Arco school shading (S) ‘ HVAC Components Electric 0.123 Natural Gas 0.055 motel 0.17s Non-H VAC Components Electric 0.426 Natural Gas 0.136 Non-H VAC Sub-Total 0.562 Grand Total 0.74 Gross Floor Area (ft’) 62227.5 Conditioned Floor Area (fl’) 33801.5 Table 4. Component Cost as a Percentage of Total Cost Component Entire Arco school shading (S) HVAC Components Electric 16.6 Natural Gas 7.4 HVAC Sub-Total 24.1 Non-H VAC Components Electric 57.5 Natural Gas 18.4 metal 75.9 Grand Total 100 E.2 Location # 2: Valencia — Spain. VALENCIA - DESIGN CASE RESULTS Table 1. Annual Costs Component Entire Arco school shading (S) ‘ HVAC Components Electric 6,678 Natural Gas 3,402 Wad 10,080 Non-H VAC. Components Electric 26,492 Natural Gas 8,479 Non-HVAC Sub-Total 34,971 Grand Total 45,051 Table 2. Annual Energy Consumption Comment Entire Areo school shadi S Wommnents “Hi—.4 Electric (kWh) 23,569 Natural Gas (Therm) 1,662 Non-H VAC Components Electric (kWh) 93,499 Natural Gas (T ham) 4,144 Totals Electric (kWh) 117,068 Natural Gas (Therm) 5,806 214 VALENCIA — BASELINE CASE Table 1. Annual Costs Component Entire Arco school shading (S) HVAC Components Electric 7,619 Natural Gas 3,414 Wow 11,033 Non-H VAC Components Electric 26,492 Natural Gas 8,479 Non-H VAC Sub-Total 34,971 Grand Total 46,004 Table 2. Annual Energy Consumption Component Entire Arco school shadin S Wommnents “-2—- Electric (kWh) 26,889 Natural Gas (Therm) 1,668 Non-H VAC Components Electric (kWh) 93,499 Natural Gas (Therm) 4,144 Totak Electric (kWh) 120,388 Natural Gas (Therm) 5,812 VALENCIA - DESIGN CASE RESULTS Table 3. Annual Cost per Unit Floor Area Component Entire Arco school shading (S) ‘ HVAC Components Electric 0.107 Natural Gas 0.055 HVAC Sub-Total 0.162 Non-H VAC Components Electric 0.426 Natural Gas 0.136 Non-H VAC Sub-Total 0.562 Grand Total 0.724 Gross Floor Area (ft’) 62227.5 Conditioned Floor Area (ft’) 33801.5 Table 4. Component Cost as a Percentage of Total Cost Comment Entire Arco school shading (S) HVAC Components Electric 14.8 Natural Gas 7.6 HVAC Sub-Total 22.4 Non-H VAC Components Electric 58.8 Natural Gas 18.8 Non-H VAC Sub-Total WIT-— Grand Total 100 215 VALENCIA - BASELINE CASE Table 3. Annual Cost per Unit Floor Area Component Entire Arco school shading (S) HVAC Components Electric 0.122 Natural Gas 0.055 m... 0.177—— Non-HVAC Components Electric 0.426 Natural Gas 0.136 Non-HVAC Sub-Total 0.562 Grand Total 0.739 Gross Floor Area (ft’) 62227.5 Conditioned Floor Area (ft’) 33801.5 Table 4. Component Cost as a Percentage of Total Cost Component Entire Arco school shading (S) ‘ HVAC Components Electric 16.6 Natural Gas 7.4 HVAC Sub-Total 24 Non-HVAC Components Electric 57.6 Natural Gas 18.4 Non-HVAC Sub-Total 775—“ Grand Total 100 E.3 Location # 3: Frankfurt — Germany. FRANKFURT — DESIGN CASE RESULTS Table 1. Annual Costs Component Entire Arco school shading (S) ‘ HVAC Components Electric 6,437 Natural Gas 3,446 Wot“ 9,884 Non-H VAC Components Electric 26,492 Natural Gas 8,479 Non-HVAC Sub-Total 34,971 Grand Total 44,855 Table 2. Annual Entire Arco school ents Electric (kWh) Gas (Them) 22,719 1,684 HVAC Components Electric (kWh) Gas (Them) otals Electric (kWh) Gas (Them) 116,218 5,828 216 FRANKFURT— BASELINE CASE Table 1. Annual Costs Component Entire Arco school shading (S) ‘ HVAC Components Electric 7,336 Natural Gas 3,425 We... ion—or— Non-HVAC Components Electric 26,492 Natural Gas 8,479 Non-H VAC Sub-Total 34,971 Grand Total 45,732 Table 2. Annual Energy Consumption Component Entire Arco school shading (S) HVAC Components Electric (kWh) 25,892 Natural Gas (Therm) 1,673 Non-HVAC Components Electric (kWh) 93,499 Natural Gas (Therm) 4,144 Totals Electric (kWh) 119,391 Natural Gas (Therm) 5,817 FRANKFURT — DESIGN CASE RESULTS Table 3. Annual Cost per Unit Floor Area Component Entire Arco school shading (S) HVAC Components Electric 0.103 Natural Gas 0.055 HVAC Sub-Total 0.159 Non-H VAC Components Electric 0.426 Natural Gas 0.136 Non-Ii VAC Sub-Total 0.562 Grand Total 0.721 Gross Floor Area (ft’) 62227.5 Conditioned Floor Area (ft’) 33801.5 Table 4. Component Cost as a Percentage of Total Cost Component Entire Arco school shadigflL HVAC Components Electric 14-4 Natural Gas 7-7 HVAC Sub-Total 22 Non-HVAC