IMPROVING ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF OLD AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS – UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CAMPUS

By

SHIRLEY NELLY MORQUE

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2016

© 2016 Shirley Nelly Morque

To my parents, for their continuous support

4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

With a grateful heart, with a song of praise and with an outstretched arm, I am

most grateful to God Almighty for his blessings, unmerited favor, unconditional love,

extravagant grace and mercies and his infinite wisdom that has brought me this far. I

would like to also extend my sincere gratitude to my committee members for their

willingness and time to serve on my committee and for their valuable inputs. I would like

to express my profound gratitude to Dr. Charles Kibert, my committee chair, for his

advice, support and direction throughout the research process. I am exceptional grateful

to him because out of his busy schedule, he always had time for me to discuss the

research. Though brief, these meetings always presented new and insightful ideas into

the research. His knowledge on the subject gave me the right push towards a

successful completion of this research and for that I am grateful.

I am also grateful my co-chair, Dr. Ravi Srinivasan for his countless effort to help

shape this research. His experience and willingness to share his knowledge helped me

with this research. His prompt response to emails when I am unable to meet him in

person expedited the progress of the research. I cannot leave out Mr. Dustin Stephany,

whose continuous encouragement and willingness to help in spite of his busy schedule

contributed to make this research a success. He was always available and ready to help

me with whatever information I needed. He even went further to seek the assistance of

other colleagues to help with this research. I am very grateful for that.

I would also like to extend special appreciation to Mr. Isaac Tandoh, the Physical

Plant Department, UF, Mr. Howie Ferguson, Mr. John Lawson, Ajax Construction for

their numerous help and contribution towards this research. A special thanks goes to

Dr. Peter Donkor, who served as my personal editor before going to my committee. He

5

always took time off his busy schedule to critique my work and provided insightful

feedback. I would also like to thank all my colleagues at the Powell Center for their

support.

Last but definitely not the least, I would like to thank my family for their

continuous support and prayers and for believing in me even when I did not believe in

myself. I love you all and God bless you.

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 9

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 10

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 12

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 16

Historic Buildings and Energy Efficiency ................................................................. 16 Problem Statement ................................................................................................. 18 Research Objective ................................................................................................ 21 Significance ............................................................................................................ 22 Limitation ................................................................................................................ 22

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 23

Facts and Figures ................................................................................................... 23 Historic Preservation ............................................................................................... 23 Historic Preservation Standards ............................................................................. 25

Choosing the Right Treatment Standard .......................................................... 28 Criteria for Inclusion ......................................................................................... 29

Sustainability and Energy Efficiency ....................................................................... 30 Passive House Design ............................................................................................ 33

Requirements ................................................................................................... 34 Passive House Certificate for Retrofit-EnerPHit. .............................................. 35 Considerations for Schools ............................................................................... 35

Energy Efficiency in Educational Buildings ............................................................. 36 Preservation as an Energy Reduction Tool ............................................................. 38 Importance of Preserving Historic Properties .......................................................... 39 LEED and Historic Preservation ............................................................................. 42 NetZero Energy Buildings (NZEB) .......................................................................... 44

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 58

Building Selection and Data Acquisition.................................................................. 59 Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 62 Energy Audit ........................................................................................................... 63 Building Energy Modeling ....................................................................................... 65

7

Model Creation and Preferred Baseline Model ................................................. 66 Application of EEMs and Model Analysis ......................................................... 67

LEED Checklist ....................................................................................................... 68 Case Study – Newell Hall ....................................................................................... 68

Project Certification .......................................................................................... 68 Project Cost ...................................................................................................... 68 Project location: ................................................................................................ 68 Project Background .......................................................................................... 69 Project Summary .............................................................................................. 70 Impact on the Building’s Historic Character ...................................................... 74

Newell Hall Specific Historic Preservation Guidelines ............................................ 76

4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .................................................................................... 84

Building Analysis ..................................................................................................... 84 Impact of Renovation Works on Energy Consumption ........................................... 89 Energy Audit Analysis ............................................................................................. 91 Energy Modeling Results ........................................................................................ 93

Model Calibration ............................................................................................. 93 Energy Efficiency Measures ............................................................................. 96

Making Buildings Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEBs) ........................................... 98 LEED Checklist Results. ......................................................................................... 99

5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 112

APPENDIX

A CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION ............................................................................. 116

B NREL ENERGY AUDIT FORM ............................................................................. 117

C PRESERVATION CHECKLIST ............................................................................. 122

D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .................................................................................... 125

E DESIGN CALCULATIONS .................................................................................... 128

Anderson Hall ....................................................................................................... 128 Rinker Hall ............................................................................................................ 128

F ASHRAE SPECIFICATION FOR LPD .................................................................. 130

G PV WATT CALCULATOR ..................................................................................... 132

Anderson Hall ....................................................................................................... 132 Rinker Hall ............................................................................................................ 133

H PANEL SPECIFICATION SHEET ......................................................................... 134

8

I LEED CHECKLIST ............................................................................................... 135

Anderson Hall ....................................................................................................... 135 Rinker Hall ............................................................................................................ 136

LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 137

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 144

9

LIST OF TABLES

Table page 2-1 Embodied Energy of New Construction by Building Type .................................. 57

4-1 Building Description and Average Energy Consumption from 2008 to 2012 .... 101

4-2 Acceptable and Tolerable Errors ...................................................................... 101

4-3 Rinker Hall Energy Savings and Comments ..................................................... 102

4-4 PV design summary for Anderson Hall and Rinker Hall ................................... 103

10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page 2-1 Total U.S. Energy Use by Sector/Residential and Commercial Energy Use. ..... 47

2-2 World Market Energy Consumption in 1980 to 2030. ......................................... 47

2-3 World C02 Emissions in billion metric tons of C02 ............................................... 48

2-4 Active Efficiency Solutions for the Medium and Large Commercial Markets. ..... 48

2-5 Heat consumption measure in 4 different estates: one low energy estate and three Passive houses estates. ............................................................................ 49

2-6 Energy savings in Passive House Design. ......................................................... 49

2-7 The five basic principles for Passive House. ...................................................... 50

2-8 Electricity and Natural Gas End Use Energy in Educational Facilities in U.S.. ... 50

2-9 Average Annual Energy Consumption in BTUs (British Thermal Unit) commercial buildings. ......................................................................................... 51

2-10 Preservation and Sustainability (National Park Services, n.d). ........................... 51

2-11 Demolition Energy for Existing Buildings, Concept Model .................................. 52

2-12 Existing Building Reuse verse New Construction Carbon Equivalency Table. ... 52

2-13 Projected Demolition and Replacement of one-third of building stock by 2030. .................................................................................................................. 53

2-14 Typical Certification Threshold. .......................................................................... 53

2-15 Five Rating System that addresses Multiple Projects. ........................................ 54

2-16 Net Zero Energy Building Definitions .................................................................. 55

2-17 Classification of Net Zero Energy Building by Renewable Energy Supply .......... 56

3-1 Flowchart of the Methodology Process ............................................................... 77

3-2 University of Florida Historic District. .................................................................. 77

3-3 Series of Anderson Hall photos. ......................................................................... 78

3-4 Series of Newell Hall photos. .............................................................................. 79

11

3-5 Series of Keene Flint Hall photos. ...................................................................... 80

3-6 Series of Rinker Hall photos. .............................................................................. 81

3-7 eQuest Building creation Wizard showing building information .......................... 82

3-8 eQuest Building creation Wizard showing building geometry information .......... 82

3-9 Sustainable and LEED certification practices on UF campus from 1999 to 2013 ................................................................................................................... 83

3-10 Series of Newell Hall photos. .............................................................................. 83

4-1 Anderson Hall Annual Energy Consumption in kWh ......................................... 103

4-2 Anderson Hall Monthly Energy Consumption in kWh for the year 2012 ........... 104

4-3 Newell Hall Annual Energy Consumption in kWh ............................................. 104

4-4 Newell Hall Monthly Energy Consumption in kWh for the year 2012 ................ 105

4-5 Rinker Hall Annual Energy Consumption in kWh .............................................. 105

4-6 Rinker Hall Monthly Energy Consumption in kWh for the year 2012 ................ 106

4-7 Annual Energy Consumption Comparison of all Four Buildings; Anderson Hall, Newell Hall, Rinker Hall, and Keene Flint Hall .......................................... 106

4-8 Rinker Hall, Metered verses Simulated End-Use Energy ................................. 107

4-9 Anderson Hall, Metered verses Simulated End-Use Energy ............................ 107

4-10 Monthly ERR_mn for Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall ....................................... 108

4-11 Energy Savings in Percentages for Rinker Hall ................................................ 108

4-12 Energy Savings in Percentages for Anderson Hall ........................................... 109

4-13 Metered, Baseline and Proposed Energy Consumption and Improvement in Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall .......................................................................... 109

4-14 Energy Saving in Electricity, Steam and Chilled Water for Anderson and Rinker Hall ........................................................................................................ 110

4-15 Energy Saving showing percentage save under various energy usage ........... 110

4-16 PV Panel Potential Locations for Anderson Hall ............................................... 111

4-17 PV Panel Potential Locations for Rinker Hall .................................................... 111

12

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACEEE American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACUPCC American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment Agreement

AEBS Annual Energy Benchmark Summary

AEDG Advanced Energy Design Guide

AIA American Institute of Architects

ASE Alliance to Save Energy

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air conditioning Engineers

CBECS Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey

COP Co-efficient Of Performance

DOE Development Of Energy

EEM Energy Efficiency Measure

EIA Energy Information Administration

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EUI Energy Use Intensity

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program

GSF Gross Square Foot

HABS Historic American Building Survey

HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning

IAQ Indoor Air Quality

ICE Inventory of Carbon and Energy

13

IEA International Energy Agency

IPMVP International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Development

LPD Light Power Density

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NPS National Park Service

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NZEB Net Zero Energy Building

OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

PPD Physical Plant Department

PV Photovoltaic

RE Renewable Energy

REP Renewable Energy Power

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

TSD Technical Support Document

UF University of Florida

USGBC United State Green Building Council

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

WBDG Whole Building Design Guide

14

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Construction Management

IMPROVING ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF OLD AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS – UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CAMPUS

By

Shirley Nelly Morque

August 2016

Chair: Charles Kibert Cochair: Ravi Srinivasan Major: Sustainable Construction

There is a common quote that states, “the greenest building is the one that is

already built”. This statement draws a link between sustainability and historic

preservation. It also depicts the fact that historic buildings are sustainable and can

continue to be sustainable given the right preservation standards and energy retrofit.

Energy conservation in buildings is not a new concept. Historically, efforts have been

made by building owners and design and construction teams to include energy

conservation measures in buildings. It was however, not given much priority in the past

since energy was in abundant and its cost was cheap. In view of this, historic buildings

have been stereotyped as being unsustainable and hence not energy efficient in the

face of current sophisticated energy efficient technological boom. This research

analyzed the energy performance of two of the oldest buildings on University of Florida

campus to determine their energy performance and the ease with which their energy

can be improved by applying modern energy efficiency technologies without

compromising their historic character. A newer building, Rinker Hall, was also analyzed

for energy performance and results compared to that of the historic buildings to

15

determine which building used more energy. The climate zone and the energy needs of

each building were also considered in this study. The study also looked at passive and

active energy efficiency retrofits in historic buildings and tried to come up with what the

best practices are regarding their use in historic buildings. Energy modeling software

was used to determine the energy needs and what improvement needed to be done.

The modeling software, eQuest, was used to create a baseline model for both the

historic and new buildings, after which energy efficiency measures (EEMs) were

identified and applied to the baseline models to improve their energy consumption. As

an alternative energy reduction measure, the use of renewable energy; for the purpose

of this study, solar photovoltaic (PV) cells; to get the buildings to NetZero energy was

also considered in this study. The ease with which these improvements could be

retrofitted into the buildings to make them more energy efficient was also demonstrated

through the software. These improvements were done in compliance with the Secretary

of Interior’s guidance on historic preservation, Florida building codes and also USGBCs

LEED certification standard (in accordance to UF LEED certification targets). Locally,

energy retrofits and EEMs were also selected to be in conformance with UF

preservation standards and codes. The findings of this study demonstrated that historic

buildings could be retrofitted to be energy efficient while still maintaining their historic

character. It also provided outcomes about how, when and where to start historic

building retrofits.