Components Electric 59-1 Natural Gas 18-9 mm... vs Grand Total 100 217 FRANKFURT- BASELINE CASE Table 3. Annual Cost per Unit Floor Area Component Entire Arco school shading (S) HVAC Components Electric 0.118 Natural Gas 0.055 mm... 0.173 Non-H VAC Components Electric 0.426 Natural Gas 0.136 Non-H VAC Sub-Total 0.562 Grand Total 0.735 Gross Floor Area (ft’) 62227.5 Conditioned Floor Area (ft‘) 33801.5 Table 4. Component Cost as a Percentage of Total Cost Component Entire Arco school shading (S) HVAC Components Electric 16 Natural Gas 7.5 HVAC Sub-Total 23.5 Non-H VAC Components Electric 57.9 Natural Gas 18.5 Non-H VAC Sub-Total 76.5 Grand Total 100 — APPENDIX F — Additional information related to patented shading devices and existing research. 218 1. Patented Movable Shading Devices. 0 U.S. Patent no. 4,517,960 — Bartenbach Christian 1983 - is an invention of a protection device against sunlight. The shading device consists of: — A plurality of slats that are made of a light-permeable, refracting material. The slats have a flat non—reflective base surface on a side orientedto the sun and a prismatic structure on the opposite side oriented away from the sun, as shown in figure 2.12. — The prismatic structure consists of prismatic rods that have a triangular cross section. The prismatic rods are parallel to the longitudinal axes and have two non- reflective surfaces that work only by total internal reflection, as illustrated in figure 2.13. The slats are arranged in a side-by-side relationship in a window opening. The slats are mechanically coupled to one another, and all the slats are simultaneously moved at the same time and for the same angle around the longitudinal axes (Bartenbach - 04/22/2008). 219 Figure F1 :' Isometric view of the patent 4,517,960 shading device. (Bartenbach Christian - 1983) Figure F2: Cross section through the prismatic slat of the patent 4,517,960 shading device (Bartenbach Christian - 1983). Inclination of the slats can be changed during he day and year, depending on the angle of the sun rays. This shading device has the following advantages: — Improved light transmittance. — Effective protection from the sunlight. 220 — Does not require adjustment of the slat inclination during the day for the south orientation since the required screening conditions are fiilfilled during several days. — It requires little adjustment throughout the year for the south orientation. For instance, only four adjustments of the angle of inclination of the slats are needed. These four adjustments cover the entire range of change in altitude angle in accordance with the time of year (in meridian plane 47°) with a screening range of 12° in the same plane. The slats can be adjusted to let sun rays enter the interior space and be used for heating the space in winter. Transparency of the shading device can be improved in two ways: - By improving the transparency of the obstructed (slat) area or — Reducing the obstructed (slat) area Transparency of the obstructed area can be improved by adding another prism array. The. slats become transparent since the additional prism restores the direction of the light rays that pass through the slat and are not internally reflected. 0 U.S. Patent no. 3,438,699 - B.I. Seeger 1969 - The shading device consists of multiple slats assembled in a configuration similar to Venetian blinds. The slats can be either horizontal or vertical, and they are collectively moved depending on the sun angle, as shown in figure 2.14. Each slat consists of two prisms which are oriented opposite of each other. Together they form a rectangular cross-sectioned slat, being 221 0.1707” thick, and 2. wide, and as long as one dimension of a sunlight area as shown in figure 2.15 (Seeger -— 22/04/2008). Figure F3: Horizontal section of the patent 3,438,699 prismatic slat (Seeger — 22/04/2008).. 222 Figure F4: Isometric view of the patent 3,43 8,699 prismatic shading device. (Seeger - 22/04/2008) The ridges of prisms are immersed in a thin medium, such as air or a vacuum, which has an index of refraction lower than the prism material. The materials used for slats are highly transparent to all light, such as a transparent polymethyl methacrylate material, which has an index of refraction 1.49. Figure 2.16 reported below shows a cross section of the prismatic shading device. 223 nu”..- 0....-. none-J— fw/wwS/vgflw Figure F5: Cross section of the patent 3,43 8,699 prismatic shading device (Seeger — 22/04/2008). Refiaction and total reflection of the sun rays for different incident angles can be calculated using the sample scheme reported in figure 2.17: 0 Ray A has an incident angle 0°, that is, it is perpendicular to the surface, and it will be totally internally reflected, protecting the interior space from overheating and glare. 0 Ray B is twice refracted and emerges parallel to its original direction. An occupant has a clear and undistorted view along the line of such a ray. Ray B is not a glare ray and it supplies the desired light to the interior space. Ray B forms a “clear view range.” 0 Ray C is refracted at the first outside surface and after that there are several . successive total internal reflections at the parallel surfaces of the slat. Rays C forms an “opaque view range.” 224 V ., S x ‘ \ \ 7 ‘ I\ , l Vii \ \ ‘ \ ,L' 3‘ \ \ .,,\.r.=f" l ”\‘7‘ " \ \ ,2" \ ;’ {r t ‘l I /’ '\ f l ,r I; i \\‘f ,n ,f “ 1"}! 3 1” Figure F6: Detailed cross section through the patent 3,43 8,699 prismatic shading device (Seeger — 22/04/2008). This shading device totally reflects all glare rays. Indirect glare rays are totally reflected while other light rays that have less energy are provided to the space beyond the location of the slats by: 0 Construction of the slats proposed by this invention. 0 Using transparent materials with indices of refraction equal to or greater than 52. 0 Control of their collective rotation. The other strategy for improving the transparency of a shading device is reducing the slat area. A different functional arrangement of the slats is needed for achieving this goal. Assuming a mean solar profile angle between 45° and 60°, only a retro-reflecting slat will provide protection at nearly a horizontal orientation. Figure 2.18 shows a slat with a retro-angle of 45°. 225 Figure F7: Detailed cross section through the retro/reflecting slat (Seeger — 22/04/2008). 2. Existing Research: “The Light Pipes”. “Light Pipes: Innovative Design Device for Bringing Natural Daylight and Illumination into Buildings with Deep Floor Plan (Patent Applied)” — T.R. Hamzah & Yeang Sdn Bhd Architects — Research work developed for the Asian Innovation Awards 2003. The innovative device analyzed in this dissertation is the “light-pipe”, a passive low- energy device for transmitting natural daylight into buildings with deep plans. The daylight is transmitted horizontally and vertically using internal mirrored surfaced within a box-tube structure (hence the term “pipe”) coupled with laser-cut panels (LCP) at the outer edge of the pipe as collectors. 1n buildings with deep plans (> 10 m from windows), the usual natural illumination from daylight from side windows becomes impossible. Previous studies (Hansen et a1. 2001) have shown the potential of mirrored light-pipes in deep-plan buildings, but that light distribution and extraction along the pipe was not 226 optimal. This work developed an optimization of this solution. The main improvement done with this work is relative to the conveyance of solar rays through the use of laser cut panels, represented in figure 2.24. i j. .’ .. , . i .5. i ’ . v 1 lg" ' f .. "Sela.“ . i light light pIpo Figure F8: Representation of the Laser Cut Panel effect on the light pipe (Hamzah & Yeang — 2003). The performance of the light pipes was enhanced with: 0 A laser cut panel light deflector at the input aperture to deflect high elevation light more directly along the axis of the pipe, as illustrated in figure 2.25a. o A light extraction system to extract the required proportion of piped light into the inner zone. 0 A light spreading system that distribute the light away from the area directly below the light pipe. LCPs (Edmonds & All - 1995) were produced by making parallel laser cuts in transparent acrylic panels. Each cut became a thin mirror, which provides powerful deflection of non-perpendicular light. The fraction of light deflected, fd, depended on the angle of 227 incidence, I, and the cut spacing to cut depth ratio, D/W, as shown in figures 2.25b and 2.25c for three nominal D/W ratios. A B 5" .4 go A A fraction E .Q. 1‘ deflected 4* .. .0 .0 .4. \ fraction 0. m 1! undeliectod C 1.6 DlW-OJ 0.8“ p (D a 0.7 ‘ 0.6" 0.5“ 0.4 " 0.3“ 0.2‘ traction of light deflected 0.0V T I T I U U fiT 0102030405060 700090 Incidence angle Figure F9: Detail of the Laser Cut Panels function system (Edmonds & All - 1995). A: light-receiving end of the pipe. B: Laser cut panel section. Incoming light deflected and transmitted. C: Fraction of incident light deflected for different spacing to depth ratios (D/W). 