16

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Historic Buildings and Energy Efficiency

According to the National Register of Historic Places, buildings that have been in

existence for more than 50 years and still hold their historic physical integrity and

significance can be classified as historic buildings. These buildings usually exhibit

special features such as architectural, archeological, aesthetic, and to a large extent

social and political attributes that have been preserved over time. Preserving these

unique characters of historic buildings is always an important task for historic building

owners. Preservation can be said to be a sustainability act. This is because, preserving

a building retains the continuous use of existing materials and features, prevents

demolition, and, as such, reduces waste to the environment. For a building to exist over

fifty years and still remain useful with little negative environmental impact makes it

relatively sustainable. Also retrofitting historic buildings is considered as recycling

project (WBDG, 2014).

Mostly recycling or retrofitting of historic building projects involves equipping the

buildings with modern energy efficiency technologies. Historically, buildings were

constructed to include some form of energy conservation measures. However, these

mechanisms become obsolete due to lack of proper maintenance and improved

technology, coupled with the fact that energy has been cheap and abundant. Today, the

situation is far more critical because energy resources are being depleted at a rapid

rate, and concerns over climate change demands a widespread reduction in energy

use. This has made it necessary for historic building owners to seek improved ways to

make their buildings more energy efficient (Hensley & Aguilar, 2011)

17

In 2010, U.S. accounted for 19% of global energy consumption, making it the

second largest energy consuming country in the world (U.S. DOE, 2012c; EIA, 2014b).

The U.S. building sector alone accounted for 7% of global energy consumption.

Although, U.S. total carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 3% between 2008 and

2010, the building sector still represents an increasing percentage of the nation’s carbon

dioxide emissions. (DOE, 2012d; EIA, 2014a). There has been about a 6% increase in

emissions from 1990 (EPA, 2015). The facts given above show the continuous increase

in energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions and as such, the need to reduce

energy and emissions.

Higher educational institutions are usually open and readily embrace energy

efficiency and sustainable policies and regulations. For instance, to help reduce carbon

dioxide emissions, about 680 colleges and universities in the U.S. came together to sign

the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment Agreement

(ACUPCC). University of Florida’s (UF) President was the first signatory to ACUPCC in

2006 (Agdas et al., 2015). This shows UF’s commitment to sustainable and

environmental issues. UF is committed to addressing the challenges of energy and

climate change on its campuses. In 2001, the school required all its new construction

and major renovations to have U.S Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in

Energy and Environmental Development (LEED) certification and now requires

buildings to have a minimum of LEED Gold certification. UF currently has 56 LEED

certified and 18 LEED registered buildings (Planning, Design & Construction, UF, n.d.).

However, being in existence for a hundred and nine years, UF also has a stock of

historic buildings. About twenty UF buildings are listed in the National Register of

18

Historic Places (Teague, 2011). Sustainability and energy efficiency policies identified

on campus are biased towards new construction. Although major renovations are

affected by the sustainable policies, very little is said about the historic buildings on

campus and how best they can be retrofitted to optimize energy use. This can be

attributed to the difficulty of incorporating modern energy efficiency mechanisms into

historic buildings without changing their architectural or historic character and also the

lack of adequate funding to undertake such projects. This study seeks to identify historic

features in campus buildings that still have the potential to conserve energy and how to

improve upon them. The study looks at the major energy efficiency challenges faced by

historic buildings and how to address them. It also addresses any problems that can

arise as a result of alterations due to the addition of new technologies into the existing

structure. The study further ensures that the historic integrity of the existing building

remains unchanged as a result of the retrofit. It also looked at best practices in energy

retrofits of historic buildings that achieve optimum efficiency and at the same time,

maintain their historic character. The use of renewable energy is also discussed.

Problem Statement

One of the largest operating costs of educational buildings in the U.S. is

operational energy. About $7.5 billion is spent on energy annually by U.S. schools,

causing a great deal of pressure on budget. Energy expenses however, are one of the

costs that can easily be controlled and decreased without impacting a school’s

educational processes negatively. Therefore, schools are continually incorporating

improved energy efficient features into new constructions and renovations (Energy star,

2006).

19

Also, in the report, “The Greenest Building: quantifying environmental values of

building reuse”, prepared by the Preservation Green Lab, in partnership with National

Trust for Historic Preservation, it was discovered that compared to waste generated

from demolition and new construction, building reuse presents the greatest

environmental savings. To put this in perspective, a 50,000 square foot building has

about 80 billion BTU of embodied energy (National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Preservation Lab, 2011; Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic

Preservation, 2011). Demolishing such a building to make way for new construction

would mean wasting all that energy and even using more energy for the demolition

process. Replacing it with a new building will also use more energy and natural

resources and cause emission of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, according to the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), construction waste accounts for 25% to 40%

of solid waste going to landfills annually. Reusing a 50,000 square foot building

prevents an estimated 4,000 tons of construction debris from being wasted (Cantell,

2005; Frey et al., 2010; Passivhaus Institute, 2014; Washington State Department of

Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 2011).

Florida is the third largest energy consuming state in U.S and the second largest

electricity producer (EIA, 2015b). Florida is also the forth-largest state in terms of

carbon dioxide emissions, producing 218 million metric tons of emissions (EIA, 2015a).

In 2015, Florida achieved a low score of 1.5 out of 20 for the state’s policies on utility

and 15.5 out of 50 points in American Council of an Energy-Efficient Economy 2015

scorecard ranking (ACEEE, 2015). The low score was attributed to low investment in

energy efficiency in the state. UF’s total energy consumption accounts for 75% of its

20

carbon footprint. Existing buildings account for about 18.9% of U.S. energy consumption

annually (Parrish & Regnier, 2012)

Energy use and emissions from buildings comes from plug loads, air

conditioning, heaters and lighting, building design and construction and system

operations. Plug loads can comprise of about 30%-40% energy use in buildings (Office

of Sustainability, n.d.). Stringent building regulations and advanced technology makes it

easier to incorporate modern energy efficiency equipment and technologies in new

construction and most major renovations. However, the situation is different when it

comes to historic buildings. Drawing the balance between historic preservation and

energy efficiency has always been a difficult one. It is easy to find articles on general

energy efficiency in buildings in new construction but such information on old and

historic buildings is rather scarce (Zimmerman, 2008).

The situation is no different on the UF campus as efforts to reduce emissions and

maintain high performance energy buildings are geared towards new construction

projects (Planning, Design & Construction, UF, n.d.). Fortunately, the construction of

most older and historic buildings incorporated some sustainable features such as using

locally sourced materials, thick walls, operable windows or fenestration, light colors and

reflective finishes, porches and others. Therefore retrofitting historic buildings to

optimize energy use might require less work and cost than anticipated (Burns, 1982;

National Trust for Historic Preservation, n.d.a; Washington State Department of

Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 2011). Hence, there is a need to assess energy

needs of existing buildings and determine necessary improvements and appropriate

energy efficiency measures that will help achieve deep energy retrofits.

21

Also given that newer buildings are typically more energy efficient compared to

older ones largely due to the use of newer building technologies and more stringent

code requirements, it is imperative that the energy efficiency of older buildings is

improved in an attempt to reduce the contribution to building energy use and

greenhouse gas emissions (Cohen, 2010; Sarkar, 2011).

Research Objective

The research identifies strategies and best practices peculiar to energy

retrofitting of old and historic buildings that can be applicable to historic buildings on the

UF campus. The study also identifies modern energy efficiency products, technologies,

and methods that have minimal impact on the historic character of buildings. Any

change that may occur as a result of the retrofit is also addressed. Getting the building

to NetZero energy is also looked at.

This study also covers energy audits to be undertaken on selected UF historic

properties to decide which energy efficiency techniques would work best. The study

again considers weatherization techniques such as sun shading devices, roofing, and

other building envelope, materials and components as a means of energy reduction in

old buildings. Building energy consumption data of historic buildings were also

compared to that of relatively newer constructions on campus to determine how historic

buildings compare to new constructions in terms of energy use. This was done with the

help of energy modeling software. To help achieve energy reduction and reduced

emission targets on the UF campus, the research also aimed at applying existing

certification standards applicable to renovation works on existing buildings such as

LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations to assess historic building

performance on campus and to help achieve optimum energy efficiency. This study

22

further assessed the feasibility of making the buildings NetZero with the use of PV

systems. The climate, location, solar radiation and the solar azimuth angle are some of

the consideration made concerning the introduction of PV system. Building use, type of

construction, the age of the building, and the types of construction materials used were

considered in the assessment of building’s energy use. The study addresses energy

retrofit procedures applicable to educational historic buildings. Lastly, the study also

addresses the challenges and conflicts that rises with the application of different

standards and codes and seeks to find common grounds.

Significance

This study is important since information on energy efficiency is usually biased

towards new construction. Having information on retrofitting energy efficiency

techniques in historic and old buildings will help reduce the total energy use and carbon

dioxide emissions in the country. It will also help save money, which will have otherwise

been used to offset huge electrical bills. Also this will serve as a resource for information

relating to retrofitting historic educational buildings with respect to historic building

retrofit procedures, energy improvements, and also provide information on challenges

and solutions as well as lessons learned. This information will reduce construction time,

risks, budget, and improve quality.

Limitation

The findings from this study are applicable to only historic and old buildings with

particular emphasis to educational buildings. This study will again be limited to climatic

conditions in hot-humid climate zones. It is also limited to UF historic construction style

and materials.

23

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Facts and Figures

In 2010, U.S. building sector consumed 39 quads of energy representing 41% of

the nation’s primary energy (36% and 44% more than the industrial and transportation

sector respectively (DOE, 2012a; EIA, 2015a). Consumption in 2009 was about 48%

higher than consumption in 1980. Commercial buildings consumed 17.9 quads

representing 46% of U.S primary energy use (DOE, 2012b; EIA), 2015a). Carbon

dioxide emissions from the building sector grew from 33% in 1980 to 40% in 2009

(DOE, 2012d; U.S. EIA, 2014a). Emissions reported at the end of 2013 showed an

increase over 2012 emission levels (EPA, 2015). These statistics indicate a continuous

increase in energy consumption and as such the need to reduce energy usage.

Historic Preservation

The history of every society is very important and needs to be preserved. The

U.S. historic preservation movement started in the nineteenth century when patriotic

American citizens gathered to preserve the nation’s most valued artifacts. At this stage,

concentration was mainly given to the preservation of individual buildings that were

deemed historic due to their association with prominent historic figures or major historic

events. Preserving the Independence Hall, which later became a museum, was one of

their initial achievements in 1813 (Hosmer, 1965; Kennelly, 2014). As mentioned earlier

in this Chapter 2, the primary focus of the early preservation movement was on historic

significance. In later years, the focus broadened to include architectural significance of

the building. In 1910, the historic preservation movement led by William Summer

Appleton, expanded to include buildings of architectural as well as historic significance.

24

It later expanded further, to include the preservation of cities, the Old and Historic

Charleston District, South Carolina became the first historic district in the nation and the

colonial city, Williamsburg, Virginia became the first outdoor museum in 1926 (Kim &

Jeon, 2012; Wiedl III, 1975).

On a federal and a much bigger platform, the historic preservation movement

started in the 1930s during the Great Depression, when unemployed architects and

photographers were hired to take stock of historic buildings in the U.S., leading to the

Historic American Building Survey (HABS), the first of its kind in the nation. Another

property, which was saved on the federal level, was Mount Vernon in Virginia, the home

of George Washington which now remains a museum. In later years, the Historic Sites

Act of 1935 was passed and became the basis for the National Register of Historic

places (De Santoli, et al., 2014; Stipe, 2003).