228 This research considered two types of light-pipes, the horizontal and the vertical, and both were analyzed from the practical point of view in a case study in Kuala Lumpur. Horizontal pipes. The design used four horizontal light pipes per floor, oriented west-east, with LCP used as light collectors on the west facade. The pipes were 20 m long, 2m wide and 0.8 m high, formed fi'om 85% reflectance material. Each pipe was to illuminate an area of 12 x 12 m. LCP as collectors are inclined at an angle of 55°, which was the optimiun angle for a fixed system (in Kuala Lumpur) to redirect sunrays more axially along the pipe, and reduce the number of reflections. This parameter would have been the only one that would had to be re-defined at a practical and structural level because different locations would have been characterized by different latitudes and so different solar light incident angle. Five transparent panels were inserted at a fixed spacing (2 in) along each pipe with sufficient reflectance material to extract approximately one-fifth of the light at each aperture (Edmonds et a1. 1997). A triangular arrangement of LCPs was then used to redirect the extracted light sideways to achieve a better and more uniform light distribution over the floor space. Figure 2.26 shows the main element that characterize a horizontal light-pipe system. 229 LIGHT DEFLECTORS “a LIGHT PIPE EXTRACTOFIS W 45...... ‘15 . ' PM use" i ‘ f l ‘ EXTENDED WALL ; TO BOLNDAFIY ; WLITIES ZONE : INNER ZONE PERIMIETER ZONE Figure F10: Horizontal light pipe cross-section (Hamzah & Yeang - 2003). Vertical pipes. A vertical version was also developed comprising a pyramid form LCP collector to improve the redirection of less the 90° sun angles more axially into a 2 m diameter, 18.4 m long vertical light pipe. The pipe had extraction apertures at each floor. Cone-shaped reflective extractors inclined at 37.5° were placed within the pipe at apertures to redirect the light into the space and illuminate an area of 12 x 12m. A diffusing shelf surrounded each aperture to spread the light upwards and avoid direct view of the aperture by the occupants as schematically shown in figure 2.27. Researchers considered also other aspects of the light-pipe that could also be implemented in the present research. Its conclusions provided a solid understanding of how these devices could be implemented. For each light-pipe type, the researcher developed some graphic models that represent the different device performances in relationship to the angle of solar light incidence. The initial idea of including light pipes in the simulation model to analyze their possible impact on energy and daylight performance was discarded because of the amount of additional work needed. However, the research was used as reference to define how analysis results could be reported and 230 illustrated. Graphic models ad curves similar to the one reported below were developed in order to link energy performance to shading device variables. For example, figure 2.27 shows Harnzah’s graphic result with specific variables (distance from side wall, distance from front wall, lux level). Incident light Laser Cut Panels (LCP) Building facade Outdoors Figure F11: Schematic representation of the vertical light-pipe implementation system (Hamzah & Yeang - 2003). For comparison between shading device performances and LEED® requirements, such diagrams was intersected with other curves indicating the LEED® minimum requirements. That could give designers an immediate and simple representation of shading device performance impact. 