After World War II, as people tried to progress from the effects of the war, historic

buildings were demolished and replaced with businesses, all in the face of

development. About six thousand properties out of the twelve thousand from the HABS

were demolished (Wallace, 1996). To address this issue, in 1949, The National Trust for

Historic Preservation was created. This was to complement the inefficiencies of the

federal government on preservation issues. The Trust also continued to expand and

update the historic building database using the HABS project. The movement became

popular again when the then first lady, Jacqueline Kennedy began the restoration of the

White House Museum (John F. Kennedy: Presidential Library Museum, n.d.). The

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was passed in 1966. This was passed to

help the federal government increase historic preservation programs and assist in the

25

maintenance of historic buildings and also to add more buildings to the National

Register. In addition, the NHPA created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(ACHP) and also mandated states to have a preservation plan and State Historic

Preservation Officers (SHPO) to address issues on a state level (National Park

Services, n.d.a). The Historic Preservation Fund Act and the Historic Structures Act

were also passed to expand and mandate properties in the register by providing funding

for states and tax benefits for individuals who wished to rehabilitate their property.

Currently, the National Register has over 90,000 listed properties. The Register also

has information on about 1.4 million individual resources. This comprises objects,

structures, buildings, sites, and districts. About 40,017 were included in 2006. The

Secretary of Interior has over the years developed standards for treatment of Historic

buildings (Kennelly, 2014; National Park Services, 2006; Wells, 2008).

Historic Preservation Standards

Preservation and Rehabilitation are two critical terms to consider under historic

conservation theory. However, the secretary of Interior recommends four treatment

standards; Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and Reconstruction. Preservation is

defined as “the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing

form, integrity and material of a historic building” (National Park Services, n.d.b; Wells,

2008). The emphasis in the definition is on maintaining the integrity, materials, and form

of the building. This is the primary goal of preservationists. However due to outdated

systems and technological advancement, it has become more difficult to apply

preservation treatments throughout the preservation process. Hence, the National Park

Service (NPS) came up with a standardized system for rehabilitating projects. It goes

further to incorporate energy efficiency measures in the standard (De Santoli et al.,

26

2014). Under the standard, Rehabilitation is also defined as “the process of returning a

property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an

efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property

which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values” (National Park

Services, n.d.b; Wells, 2008). Under this standard an allowance is made for alteration

but note that preserving the buildings historic values is still emphasized in the

Rehabilitation Standard. For the purposes of this study, Rehabilitation standards will be

adopted (National Park Services, n.d.a).

The standard classifies historic project treatment as Preservation, Rehabilitation,

Restoration and Reconstruction in order of importance. That is to say that, normally, the

first approach to historic retrofit projects will be the Preservation treatment.

Preservation treatment. With the preservation treatment, great emphasis is

placed on conserving the historic character of the property by focusing on salvaging,

repairing and maintaining the historic materials and features of the property (National

Park Services, n.d.b).

Rehabilitation treatment. Contained in standard 36 CFR 67. Rehabilitation

standard is used when preservation treatment is not feasible due to certain factors such

as the strength and durability of the structure and health and safety of occupants. In

Rehabilitation, though emphasis is still placed on preserving the historic character of the

property, allowance is made for changes and alterations to the historic property to meet

current trends. This is however done while still keeping the historic character of the

building. Rehabilitation projects for income-producing historic buildings also receive

27

20% federal tax credit. The guidelines for Rehabilitation treatment can be summarized

as follows;

• Historic property shall retain its original historic use or can take up a new use provided the new usage will have minimal impact on the main character of the property as well as its site and environment.

• The historic character of the property must be kept and preserved. Changes to features and space that hold historic value to the property must be avoided as well as change to its materials.

• A property must be recognized as representing the physical record of its time, space and use and no alterations seen, as sense of historic development such as adding features from other buildings will be allowed.

• Changes of historic significance acquired by the property itself are allowed and must be preserved and retained.

• Distinctive historic elements and construction techniques shall be preserved.

• Emphasis will be placed on repair of historic features instead of replacing them. Where necessary, replacement of a historic element shall match the old one in color, design, texture and possibly material. Replaced items must be documented differentiated from the old feature.

• Care must be taken when applying physical and chemical elements to the property. Treatment posing as damage to the property must be avoided.

• Archaeological resources must be protected and preserved. Any disruptions to such resources must be mitigated.

• Additions and alterations caused by new construction shall not destroy historic property features and special relationships. The new work must conform to the old property in terms of massing, scale and proportion, features and materials in order to preserve the historic character of the environment.

• Adjacent new constructions and additions to property must be such that, they will not compromise the historic character of the environment if taken away from there (National Park Services, n.d.b; National Trust for Historic Preservation, n.d.b; Wells, 2008).

It can be observed form the guideline for Rehabilitation that particular emphasis

is placed on preserving and maintaining the historic value of the property even when

28

alterations are allowed (National Park Services, n.d.b; National Trust for Historic

Preservation, n.d.b; Wells, 2008).

In addition to this standard, the Secretary of Interior also has required guidelines

for Rehabilitation treatment. This includes Protect and Maintain, Repair and Replace.

Protect and Maintain is the first priority. Here, alterations are not exactly permitted.

Repair allows some alterations to the property but still retain its historic value. Where

Repair is not possible due to extensive damage, replace becomes the last resort (Wells,

2008).

Restoration treatment. In some cases, Preservation and Rehabilitation

treatments are difficult to implement, Restoration treatment is then resorted to.

Restoration treatment tries to bring the historic property back to an important point of its

history, thus it tries to maintain the most significant historic characteristics to show the

history of a property at a particular point in time while other historic features considered

not so important can be removed, changed or replaced (National Park Services, n.d.b).

Reconstruction treatment. The last or final treatment option, Reconstruction,

becomes necessary when the state of the building will not permit the first three

treatments, so very little can be preserved. This also occurs when health and safety are

major concerns. In reconstruction, lost portions of property are re-made (National Park

Services, n.d.b).

Choosing the Right Treatment Standard

Determining which treatment standard to use on a project is critical. Therefore

careful planning and analysis must be undertaken to decide which standard is best.

Factors to consider include;

29

• The physical state of the property – a better judgment can be made as to whether to preserve or rehabilitate a building depending on the current existing conditions of the property and whether the materials can still be used or need replacement and also what has been done on the building before.

• The level of importance of the historical character the building signifies is also critical in deciding which standard best suits it. The level of importance will help determine if the building needs to be preserved, rehabilitated, restored or reconstructed.

• The intended use of the building must also be taken into consideration before work is done on any historical building. If the building is going to continue in its original use, then preservation might be needed. However, if there is going to be an adaptive reuse of the property, then major alterations may be required.

Local building codes must be followed. For example if historic building contains

asbestos, this has to be removed and replaced regardless of its historic character

(National Park Services, n.d.b)

Criteria for Inclusion

The fact that a building is old does not necessarily mean it should be in the

National Register. To be considered, the age, integrity and significance of the historic

property are evaluated. The property should be at least 50 years old, still keep its

original design style, and must typically have important archaeological, architectural,

engineering and landscape history from the past. Usually, graveyards, cemeteries,

birthplaces of historic figures are included as well as religious properties. However, to

be included in the National Register, the structures must;

• Be associated with an event in the past with significant historic impact.

• Be associated with people that have made significant impact on history.

• Mimic distinctive character of a type and period, construction method or masterpiece.

• Yield or likely to yield important historic information (National Park Services, n.d.c).

30

The process for listing starts with the submission of nominations to the SHPO,

who notifies property owners, local governments, and seek comments from the public (if

the owner objects, the property cannot be listed but can be taken to National Parks

Service for determination). If approval is given, it goes to the state preservation office

and state review board and finally to the National Parks Services for final approval. It

should be noted that federal properties start with a federal representative and tribal

properties with a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) (National Park Services,

n.d.c).

Sustainability and Energy Efficiency

The concept of Sustainability has been in existence for long and is still very

popular now. Sustainable development was defined by the World Commission on

Environmental and Development as meeting the needs of current generation whilst

focusing on the needs of the next generation as well. Thus, sustainable development

considers the future of our planet (Kibert et al., 2011). This is very critical, as the

world’s resources will be depleted if no action is taken to preserve and control it. A

definition by Paul Hawken, in his book, The Ecology of Commerce explains it better. In

his book, he explains sustainability as leaving the world better than it was found. He

further emphasizes the need to replace anything you harm in nature. From the various

definitions given, it can be deduced that, sustainability is an ethical responsibility to

preserve the earth’s resources for the future. This is seen in the three principles of

sustainable construction; Environmental, Social and Economic (Kibert et al., 2011).

Sustainable construction addresses various issues such as but not limited to, energy

and water efficiency, material conservation, indoor and outdoor environmental quality,

environmental impact, and waste reduction. One of the important attributes of

31

sustainable development is energy efficiency. In the U.S., the building sector is the

highest energy consumer, accounting for 41% of the nation’s energy as shown in Figure

2-1 (Krarti, 2010; DOE, 2009; Zhai et al., 2011). With the rate of energy depletion and

the effect of greenhouse gas emissions (43% of carbon emissions and 39% of energy

use in U.S is from building and construction related issues), it has become important for

all building owners to seek for energy reduction measure in their properties. Figure 2-2

and 2-3 show the World’s energy and carbon dioxide emissions and projections

respectively (DOE, 2012a).

Improving energy efficiency in buildings requires either active and/or passive

energy efficiency techniques. Improvement made to building envelope elements is

considered a passive energy efficiency approach while a more active energy efficiency

approach would be the use of sophisticated technology to monitor, control, and improve

HVAC systems, lighting systems and other building systems (Schneider Electric, 2008;

Sadineni et al., 2011).

Active energy efficiency approach. A report by Schnieder Electrics argued that

to make significant gains in energy reduction, an active energy efficiency approach must

be used. The report defined active energy efficiency as making permanent changes by

using systems that will measure, monitor, and control energy usage. The report

emphasizes that controlling energy usage which is part of active energy efficiency

techniques but non-existent in passive techniques is the most important factor in

achieving energy efficiency. Energy conservation systems should therefore not only be

installed, but also must be monitored and controlled to use only the required energy

thereby avoiding waste. The report further states that passive approaches such as

32

installing low energy equipment is necessary but not sufficient, in that, using low

consumption equipment without proper controls only reduces the usage but does not

eliminate energy loss. For example, an energy efficient lamp left turned on in an empty

space will still create energy waste. The saving will come from comparing it to an

ordinary lamp, which is not energy efficient. On the other hand, if active techniques

were used, the energy that goes to waste when the room is empty would have been

saved by the use of controllers. Active energy efficiency measures are usually not

considered in the design of the building and mostly retrofitted to the building after

construction. For optimum results, these systems should be incorporated in the design

at the planning stage. Retrofitting active systems into an existing building also yields

great savings. Energy savings and consumption percentages and energy efficiency

measures for medium to large markets are shown in Figure 2-4 (Schneider Electric,

2008).

Passive energy efficiency approach. The Schneider Electric report defined the

passive energy efficiency approach as the use of low consumption equipment and

installing countermeasures against thermal losses (Schneider Electric, 2008). In

general, the passive approach deals with the use of building envelope elements. It is

usually basic and less sophisticated. The passive approach can be described as when a

building works on its own to save energy. Unlike the active approach, passive energy

efficiency measures are incorporated into the planning, design and construction of

buildings. For sustainability reasons, passive energy efficiency techniques have gained

popularity since they are environmentally friendly. A study conducted in Hong Kong

using passive energy efficiency techniques on multistory apartments in a hot-humid

33

climate showed energy and peak load savings of 31.4% and 36.8% respectively. The

passive energy efficiency approach places emphasis on the use of construction styles

and techniques such as building orientation and material as an energy saving measure.

At the design stage, the building is oriented so as to take maximum advantage of

natural lighting and ventilation. The building is also designed to take advantage of the

sun’s position. Energy conserving materials are also used for construction. Building

envelope elements such as walls, fenestrations (windows and doors), roofs, and attics

are carefully designed to save energy. Building standards and codes such as the

American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

and the International Energy Conservation codes are used in the selection criteria

(Sadineni et al., 2011)

Passive House Design

According to Passipedia, the passive house resource, “a Passive House is a

building, for which thermal comfort (ISO 7730) can be achieved solely by post-heating

or post-cooling of the fresh air mass, which is required to achieve sufficient indoor air

quality conditions without the need for additional recirculation of air” (Passivhaus

Institute, 2015c).