231 Lux § "500 "400 074-- ‘ 300 '7 7 ~ ~~ ._ ~200 800 700 - 500 400 ' ‘ 100 Distance from Distance from the trout wail (mm) the side mll Figure F12: Example of model result graphic representation (Hamzah & Yeang - 2003). — BIBLIOGRAPHY — 233 BIBLIOGRAPHY — Advanced Building Benchmark —- website — www.advancedbuildings.net — visited on 03/20/2008. — Alabama Maps website — http: //alabamamaps. ua. edu/contemporamaps/world/europe/europel. ipg - visited on 03/21/2009. — Architect International Association — website — www.aia.org — visited on 03/20/2008. — ASHRAE 01 — www.ashrae .Org — visited on 03/20/2008 — American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers — ASHRAE/IESNA Standards 90.1 (2004) — “Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential”. — Bartenbach - US Patent website - ht_tp://www.patentstorm.us/patents/45l7960.html — visited on 04/22/2008. — Buildings Energy Data Book - website — ht_tp://buildingsdatabook.eren.d0e.gov/?id=search table_title&q=Cooking&t= 5 -— visited on 02/03/2008). — Cache 1 — website — http://cz_rche.eb.com/eb/image?id=64495&rendTypeId=4 — visited on 03/21/2009. — Concord — website - http://www.concordshading.com/ - visited on 04/08/2008. — Edmonds, Moore, Smith (1995). “Daylightrn tin g enh_ancement with light pipes coupled to laser-cut light-deflectin ng panels” —Lighting Res. Technology. - Edmonds, Reprel, Jardine (1997). “Extractors and emitters for ligm distribution from hollow light gpides” — Lighting Res. Technology (1997). — Energy Policy Act — website — wwwppagov - visited on 03/20/2008. — E-RCPS - website — http://wwwe-rcps.com/papta/inf/g/i/trentinoiaapgif - visited on 03/18/2009. — Fridgens C., Mrozowski T., Zarka J. (1982). “The First Catalog For Solar Ener In Michi an” -— Green-e — website — www.ggeen-e.0rg — visited on 03/20/2008. 234 Haase M, Amato A. (2006) - “Performpnce Valuation of Three Different Fagade Models for Sustainable Office Buildin s” — proceeding from “The Journal of Green Buildings” - V. 1, N. 4 Fall 2006. Hamzah & Yeang (2003). “Light Pipes: Innovative Design Device for Bringing Natural Daylight and Illumination into Buildings with Deep Floor Plan”. Hansen, Edmonds, Hyde (2001). “The use of Light Pigs for Deep-plan Office Buildings” - A case study of Ken Yeang’s Bioclirnatic Skyscraper Proposal for KLCC, Malaysia - proceeding from 35th Annual Conference of ANZAsCA, Wellington, New Zealand (2001). Hunter Douglas — website — http://www.cssautomptioncom/horizontal/between%20gl§s_s/default.htrnl - visited on 04/08/2008. Ih-ho - http://www.ihO-ohi.orglwgcontent/naples-italy.jpg - website - visited on 03/18/2009. LEED NC v. 2.2 — Reference Guide for New Construction & Majpr; Renovation -— US Green Building Council (2006). In addition to Errata Sheets posted by US Green Building Council in April 2007 and April 2008. Olbina S. (2005). “Decision-making frameworkjor the selection ml design of shading devices” — Ph. D. Thesis 2005 — Virginia Polytechnic institute and State University — Virginia. Seeger - US Free Patent website - http://www.freepatentsonlinecom/343 8699.html - visited on 04/22/2008. Static - website — hhp://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/428564.jpg - visited on 03/21/2009. Stein B., Reynolds J. S., Grondzik W. T., Kwok A. G. (2006). “Mechanical d Electrical Equipment for Buildings” — Tenth Edition — John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Tzempelikos A. (2005). “A Methodology for Integgted Daylight and Thermal Analysis of Buildings” — Ph. D. Thesis 2005 — Concordia University — Montreal, Canada. USGBC 01 — United States Green Building Council -— website — ht_tp://www.usgbc.org[ — visited on 04/20/2008. USGBC O4 - United States Green Building Council -— website — http://www.usgbc.0rg[QisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=75 - visited on 04/20/2008. 235 USGBC 05 - United States Green Building Council — website — http://www.usgbc.org/DisplavPage.aspx?CMSPagelD=1718 — visited on 04/20/2008. Vision Control — website — http://www.visioncontrolqc.ca/product.html - visited on 04/08/2008. Wedding & Brown (2007). “An An_alysis of Variation in the Energy-Related Environmental Impa t of LEED Certified Buildings” — proceeding from “The Journal of Green Buildings” — V. 2, N. 4 Fall 2007. 236 ”iii“ in 7 70 0627,} Jill/[iii] If 1 iii If i