The Passive House Design is a building standard that produces energy

efficiency, comfort and affordable building designs. The use of the passive house

standard can guarantee about 90% energy savings related to space heating and cooling

of in building, Space heating and cooling are among the top three energy use

categories in buildings as shown in Figure 2-1. In terms of heating, passive house

systems use 1.53m3 and 1.5 liters of gas and oil respectively to heat one square meter

of living space per year. When passive design is used in warm climates with active

34

cooling, significant savings have been achieved. Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6 shows the

energy needs and consumption of passive house compared to traditional low energy

buildings (Passivhaus Institute, 2015c).

The efficient use of solar energy, internal heat sources and heat recovery

systems in passive design serves as a perfect replacement for conventional heating

systems in very cold months and applies cooling techniques in warmer months to keep

rooms comfortably cool. Also for comfort and indoor environmental quality (IEQ),

building envelope elements such as walls, roofs and windows are highly insulated to

bring heat in or take heat out of a building as desired. Exhaust air reused in passive

design through heat recovery units and ventilation systems provides great indoor air

quality (IAQ). Apart from energy savings, passive house design can also be used to

reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Among many benefits, a passive house is

sustainable, affordable, versatile, provides comfort and quality, measures results, and

can be retrofitted into an existing building. A passive house is based on five basic

principles as shown in Figure 2-7 (Passivhaus Institute, 2015c).

Requirements

The following serves as requirements that need to be met for a building to be

considered as a passive house building;

• Space heating and cooling demands of the building should be less than 15 kWh per square meter of net living space per year or 10 W per square meter peak demand. Some additional allowance must however be made for space cooling.

• The total primary energy demand should be 120 kWh per square meter or less for treated floor area per year. This includes energy for heating, electricity and hot water.

• To address airtightness, a 0.6 air changes per hour at 50 Pascals pressure (ACH50) should not be exceeded, as verified with an onsite pressure test

35

• In winter and summer climates, thermal comfort must be met for all living areas with at least 10% of the hours in a given year over 25 °C (Passivhaus Institute, 2015b).

It must be noted that the basic target of the requirement is for residential or

domestic design. Modifications are however made to accommodate other building types

and needs.

Passive House Certificate for Retrofit-EnerPHit.

For existing buildings, passive house design can achieve energy savings of

about 75% to 90%, same as for new constructions (Passivhaus Institute, 2015a).

Requirements for retrofits are similar to that of new construction with the aim of making

improvements or additions to the existing systems. To achieve efficient energy savings,

the following requirements are considered during retrofits;

• Thermal insulation should be improved. • Measures should be put in place to reduce thermal bridges. • There should be significant emphasis on improving airtightness. • Windows used should be of high quality. • Heat recovery systems should be used in ventilation. • Efficient heat generation systems should be used. • Renewable resources should be used (Passivhaus Institute, 2015a).

Considerations for Schools

Point 1. There is the need for controlled ventilation meeting acceptable indoor air

quality (IAQ) standards must be implemented.

Point 2. Airflow rates of ventilation systems must be biased towards health and

educational objectives. This typically means an air flow rate of about 15 to 20 m3 per

person per hour and maximum Co2 levels of between 1200 and 1500 ppm.

Point 3. Ventilation systems must be periodically operated or as demand

becomes necessary. Automatic time sensors control can be used to achieve this.

36

Point 4. Schools should be designed to include room heating during the

preliminary purge phase in the morning in addition to using air supply.

Point 5. To achieve the requirement above, the heat recovery and building

envelope must be designed to have annual heating demand of not more than 15kWh

per square meter per area.

Point 6. Secondary conditions

1. To achieve temperature symmetry, U-value of windows should not exceed 0.85 W/(m2K). Including thermal bridge insulation, which is recommended for schools. This is for windows without parapet or source of heating underneath.

2. Airtight requirement should be less than 0.6 h but 0.3 or less is recommended.

3. The frequency of temperature exceeding 25oC (77F) should not be more than 10% of the hour of use during summer. This is to ensure comfort temperatures in summer.

4. The total effective area-specific heat capacity of the space-enclosing components should be cwirk >150 Wh/(m²K) { 540 kJ/(m²K) } This should be based on classroom area. Additional cooling besides night time ventilation and cooling must be provided as an alternative (Passive House Institute, 2006; Passivhaus Institute, 2014).

Energy Efficiency in Educational Buildings

One of the largest lifecycle costs of educational buildings in the U.S. is their

operational energy. About $7.5 billion is spent on energy annually by U.S. schools,

causing a great deal of pressure on the budget. Energy expenses however, are one of

the costs that can easily be controlled and decreased without impacting the school’s

educational processes negatively. According to ASE, energy star estimates about 30%

of school’s energy are not needed or used inefficiently (ASE, 2014).

A survey conducted by EIA in 1999 on commercial buildings also concluded that

educational buildings accounted for 12% of all commercial building energy used in the

U.S. and about 2% of the total energy use. The survey went further to calculate the

37

combined energy of electricity, natural gas, oil, and steam or hot water consumed by

educational buildings in 1999 as 614 trillion Btu. The 1999 survey also showed

educational buildings’ most site energy use was from space heating, lighting and water

heating (Pless & Torcellini, 2004). Space heating, cooling and lighting account for

about 70% of energy use in schools. Cooling and Lighting are the top two electricity end

use, followed closely by plug loads. Space heating is usually by natural gas. Figure 2-8

shows educational building electric and natural gas end use profile. However, this might

not be the correct representation in all regions, as schools in warmer climates such as

Florida will have most of its energy consumption coming from cooling rather that heating

(Energy star, 2006).

Therefore, there is the need for energy efficiency in school buildings. Educational

buildings, unlike other commercial buildings, usually have systematic energy efficiency

maintenance standards and policies. Coupled with the uniform building stock and

consistency in implementing and practicing energy efficiency measures, (there may be

variations in some areas such as functionality, time of construction), it is comparatively

easy to evaluate energy efficiency and sustainability measures. This makes it easier for

educational buildings to adopt energy efficiency measures than other commercial

buildings (Agdas et al., 2015).

To help save energy in schools, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(NREL) developed the Advanced Energy Design Guide (AEDG) to help schools achieve

50% energy savings over the minimum ANSI/ASHREA/IESNA standard 90.1-2004. The

results of tests conducted on all the eight different climate zones, showed that AEDG

when used results in 50% or more energy savings over the ASHRAE standard. The

38

guide is applicable to all new constructions as well as existing building energy retrofits

(Bonnema et al., 2013). As part of the AEDG, the NREL also developed a Technical

Support Document (TSD) for explain procedures and analysis of the energy modeling

used. The TSD showed that 30% energy savings above the standard can be achieved

when the guidelines are followed and this required complying with the minimal code

requirements making it easy to adopt (Pless et al., 2007).

Preservation as an Energy Reduction Tool

Historic preservationists believe that it is very possible and easy to retrofit a

historic building with modern energy efficiency features to make it more sustainable and

still keep the historic character of the building. Over the years, there have been many

movements regarding high performance and green buildings but with major emphasis

on new construction, neglecting the energy efficiency opportunities in historic and old

buildings. However, research has shown that historic buildings were built to be energy

efficient. Over the decades, the performance of these systems and features diminished.

Therefore preserving or rehabilitating such buildings will bring the energy efficient

features to a usable state. Also, repairing and replacing features that have exceeded

their useful lifespan where necessary will help conserve energy in the building. Finally,

adding active systems such as monitoring and control systems will improve its energy

efficiency and as such achieve high energy savings (Washington State Department of

Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 2011)

Historic buildings can be energy efficient. Prior to the introduction of HVAC

systems into building design, traditional building designers employed non-mechanical

energy conservation features integrated into the building envelop to maintain comfort.

This was to enable buildings use daylighting, solar heating, and natural ventilation.

39

Traditional buildings also used sustainable construction materials such as concrete,

masonry and bricks, wood, glass and steel. This is considered as Passive energy

efficiency measures (Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic

Preservation, 2011).

Statistics show that about 20 million properties built before 1930 are standing

and remain useful space. This means the energy conservation features may still be

usable. The problem is that due to new energy efficiency technologies, these old

features in buildings are usually not recognized as energy efficiency measures (Burns,

1982). Also, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), until about the year

2000, the energy per square foot of buildings constructed before 1920 were lower than

in other decades as shown in Figure 2-9 (EIA, 2003; Washington State Department of

Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 2011).

Importance of Preserving Historic Properties

Historic buildings are sustainable. Retrofitting and rehabilitation of a Historic

property is considered by many as a recycling project and as such are very sustainable.

Figure 2-11 shows the relationship between historic preservation and sustainability.

Materials used in the construction of historic properties are durable and that explains

their existence to this time (National Park Services, n.d).

Historic preservation as economic development. Historic preservation not

only preserves historic properties but also serves as a means of economic development

through the creation of jobs. In 2007, 40,755 jobs were created due to historic

preservation and accounted for more than $4 billion in economic investments. In the

same year, 18,006 and 1,045 building units and tax credit projects were created. Since

the inception of historic preservation movement, over 35,000 projects have benefited

40

from tax credits. With the help of tax credits, 204,985 buildings have been rehabilitated

and have provided about 93,061 homes for low-moderate income families (Washington

State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 2011).

Historic buildings are a valuable resource to society. About 25% of all U.S.

building stock was constructed before 1930 (Burns, 1982). By definition, historic

buildings possess symbolic significance to the culture and community. They exist to

remind us of our past as such the need to research on best practices to optimize their

use.

New construction uses more embodied energy than Historic buildings. New

buildings typically use less operational energy compared to older ones due to new

energy efficiency technologies. However, they use more embodied energy and generate

more carbon dioxide during their construction. This energy comes from the extraction

and manufacturing of building materials to the assembling of these materials into a

building. In between these two activities is the energy used in the transportation of

construction materials to construction sites. All these add to the embodied energy used

in new building construction. Table 2-1 and Figure 2-12 show the embodied energy of

materials in different types of new building and the demolition energy of existing building

(Jackson, 2005).

Also according to data from research done by Richard Stein in the 1960s and

1970s, a 4,600 square meter building construction will need as much energy as

required to drive around the earth more than 600 times or to drive a distance of about

22 million kilometers (approximately 13700000 miles). The Stein research data used in

more recent calculations showed that it takes about 25 to 60 years for a demolished

41

existing building to recover its energy used during demolition and construction of the

new structure. It must be noted that this might not represent the current picture of

embodied energy in new construction since there have been improvements in

construction materials and also as there is no acceptable methodology for calculating

embodied energy in buildings. Previous studies have estimated that embodied energy

account for between 30% - 60% of a building’s total energy.

The Brookings study also showed that, continued development trends will result

in almost one-third of building stock, representing 82 billion square feet, being

demolished and replaced by new ones by 2030. This will result in the use of energy

needed by about 37 million people for an entire decade (Washington State Department

of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 2011).

Demolition and New Construction creates embodied carbon. In addition to

embodied energy, research from the British Empty Home Agency in 2008, based on the

inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) in 2006, compared the carbon dioxide emissions

attributable to new construction to that of retrofitting existing old buildings. The British

Empty Home Agency’s research again showed that new building construction projects

that are energy efficient take up to 35 to 50 years of operating efficiently to recover

carbon emitted during construction. It is common knowledge that new energy efficient

buildings in the long-term offer carbon savings but carbon emissions reduction is a

short-term ambition and goal not a long-term one since climate change and global

warming issues need immediate action. In view of this, retrofitting old buildings present

a better carbon emission reduction than new construction. It must however be noted

that a lot of factors affect carbon offset or payback of a building. These include but are

42

not limited to, the building type and size and also climate (EBN, 2012). Figure 2-13

shows carbon equivalency for existing buildings verses new construction in some states

in the U.S. (Hammond & Jones, 2006; British Empty Homes Agency, 2008).

Retrofitting historic buildings is cost effective. New Construction uses a

longer time to recoup its expenditure on energy and material. It has been researched

that it takes 20 years to recoup expenditure from energy and materials used in

construction (Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,

2011).

Demolition and reconstruction creates waste. Again demolition creates

construction waste and impacts on landfill capacity, thus, posing an environmental

challenge. According to the EPA, building waste accounts for about two-thirds of U.S.

non-industrial waste. Building demolition and reconstruction creates 155 and 3.9

pounds of waste per square foot of building respectively (Washington State Department

of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, 2011). Figure 2-14 shows the Brooking study

chat. Based on these findings and research, it was concluded that, preserving and

retrofitting old and historic buildings has more energy savings and less harm to the

environment than demolition and constructing new ones (Frey et al., 2010).

LEED and Historic Preservation

In 1998, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) developed a rating

system for building certification called Leadership in Energy and Environmental

Development (LEED). LEED applies a point-based system for its certification. The total

possible score as at the time was 69 points and certification was based on six

categories. LEED-NC (for New Construction) gained interest as many private and

federal projects strived to achieve the certification. As it became widely accepted, the

43

federal government required all new construction of $2,000,000 and above to be at least

LEED silver. There were about 10,311 registered projects in 2008. Out of these, 71 and

382 projects earned Platinum and Gold certifications respectively. In 2002, LEED-EB

(Existing Building) was created for maintenance and operation of existing buildings. The

LEED-EB pilot project certified 25 projects and 16 projects were certified in the later

revision LEED-EB 2.0. However, many historic rehabilitation projects used LEED-NC,

thus LEED for New construction and Major renovations (USGBC, 2016; Wells, 2008).

Due to the unique features of Historic preservation properties, achieving high

score under the LEED rating system becomes difficult. In fact research done showed

that generally, historic properties achieved 20 points on existing buildings and 11 points

on reuse. This represents less than half of the total points, meaning, the LEED rating

system was favorable toward new construction. Hence in 2006, at the National Trust for

Historic Preservation conference in Pittsburg, there was a proposal for USGBC to

modify their existing system to favor historic preservation projects. Suggestions were

sent to USGBC in 2007 by the National Coalition for Sustainable Preservation. The

coalition comprised of The National Trust for Historic Preservation, American Institute of

Architects, The National Parks Service and The Association of Preservation Technology

(Frey et al., 2010; USGBC, 2016; Wells, 2008).

The latest version on LEED is v4 audit has a total possible score of 110 points, a

score of 80 and more points gets a LEED-Platinum. Following closely is Gold rating with

a score of 60–79 points, a score of 50-59 points earns a Silver rating and 40-49 points

earns a LEED certified rating. The four LEED rating score is showed in Figure 2-15.

LEED v4 added two more categories to the existing six making eight categories basis

44

with each category having specific tasks to perform to earn points. The main categories

include Location and Transportation, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and

Atmosphere, Material and Resource, Indoor Environmental Quality and Innovation and

Regional Priority. Currently LEED has broadened its scope to include five rating types to

address various aspects and types of buildings. These are Building Design and

Construction BD+C, Interior Design and Construction ID+C, Building Operations and

Maintenance O+M, Neighborhood Design ND and Homes. Figure 2-16 shows the

different types of rating categories (USGBC), 2016).

NetZero Energy Buildings (NZEB)

Several attempts have been made at reducing energy demand and carbon

emissions globally. Achieving NZEBs have therefore become popular with most

countries and government organizations. Various efforts and initiatives to promote the

importance of NZEB are being undertaken by many governments and organizations

worldwide.

Internationally, in 2008, the Solar Heating and Cooling Program by IEA approved

the Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings initiative, also referred to as Task 40. The

aim of Task 40 was to create a global database where all information regarding NZEBs

can be accessed. The database is to contain information on guidelines, standard

definitions, design innovations, design and operational solutions, and projects for

NZEBs (ECBCS, 2016). In U.S., DOE also created a similar database as that of EIA

program to promote NZEBs. Still on U.S., Congress approved and authorized DOE’s

alliance for NZEB in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. There

is also the Net Zero Commercial Buildings Initiative whose main aim is to support the

goal of achieving net zero in all new commercial buildings by the year 2030 and net

45

zero energy for all commercial buildings by 2050 (EISA, 2007; Crawley et. al., 2009).

Individual organizations such as ASHRAE and Architect Institute of America (AIA) have

also come up with policies of achieving NZEB. ASHRAE Vision 2020 has a sole

objective to create tools by 2020 that will help NZEBs by 2030, whereas AIA 2013

Challenge, on the other hand, focuses on a 50% energy reduction for existing buildings

and a carbon neutral new buildings by 2030. On a local basis, California state

implemented and energy policy to have all new residential buildings and all new

commercial buildings to be net zero by the year 2020 and 2030 respectively (ASHRAE,

2008; AIA, 2009; Crawley et al., 2009). This policy was implemented by the California

Public Utilities Commission. In Europe, the term nearly zero energy building is more

popular. According to the Energy Performance Building Directive/2010/31/EU Article

9(1), all new buildings must be nearly zero energy buildings by December, 2020 and

after December, 2018, all inhabited public or government owned buildings, must be

nearly zero energy buildings. The EPBD tasks member states for come up with targets

and policies on how this directive would be achieved. Other countries such as United

Kingdom, Canada and Japan also have policies, initiatives, and targets on NZEBs

(Groezinger, 2014).

Defining NZEB has been a difficult task. Various definitions have been used

depending on the aims and goals by which the term is used. Different definitions and

classifications such as net zero source energy, net zero site energy, net zero energy

cost, and net zero energy emission are being used. Also NZEB:A, NZEB:B,NZEB:C,

and NZEB:D are also other classifications used for NZEBs based on their RE supply.

Figure 2-17 and Figure 2-18 show the various definitions and classifications for NZEBs.

46

Generally, a NZEB simple refers to a building that produces as much energy as it

consumes (WBDG, 2014b; Torcellini, 2006). So the equation is energy output equals

energy input or energy output minus energy input is equal to zero. Other terms related

to NZEB that are also commonly used are, near zero energy; mostly used by the

European Union (EU) and net positive energy. The term Net Zero can be used for

energy, water and good production (Castro et al., 2014). The scope of this research

covers NZEBs. NZEBs need to be monitored and measured to maintain their net zero

status since a building can be net zero in one year and not net zero in the following

year. DOE advises the use of utility bills and sub-metering annually, as a measure to

review and track changes that might arise in the operation and use of the building

Achieving NZEB involves the design of the building to be self-sufficient,

implementing technologies, control and monitoring measures, and the generation of

Renewable Energy Power (REP). Since, one of the important considerations made

during historic building retrofits is keeping the identity of the building, making the

building self-sufficient by the use of passive approach and the generation of REP were

considered to be the safest approach in addressing energy reduction measures in

historic buildings. The use of RE is considered to be the safest, environmental friendly,

and sustainable approach to addressing energy and global warming issues. RE comes

in various forms such as wind energy, solar energy, and biomass and to a larger extent

hydroelectric power. However, solar energy is what is considered in the scope of this

study (Deng et al., 2014; Crawley et al., 2009).

47

Figure 2-1. Total U.S. Energy Use by Sector/Residential and Commercial Energy Use

(DOE, 2008).

Figure 2-2. World Market Energy Consumption in 1980 to 2030 (EIA, 2007a).

48

Figure 2-3. World C02 Emissions in billion metric tons of C02 (EIA, 2007b).

Figure 2-4. Active Efficiency Solutions for the Medium and Large Commercial Markets (Schneider Electric, 2008).

49

Figure 2-5. Heat consumption measure in 4 different estates: one low energy estate and three Passive houses estates (Passivhaus Institute, 2015c).

Figure 2-6. Energy savings in Passive House Design (Passivhaus Institute, 2015c).

50

Figure 2-7. The five basic principles for Passive House (Passivhaus Institute, 2015c).

Figure 2-8. Electricity and Natural Gas End Use Energy in Educational Facilities in U.S.(Energy star, 2006).

51

Figure 2-9. Average Annual Energy Consumption in BTUs (British Thermal Unit) cc (DOE, 2010) commercial buildings. (EIA, 2003).

Figure 2-10. Preservation and Sustainability (National Park Services, n.d).

52

Figure 2-11. Demolition Energy for Existing Buildings, Concept Model (Jackson, 2005,

http://www.areforum.org/up/Materials%20and%20Methods/EmbodHP.pdf)

Figure 2-12. Existing Building Reuse verse New Construction Carbon Equivalency Table (National Trust for Historic Preservation. Preservation Lab, 2011).

53

Figure 2-13. Projected Demolition and Replacement of one-third of building stock by 2030 (Brookings Study).

Figure 2-14. Typical Certification Threshold (USGBC, 2016).

54

Figure 2-15. Five Rating System that addresses Multiple Projects (USGBC, 2016).

55

Figure 2-16. Net Zero Energy Building Definitions (Crawley et al., 2009. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46382.pdf)

56

Figure 2-17. Classification of Net Zero Energy Building by Renewable Energy Supply (Crawley et al., 2009. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46382.pdf)

57

Table 2-1. Embodied Energy of New Construction by Building Type (Jackson, 2005)

58

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Research Methodology chapter elaborates on how data for this study was

collected, analyzed and used in this research to produce meaningful conclusions and

results. Energy consumption data was gathered on three of the oldest historic buildings

on campus; Anderson Hall, Keene Flint Hall, and Newell Hall are compared to and a

new, LEED Gold building; Rinker Hall on campus. UF main campus was used for this

study due to proximity and easy accessibility to UF buildings. eQuest energy model is

used to create a baseline model for Anderson Hall and Rinker Hall from information

gathered from energy audit. eQuest is used because it is user friendly, and flexible and

it is not limited to a specific design stage. It can be used even at the initial design and

planning phase. The results from the baseline models of Anderson Hall; a historic

building is compared to that of Rinker Hall, a relatively new building, to determine which

of these buildings had a greater energy consumption. These results were also

compared to the metered energy consumption of the two buildings and the monthly and

annual errors were calculated. Newell Hall is used as a practical case study for the

research since it is still undergoing rehabilitation. Based on the outcome of energy audit

on each building, EEMs were developed and implemented into the baseline models of

both Anderson and Rinker Hall. For consistency and better comparison, the same

EEMs were applied to both buildings. The buildings were then calibrated to reflect the

EEM inputs applied. Percentage savings were then recorded from a comparison of the

baseline model and the EEM calibrated model. Energy savings from Anderson Hall is

compared to that of Rinker to determine which of the two buildings had more energy

savings.

59

The research methodology developed was used to understand the importance of

energy efficiency in the built environment and how to employ appropriate energy

efficiency technologies in achieving deep energy retrofits in historic preservation

projects without compromising the historic character of buildings. The hypothesis is that

historic properties are built to be energy efficient and as such, improving their energy

performance is easy and also by using passive energy efficiency strategies, a higher

degree of energy savings can be achieved. The methodology analyzed how to properly

integrate or appropriately use energy efficiency technologies and historic preservation

standards in historic building rehabilitation on UF campus. The step-by-step approach

used in the methodology is shown in Figure 3-1. This includes four main steps with

several sub-steps.

Building Selection and Data Acquisition

Building selection. For a building to be considered for this study, it had to be a

historic building. The National Parks Services criteria for evaluating a building for

inclusion in the National Register shown in Appendix A, (the building should be more

than 50 years and must hold significant historic value) was used. Twenty UF buildings

are listed in the National Register for historic buildings. Figure 3-2 shows UF’s historic

district and the buildings listed in them.

Selection of buildings for this study was based on the age of the building, its

location in the historic district of impact and its historic significance to the university.

This study considered three historic buildings from the UF’s historic district; Anderson

Hall and Newell Hall, and Keene Flint Hall. The selected buildings are also part of UF

buildings listed in the National Register. Anderson Hall, Newell Hall, and Keene Flint

Hall among the oldest buildings on UF campus. To help determine that historic buildings

60

were built to be energy efficient, a much newer building, Rinker Hall was selected as a

basis for comparison. Building function was of important consideration in comparing the

energy consumption of the buildings and so was the massing and floor area of the

buildings. For a better comparison, the historic building and the newer buildings should

have similarities in building function or use, floor area and massing. All four buildings

had classrooms, offices, and student activity areas. They were also between three to

four stories and had gross floor area of between 35,000 to 58,000 square feet.

Consideration was also given to the year and the style of construction, any renovation

work done on the building and year of renovation, construction materials used and

finally any building certifications such as LEED, green globes or Living building

challenge.

Anderson Hall. Anderson Hall was constructed in 1913 and is one of the earliest

buildings constructed on campus. It was initially called the Language Hall. It was built by

architect William Edwards in collegiate gothic style. This building is part of UFs historic

building impact area and also part of the National register. It was added to the National

register in 1979. The building formally had offices for the president of the school, the

registrar and the graduate school. Anderson Hall is a four story, 47,628 square foot

building that houses classrooms, offices and student facilities. Anderson Hall is a purely

brick construction. The building was rehabilitated in 2003 by Rowe architects. Figure 3-3

shows the exterior view of Anderson Hall (Teague, 2011).

Newell Hall. Newell Hall was constructed in 1909 and is also one of the earliest

constructions on campus. It was built by architect William Edwards in collegiate gothic

style. This building is part of UF’s historic building impact area and also part of the

61

National register. It was added to the National register in 1979. The building formally

housed the Florida agricultural station. Newell Hall is a four story, 35,038 square foot

building that house classrooms and offices. The building was renovated in 1943 by

Rudolf Weaver architects. The renovation also added the annex to the main building in

1943. Currently, the building is undergoing rehabilitation. Newell Hall is a purely brick

construction. Figure 3-4 shows the exterior view of Newell Hall (Teague, 2011).

Keene Flint Hall. Flint Hall was constructed in 1910 and also represents one of

the earliest campus constructions. It was previously called the Science Hall because it

housed many of the science departments. Built by architect William Edwards in

collegiate gothic style, Flint Hall also forms part of UFs historic building impact area and

is also listed in the National register. It was added to the National register in 1979. Apart

from housing the science departments, Flint Hall also housed the Florida museum

(formerly the University museum) on its second floor. Flint Hall is a three story, 58,774

square foot building that currently houses classrooms, offices and student facilities and

made of brick exterior. The building started renovation in 1999 by Rowe architects.

Figure 3-5 shows exterior and interior photos of Flint Hall (Teague, 2011).

Rinker Hall. Rinker Hall was constructed in 2003 and is the first LEED Gold

building on campus. The building houses the school of construction management.

Rinker Hall is a three story, 48,906 square foot building that house classrooms, offices,

labs and student facilities. Rinker Hall is oriented north-south. Rinker Hall is constructed

of metal panels with steel structure. It has some brick construction on its western

façade. The building was constructed to be de-constructible. Rinker Hall is one of the

62

few buildings on campus with less brick construction. Figure 3-6 shows the exterior view

of Rinker Hall (BCN website).

Data Collection

Before any data is collected, a good knowledge or idea of the project must be

known. This ensures that the right information is collected. Information collected for this

research was based on the state of Florida because of its climate zone; hot-humid

climate. The potential of energy consumption is relatively high in such climates.

Weather information was gathered from the UF weather station. This was analyzed and

used to understand peak and non-peak periods and associated energy cost. Information

such as wind speed and direction, solar insolation were gathered and also analyzed to

understand the energy use pattern of the building throughout the year. It must however

be noted that weather information may not be very accurate due to variations. Building

information such as the construction year, style of construction, historic significance,

building square foot and massing were obtained from UF facilities website, UF PPD

office and physical observation of site. This information was also used to understand the

energy consumption patterns of the building.

Energy consumption data for the past eight years were also obtained from UF

PPD. Design and construction drawings were also obtained from UF facilities

department and UF PPD. Information from Mechanical and Electrical drawings were

reviewed to determine the type of lighting and HVAC systems used in the building and

their efficiencies. Also, information on schedule such as occupancy, equipment, and

lighting was also gathered from UF website, physical inspection of buildings and

construction drawings. Site visits were undertaken to physically inspect and be familiar

with selected buildings. Features such as the type and style of construction used,

63

building materials used in construction, building orientation and location, energy

efficiency measures employed during construction and those that were implemented

after construction were also documented and assessed during site visits. Also any

renovation works done on the buildings, the reason for the renovation and its effect on

the buildings energy performance were noted. Information through interviews with

building maintenance officer and some occupants were also gathered on site visits.

Data was also gathered from National Historic Preservation Act standard, Florida

building code, UF building guidelines for historic preservation and retrofits and LEED

certification standards. All data gathered and reviewed helped to determine the type of

audit to be undertaken and also the type of EEMs to be employed in the building.

Energy Audit

To determine what EEMs are best for the energy improvement of the buildings,

an energy audit was conducted on the buildings. Newell Hall was under construction at

the time of the research so it was not possible to conduct an audit on the building.

However, data was collected from the architect, project manager, and mechanical

engineer on the project. Different kinds of Energy Audits can be performed on a

building. The level of detail is dependent on the type of audit to be performed. According

to the Annual Energy Benchmark Summary (AEBS) report, ASHRAE level 1 or a

walkthrough energy audit is required for buildings with size 5,000 – 49,999 square foot,

and 50,000 square foot plus buildings require energy survey or engineering analysis,

which is also be referred to as ASHRAE level 2 (Kelsey, n.d.). ASHRAE identifies three

levels of energy audits. Level 1, which is usually the first approach to energy auditing. It

is also called simple or sequence audit or a walkthrough audit. It involves a physical

inspection of the building to identify areas of improvement on energy performance and

64

interviews with building operating officer, occupants, and maintenance department.

Results from the level 1 audit are used in a level 2 energy audit which analyses more

detailed features to come up with detailed energy efficiency improvements. If EEMs

identified in level 2 needs to be implemented, a more detailed audit is required. This

audit looks at cost and benefit analysis and also assesses the performance (DOE,

2011).

Since the historic buildings selected for the study fall within the first classification,

a walkthrough analysis was used. A walkthrough energy audit analysis was performed

on Anderson Hall, Rinker Hall, and Flint Hall buildings. This was to help understand the

systems used in the building and determine their efficiency. An interview was

scheduled with the building maintenance officer and UF PPD to help understand the

maintenance and operation schedules and the automation of HVAC systems. The

NREL energy audit data collection form and the Washington State university checklist

were also used to assess the building. Since there was no specific checklist on historic

buildings, the researcher developed a checklist based on preservation guidelines from

the NPS and UF historic preservation guidelines. The energy audit worksheet is shown

in Appendix B and C. Interview questions and their answers used in this study can be

found in Appendix D. The checklist was also used to assess the necessary energy

efficient improvements for the buildings based on their historic character and

construction.

Appropriate technology. Mostly, energy efficiency retrofits involve incorporating

advanced technologies into existing buildings to increase its energy efficiency. It is

believed that historic buildings were built to be energy efficient using elements in its

65

building envelope. Therefore, this study emphasized on the assessment and usage of

building elements as the first step towards improving energy efficiency in historic

property retrofit before introducing hi-tech energy efficiency measures. In the energy

audit, building elements such as walls, fenestration (doors and windows), roof and

others were assessed for their energy efficiency and possible improvement. Emphasis

was placed on technologies that are local and are easily adaptable. These technologies

are cost effective and sustainable. Information on local building materials were obtained

from local material suppliers.

Building Energy Modeling

Before any energy efficient improvements can be done on a building, the energy

usage of the building must be known. To determine this the selected buildings had to be

modeled and simulated for energy needs. For the purposes of this study, only one

historic building; Anderson Hall and Rinker, a relatively new building, was used for the

energy modeling. eQuest energy modeling software was used as the modeling tool.

eQuest is a sophisticated software but it is user friendly. It is not specific to any

particular discipline and can be easily used by any member of the design team. The

software can be used in all design phases, from schematic designs to final design.

eQuest uses current energy simulation measures to analyze building energy

technologies employed in the building. eQuest was used because it is the most reliable

and a widely used energy simulation tool. It also allows users to start the analysis at an

early stage in the design and a graphical result allows the user to appreciate the

analysis being done. eQuest combines a building creation wizard and an energy

efficiency wizard to achieve the required energy simulation. The program performs

parametric simulations of buildings using design alternatives imputed by the user. The

66

result is a graphical representation of energy performance of the imputed design

alternatives. The program guides the user to describe the energy related features of the

building and creates a detailed description of the proposed design. It starts by inputting

the most basic building information from the architectural, HVAC and energy needs of

the building as shown in Figure 3-7 and 3-8. More detailed information can be added as

they become available. Up to nine energy design alternatives can be simulated to give

energy efficiency alternative results that can be compared and the best options selected

(Energy Design Resource, n.d.).

Model Creation and Preferred Baseline Model

Building information such as building type, location, weather, number of stories,

heating and cooling equipment, and floor area; gathered during the data collection stage

for Anderson Hall was imputed into the schematic wizard of the building creation wizard.

Next, polyline drawings of the building were made out of the AutoCAD drawing files of

the building obtained from UF PPD. This was imported into eQuest software for energy

analysis. Since different rooms have different energy needs, thermal zones were

created for all rooms in the building using the CAD plans. After this, all necessary

building information were inputted and modeled in the software. Since detailed analysis

was to be obtained, more detailed information on the buildings such as building

occupancy, equipment usage profile, description of internal loads and HVAC systems

were inputted into the design wizard. Airside and Waterside data was also put into the

software.

A baseline model of the building’s energy performance was then created. Energy

supply to most UF buildings are from three sources; Electricity, Steam and Chilled

Water. Based on this electricity, steam and chilled water data were generated from the

67

software. This information was then compared to the energy use metered data obtained

from UF PPD to see where there were variances and analyze the reasons for the

variations. Errors obtained were also compared to acceptable error limits, to determine

whether error limits produced by the buildings are within the allowable limits.

Application of EEMs and Model Analysis

The EEM wizard was then launched. A list of EEMs was identified from

information gathered from the energy audit and energy consumption data. Various EEM

alternatives were explored and applied to the model to determine best improvement

measures. Three different options were explored; using a more passive approach, using

active high-tech measures and a combination of a passive and active approach. Since

the emphasis was on historic buildings, maintaining the character of the buildings was a

major factor in selecting the EEMs in the program. Priority was to be given to a more

passive approach in the selection and the application of EEMs. A detailed parametric

tabular report on the alternatives became available after simulating all three options. For

better visualization and ease of comparison, a graphical representation of the results

was also made available in both individual and comparative forms. The software also

provided an estimated overall energy used by the building. Also, individual building

features were also analyzed for efficiency and a detailed energy performance of the

components given. The EEMs identified were also analyzed based on their associated

cost. Equipment cost, construction cost and time, ease of implementation was some of

the consideration undertaken when looking at cost benefit analysis. Consideration was

also given to all code requirements and preservation standards to ensure compliance.

68

LEED Checklist

UF campus adopted sustainable practices as far back as 1999. As part of the

university’s commitment towards energy efficiency and sustainability, UF adopted

USGBC’s LEED in 2001 and built the first LEED Gold certified building in the state of

Florida. LEED certification practices have become mandatory for all new buildings and

major renovations on UF campus and targets are being intensified as new standards

become available. Figure 3-9 shows the progress in sustainability and LEED

certification targets on UF campus. Currently, UF campus has three LEED Platinum,

twenty-six LEED Gold, eleven LEED Silver, fourteen LEED certified and fifteen LEED

registered projects and still counting. Other standards such as Green Globes and Living

Building Challenge certifications are also being implemented but not yet recorded

(Planning, Design & Construction, UF, n.d.).

Due to UF’s prioritization of LEED certification on campus, The LEED scorecard

checklist was used to score the Anderson Hall building to see how it will score on LEED

if it were to be rated. This was done on the model assuming the building were to be

rehabilitated to include the implementation of the suggested EEMs made to the model.

Case Study – Newell Hall

Project Certification

LEED certification.

Project Cost

$416/foot or $ 16,500,000 total project cost.

Project location:

The Newell Hall rehabilitation project is located on the northeastern part of

University of Florida campus on Stadium road, Gainesville, Florida.

69

Project Background

In 1910, Newell Hall was built to house the Florida Agricultural Experiment

Station after the Florida Agriculture College, located in Lake City; which hosted the

experiment station was abolished. The transfer from Thomas Hall to Newell Hall was

accompanied with a huge landscaped area on the building’s site, which served as an

experimental lab for students. The architectural design style used in the building design

and construction was the collegiate gothic style by William Edwards. The building,

considered unsafe and structurally not sound by Rudolph Waever, and as such was

closed down for renovations in 1934. After massive shoring to the structure, the building

was reopened toward the end of 1934. This was however a temporal solution as most of

the construction issues was not resolved. In 1942, funds were approved for renovation

work on the building and in 1944; the building was named after a noted entomologist Dr.

Wilmon E. Newell, who also happened to be the director of the Station and provost for

Agriculture at the time. In 1949, an addition and arcade connecting the basement and

first floor levels of Newell Hall was constructed by Guy Fulton. The renovation at the

time was utilitarian and had little focus on interior and aesthetic concerns. Newell Hall,

since the 1940’s has served as a home for the UF Institute for Food & Agricultural

Sciences (IFAS); providing lad and office space for the college. In 2012, Newell Hall

was closed down for major renovation and rehabilitation works. Newell Hall was added

to the National Register of Historic Places in 1979 and forms part of the UF Campus

Historic District. It is also currently the third oldest building on campus (UF Planning,

Design & Construction, n.d).

The 2015 Newell Hall rehabilitation project involves changing the use as IFAS

department to a Student Learning Commons. In addition, there will be the construction

70

of new support and food service space and site and utilities work. The scope involves a

complete renovation of the entire, main Newell Hall building to create a learning space

for students. In addition, the annex is to be deconstructed and a new multi-story space,

having the same building footprint as the old annex, constructed that will connect to the

main building at all levels. The new reconstructed annex will house the food service

space. The new annex building however, will not include a basement. The main building

will comprises of four main levels with a basement, attic and crawl space. The annex on

the other hand consists of a two-story building without a basement (UF Planning,

Design & Construction, n.d).

Project Summary

The scope of work for the Newell Hall renovation project included exterior

renovation works such as the reinstitution of the north and south entrances, the

rehabilitation of the brick and masonry exterior façade of the building, the replacing and

repair of roofing material and structure, and the replacement of windows (thus if it is

confirmed that current windows are not original). It also includes the repair, replacement

and introduction of new utilities to the building. This will include the provision of energy

efficient HVAC system and building automation systems, plumbing facilities, electrical

and, communication and fire protection systems. Interior renovations of the Newell Hall

are also considered in the scope. Finally site work including creating a new landscape

and courtyard at the southern part of the building also form part of the scope (UF

Planning, Design & Construction, n.d).

In order to create a state of the art learning space for students on UF campus,

the renovation was centered around three main themes; thus innovation, flexibility and

accessibility. Four types of spaces; collaborative, focus, interactive, and rejuvenation

71

spaces are to be created to reflect the three main themes and these have to be

interlinked with each other. To achieve the goals of the themes and spaces, the use of

solid wall partitioning will be limited in the facility. Short walls, glass walls, and moveable

walls, as well as moveable and customizable furniture will be used to create informal

boundaries that will promote collaborative learning. Figure 3-10 gives visual examples

of proposed collaborative, interactive, rejuvenation, and focused spaces to be

constructed in Newell Hall. An interactive space is also available for students to reach

out and connect with each other. Food services will also be available in this space. The

food service space can also serve as a rejuvenation space. This space is designed

such that students can take a break from studies to participate in other activities without

necessarily leaving the facility. At the same time, the need for individual learning is also

encouraged by the use of moveable and adjustable furniture and sitting and standing

facilities to promote focused learning (UF Planning, Design & Construction, n.d).

Newell Hall renovation includes the repair and restoration of exterior building

façade that should last for over 50 years. The windows are to be repaired or

rehabilitated depending on whether the existing windows are original or not. Solar

transmittance through the windows is in accordance with ASHRAE 90.1 – 2004

standard. To reduce solar heat gain into the building, low-E glazing is used in the design

and construction on Newell Hall. This will also help in the utilization of daylight

harvesting into areas of Newell Hall where it is practically possible. The existing roof

needs to be restored and the new roof should have a minimum reflectance of 0.30 in

order to reduce solar heat gain into the building (UF Planning, Design & Construction,

n.d).

72

Energy. Newell Hall rehabilitation project is designed to achieve a minimum of

32% higher energy efficiency than required for ASHRAE standard 90.1 – 2007. Newell

Hall will attain a LEED certification after completion. The building is designed to have a

Maintenance and Verification (M&V) plan. The M&V plan will include the implementation

of measuring and monitoring devices such as meters placed on lighting, AC units to

allow the energy usage of the building to be measured. Energy performance for the first

year of building operation will be recorded and this will be used as a baseline for

comparison to subsequent years of operation. It is only after the building has been

monitored using this system can the actual energy performance be determined.

Due to the adaptive reuse nature of Newell Hall renovation project (original

building use; offices, and labs for IFAS department but the new use will be a state of the

art learning commons for all UF students), there is the possibility of increased energy

demand for the building in order to meet code requirements, so energy usage could be

higher than it was before the renovation work. An actual comparison can be made with

the use of the M&V plan when building is completed and in operation.

After a review of the existing windows in Newell Hall, it was observed that, the

windows are not original. Therefore, the renovation will include the replacement of

windows with low E glazing as an energy efficiency measure. The windows will be

double pane-insulated system. LoE 366 clear glazing is the specified widow glazing for

the project (Schenkel Shultz architecture, 2016).

As part of Newell Hall renovations, insulation will be added to the existing walls,

roof and floor. The insulation selected and the moisture barrier for the existing walls will

be the use of R-11 spray closed cell foam insulation. The new annex walls will be

73

designed to achieve an R-value of 20. This will be applied to the interior of the walls.

The use of the closed cell insulation will serve as an energy efficiency measure as it will

provide thermal insulation for the building and also prevent vapor drive from getting into

the building. The roofs will be insulated to achieve an R-value of 30. The existing

building will use open-cell spray foam insulation on the existing deck and the annex will

be rigid insulation (Schenkel Shultz architecture, 2016).

The use of daylight harvesting, low VOC, introduction of measurement and

verification plan, the use of recycled and locally available materials, the use of low flow

plumbing fixtures and LED lighting, and lighting controls, are other energy conservation

and sustainable features employed in the design of the new Newell Hall.

Most UF buildings are cooled using chilled water plants on campus. Newell Hall

is one of the few campus buildings that does not use chilled water plant. The building

was cooled by the use of window units that were individually placed in different spaces

in the building. One of the major utility renovations to the building is to remove all the

existing window-cooling units and connect the building to the campus chilled water

system, specifically, McCarthy plant. This is believed to be a better option for cooling

the building since the energy efficiency of the chilled water plant system is much higher

than the energy efficiency of the window units. Also with the chilled water plant system,

it is easier to use computer programing to implement energy efficiency measures such

as adjusting temperature set points to cater for weekends and nights and also to shut

down the system when building is not in use. Temperature set point is designed to be

74 – 76 degrees Fahrenheit for summer and around 70 Fahrenheit for winter. The

renovation is expected to consume 140 tons at 207gpm. Chilled water coils for Newell

74

Hall should have temperature of 18 to 20 degree Fahrenheit (UF Planning, Design &

Construction, n.d).

Steam heating demands for the building is 600 ppt. This is supplied by a

cogeneration plant located at the southern part of campus. The piping distribution

system for Newell Hall is in good shape as such, there wouldn’t be the need for

replacement. The mechanical room will however need to be moved to the new

renovated building. Electrical peak demand for Newell Hall renovation is 115kW. The

existing 300kVA transformer serving Newell Hall is adequate but still needs to be

replaced because it is not code compliant. Newell Hall uses Johnson’s controls Energy

Management Control (EMC) network systems. The EMC should be saved during the

interior renovation and given back to PPD if its usage will not be required in the new

renovated building (UF Planning, Design & Construction, n.d).

Impact on the Building’s Historic Character

From the building specific historic preservation guidelines for Newell Hall, shown

in Chapter 3, page 78, all building elements that are not original could be replaced. And

according to the scope of works, the entire interior was to be changed to accommodate

new use. This change did not affect the exterior façade of the building hence its historic

character remained unchanged.

Also the installation of central AC system was mainly an interior work, which had

no significant impact on the building’s historic character. Decision on windows allowed

them to be replaced. Windows were replaced with high efficiency glazing. This will be

an exterior work but the new windows were to mimic the existing windows and as such,

no significant change to building’s exterior facade visibly. Insulation was also added to

75

walls and roof and in both cases the insulation was added to the interior of these

elements and did not affect the building’s exterior historic value.

Lessons learned / Challenges

According to the mechanical engineer on the project, one of the major design

challenges encountered so far on the project with respect to MEP, was the cooling

system used in the building. The renovation was to connect Newell Hall to a chilled

water plant. This would require large ducting and piping works as well as high ceiling.

Since Newell Hall wasn’t initially designed to have chilled water, the floor-to-floor height

limited the use of large ducts. The mechanical team had to come up with a design that

did not require the use of large ducts. The use of multiple fan coil units that did not use

duct distribution systems was implemented on each floor to address this situation.

On the management and design side, many revisions had to be done to

accommodate the building style. These arose as a result of the age of the building so a

lot of adjustments had to be done to fit the existing construction (an example is the floor-

to-floor height limitation for the chilled water ducting). Also market prices went up and

this affected the original budget.

When asked if the wait on the window decision affected the project schedule, the

project manager responded by saying they were proactive on that issue. He said the

problem with the windows was planned well in advance. He also mentioned that this

was possible due to the cooperation of the design team and the owner. They were able

to get early release package, which allowed them to source for a window sub-contractor

earlier than it is normally done on their normal projects.

76

Newell Hall Specific Historic Preservation Guidelines

Period of significance. There was no period of significance indicated so the 50-

year rule implemented by the NPS was used. This determined the period of significance

date as 1928 since 1978 was established as the period of nomination. This meant that

renovations done to Newell Hall after the period of significance, thus 1928 were

considered not historic and could be altered. The alterations however must still conform

to the historic building character and be compliant to standards. This is applicable to

interior wall and partitions as well as interior finishes with emphasis on standard

compliance and maintaining the building character (UF Planning, Design &

Construction, n.d).

Original building elements. Building elements prior to the period of

significance, 1928, including but not limited to walls, roof, windows, doors, and stairs,

must be identified and preserved. No alterations are allowed for these building elements

unless its replacement is necessary due to structural durability or health and safety

related issues (as in the case of the roofs since it was 20 years past its replacement

age). Where necessary, the replacement will be done with the approval of preservation

standards and must replicate the original. A research needs to be conducted on these

remaining building elements on how to keep and maintain them (UF Planning, Design &

Construction, n.d).

Window treatment. Windows are to be replaced or salvaged depending on

confirmation of whether windows are original or not. New windows, must however

closely match glazing, window profile, mullion patterns of the original windows. After a

careful review, the windows were found not to be original so new windows were to be

installed (UF Planning, Design & Construction, n.d).

77

Figure 3-1. Flowchart of the Methodology Process

Figure 3-2. University of Florida Historic District (UF Planning, Design & Construction, n.d.).

• Building Selection• Data Collection

Building Selection and Data Aquisition

• Walkthrough• Using checklistEnergy Audit

• Model Creation and Prefered Baseline Model• Application of EEMs• Model Analisis

Building Energy Modeling

• Feasibility Study• Use of PV Watt calculator

Net Zero Energy Building

• Score building with LEED scorecardLEED scoring

78

A B

C D Figure 3-3. Series of Anderson Hall photos. A) shows the front view of Anderson Hall,

B) shows the back view of Anderson Hall, C) shows the side view of Anderson Hall and D) shows the interior hallway of Anderson Hall (Photo courtesy of author taken on March 2nd,2016).

79

A B

C D

Figure 3-4. Series of Newell Hall photos. A) shows the front view of Newell Hall, B) shows the front and side view of Newell Hall, C) shows Newell Hall has renovation work started and D) shows the interior hallway of Newell Hall during renovation (Photo taken from UF Planning, Design & Construction, n.d.).

80

A B

C D

Figure 3-5. Series of Keene Flint Hall photos. A) shows the front view of Keene Flint Hall, B) the interior hallway of Keene Flint Hall, C) shows the back courtyard view of Keene Flint Hall and D) shows the side view of Keene Flint Hall (Photo courtesy of author taken on July 19, 2016).

81

A B

C D

Figure 3-6. Series of Rinker Hall photos. A) shows the front view of Rinker Hall, B) shows the back view of Rinker Hall, C) shows the side view of Rinker Hall and D) shows the interior hallway of Rinker Hall (Photo courtesy of author taken on May 11th,2016).

82

Figure 3-7. eQuest Building creation Wizard showing building information (www.doe2.com)

Figure 3-8. eQuest Building creation Wizard showing building geometry information

(www.doe2.com)

83

Figure 3-9. Sustainable and LEED certification practices on UF campus from 1999 to

2013 (UF Planning, Design & Construction, n.d)

A B

C D

Figure 3-10. Series of Newell Hall photos. A) Photo showing Focusing space; B) Photo showing Collaborative space; C) Photo showing Interactive space and D) Photo showing Rejuvenation space (Photo from UF Planning, Design & Construction, n.d.).

84

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

This section addresses the outcome of the findings provided by this study. It

presents results to back the hypothesis that historic buildings can indeed be energy

efficient. The results also showed that energy efficiency in historic buildings can be

easily improved using passive energy efficiency techniques but for optimum results,

passive techniques must be complimented with active or advanced technologies that

will not harm or cause significant change to the historic features of the building, thereby

preserving its historic character. Results from data collection, energy audit, building

energy modeling, LEED checklist are all presented in this session. Based on the results

provided, recommendations and conclusions are also made.

Building Analysis

UF gets its energy supply from Progress Energy and the campus spends about

$42 million annually on electricity and about $4 million on steam. Data collected from

the UF PPD and physical inspection was analyzed to determine the energy pattern of

the buildings selected for this study. From this, it was determined that energy usage for

all four buildings; Anderson Hall, Keene Flint Hall, Newell Hall, Flint, and Rinker Hall,

were distributed to chilled water, steam and electricity with the exception of Newell Hall

that did not have chilled water. Until the renovation work, Newell Hall building relied on

individual window units for cooling. As part of the scope of the ongoing renovation on

Newell Hall, the building is to be connected to the McCarthy chilled water plant. Energy

consumption data was gathered on the all four buildings from July 2007 to November

2015. Average annual energy consumption from the data gathered is shown in Table 4-

1. A five-year period; from 2008 to 2012; was used as the basis of comparison. Energy

85

usage from Anderson Hall, Flint Hall and Newell Hall; the three historic buildings was

compared to that of Rinker Hall; a relatively new building (as shown in Figures 4-1, 4-2,

4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6). Figure 4-7 also shows a comparison chart of all selected

buildings. This data was used to assess the energy consumption pattern and to

determine whether historic buildings use more energy than new construction. Prior to

the outcome of the comparison, it was assumed that the old and historic buildings would

consume more energy since they have been in existence for a long time and the new

construction, Rinker Hall will consume less energy due to advanced efficiency

technologies and strict code compliance. Contrary to this assumption, the average

Energy Use Intensity (EUI) calculated, using the average of the five-year period and

divided by the floor area, showed that Rinker Hall had a high EUI of 212.51 kWh/m2

while Anderson Hall, Flint Hall, and Newell Hall had 201.35kWh/m2, 138.28, and

201.13kWh/m2 respectively as shown in Table 4-1. This may be attributed to the

building function and occupancy schedule. Also it was expected that since Anderson

Hall was renovated in 1999 and Newell Hall had not seen any major renovation since

the 1940s, energy consumption for Anderson Hall would be lower than that of Newell

Hall. Energy per square meter calculated on both buildings showed the two buildings

having almost the same energy consumption per square meter. Flint Hall on the other

hand had a relatively low consumption than any of the other buildings. Due to

unavailability of sub-metering system for historic buildings on campus, energy usage for

specific activities such as space heating and cooling, lighting and plug loads could not

be monitored to determine where energy in the building is most used. However, the

energy model of Anderson Hall and Rinker Hall was able to give specific energy

86

attributed to space heating and cooling, lights, pumps, fans, domestic hot water,

miscellaneous equipment, exterior usage, refrigeration display, and heat pump

supplement.

Several factors can account for the results in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-7. Some of

which are discussed below;

Building orientation. As discussed earlier in Chapter 2, historic buildings were

designed and built having some sort of energy efficiency measures in mind through the

use of building envelope and materials. From Figure 3-3, Figure 3-4, Figure 3-5, and

Figure 3-6; series of photos showing different exterior and interior views of selected

buildings, it can be observed that all three historic buildings; Anderson Hall, Flint Hall,

and Newell Hall, are all oriented on east-west axis with their major facades facing north

and south. Rinker Hall on the other hand has a north-south orientation, with its major

facades facing east and west. When a building has most of its glazed façade with facing

north and south, the heat load on the building is usually lower than that of a building

facing east or west. In a hot-humid climate like Florida, where the sun is up most part of

the day and the year, an east-west facing building will have high heat gain and load and

this will require more energy to cool the building resulting in high energy demand.

Therefore lower energy savings from the three historic building can be attributed to the

buildings’ orientation.

Exterior façade. All four exterior facades of Anderson, Newell and Flint Hall

buildings are predominately brick construction. Brick masonry has the ability to retain

temperature. It helps reduces the energy required to heat or cool a building. Due to this,

it is expected that these buildings having more brick masonry facades with require less

87

energy than Rinker Hall, which has most of its façade with glazing and less bricks.

Although brick masonry is considered to have more embodied energy and carbon than

other sustainable building materials; due to all the energy put into making the bricks and

the carbon emissions associated with the burning and drying of the bricks; this becomes

a major problem when considering new masonry construction or demolition but since

the buildings in question are existing buildings, the issue of embodies energy can be

underplayed.

Windows. Rinker Hall has a large window-wall ratio and can attribute to its high-

energy usage. The windows are operable and can be a good feature for the

implementation of daylight harvesting and natural ventilation. However, large window

means more heat being transmitted into the building unless high reflective coatings are

low transmitting glazing is used. Rinker Hall used glazing that conformed to ASHRAE

standard.

Building occupancy and use. Although all four buildings have similar functions

in terms of classrooms, offices and laboratories, and student activity spaces, the

number of building occupants varies and how the building is used also varies. Keene

Flint and Rinker Hall had more classroom and lecture Hall spaces than Anderson Hall.

Also site visits to these buildings showed Rinker Hall having more student activities after

regular building operating hours than the other buildings. The more a building is being

used will require more energy to meet its needs. So, the discrepancies in energy usage

for these buildings can be attributed to their usage and occupancy schedule.

Space cooling from chilled water plant consumption was the highest and this is

due to more energy needed for cooling buildings due to the hot-humid climate in Florida.

88

However with the application of Co-efficient Of Consumption (COP); which is the

cooling output divided by energy input, (a factor of 4 based on research) to the chilled

water data, the consumption from chilled water was reduced. COP should be greater

than one. Consumption due to electricity was also among the highest demands. This

can be attributed to the high demand of lighting and plug loads in educational buildings.

Therefore, EEMs to be applied to the building models took into consideration reduction

to space heating and cooling, lighting and plug loads and due to the climate zone of

Florida, emphasis was placed on space cooling rather than space heating since there

are more warm days in a year than colder days. The fact that Newell Hall uses

individual window units at specified places where needed in the building and does not

use chilled water may account for Newell Hall’s low consumption. This is because,

window units can be regulated and controlled and can contribute to low energy use

when properly managed than central air conditioning unit and also since the window

units only had to cool specific spaces, the energy load on the building due to cooling

and heating was very low. On the other hand, since the remaining three buildings,

Anderson, Flint, and Rinker Halls had all three sources of energy and had nearly the

same functionality and similar gross area, it can be said that historic building are indeed

built to be energy efficient through the use of its building envelope but it must however,

be noted that a lot of other factors such as number of occupant and the frequency of

use of a building can also affect a building’s energy consumption. Also from Figure 4-2

and Figure4-6, energy consumption due to steam is relatively low for the months of May

through to September and October, in the case of Anderson Hall and Rinker Hall. This

can be attributed less use of energy for heating during these hot summer climates. It is

89

also observed that during this same period demand for chilled water reaches its highest

due to the high temperatures (around 90 degree Fahrenheit) and the demand for energy

for cooling. This situation is not exactly the same in the case of Newell Hall. Since

Newell Hall had no chilled water, its highest consumption was from steam as shown in

Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4. So though, school is on vacation during these summer

months and there are fewer students on campus, there is still the need for more energy

for cooling due to high temperatures. The study also observed that Rinker Hall’s steam

energy consumption kept increasing and this is believed to be caused by a faulty

equipment or system malfunctioning.

Impact of Renovation Works on Energy Consumption

Renovation work on Anderson Hall which included a service tower and a stair to

Anderson Hall was started in 1993. In 1999, rehabilitation of the building started. This

included addition of departmental and faculty offices, classrooms, stairs, elevator and a

mechanical equipment space. Due to UF’s commitment to preservation, the original

construction drawings were used as a guide to keep the historic value. The windows,

corridors and entrance were restored. Restoration of the windows and corridors were to

be as close to their original features as possible. Utility extension as part of the

remodeling project included the addition of chilled water, electricity and steam to the

building. Other utility additions included portable water, sanitary, irrigation, storm water,

telecommunication, fire alarm, energy management control systems and site lighting.

The estimated peak chilled water demand was 231 tons. This was to be provided from

Walker, Weil and McCarthy chilled water plant, which meant an addition to the plant.

Peak electricity demand at the time was 325kVA leading to the construction of a new

500 kVA transformer to supply electricity to the building. Total peak estimate was 1216

90

PPH. Anderson Hall had an average energy consumption of 201.35 kWh/m2 from 2008

to 2012. This is shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 and 4-2; the annual and monthly

energy consumption for Anderson Hall.

Newell Hall is currently undergoing rehabilitation with substantial completion date

of February 2017. The building, which formally housed the Florida Agricultural

Department, is to be rehabilitated into an open modern study and common space for all

students. It is intended to serve as a 21st century learning and collaborative

environment. Innovation, flexibility and accessibility governed the rehabilitation works.

The project scope includes rehabilitation of the exterior building construction and

materials, replace windows and roof tiles with original type, reopening of the original

north and south entrances, renovation of the interior, the use and introduction of

building automation systems, energy efficient mechanical and electrical systems and

improved fire protection and communication systems. The existing annex building will

be removed and replaced with a new construction, which will be linked to the main

building. A new landscaped area will also be introduced at the south side of the building

(http://www.facilities.ufl.edu/prjdocs/00006885.pdf). The rehabilitation project will be in

compliance with the UF Historic Preservation Act. The project is to achieve a LEED

certification after completion. Newell Hall’s average energy consumption per square

meter was 201.13 kWh/m2 from 2008 to 2012 as shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-3 and

4-4; annual and monthly energy consumption for Newell Hall.

Due to the unavailability of metered energy consumption data for the buildings

before renovation works, a comprehensive analysis could not be done to determine the

energy consumption before and after renovation to help understand the extent the

91

renovation works affected or improve its energy consumption. However, it can be

assumed that the addition of utilities would have caused an extra demand on energy

use but use the introduction of energy management controls would on the other hand

would have kept the energy usage under control. Also Newell Hall needs to be

completed and monitored for some years to be able to determine the effect of the

rehabilitation on the buildings energy consumption.

Energy Audit Analysis

A walkthrough energy audit was performed on Anderson Hall, Flint Hall, and

Rinker Hall. This was not possible for Newell Hall since it is currently under

construction. However, information on past energy consumption pattern and current

project status were obtained for this study. Also data was collected through chats and

emails from the project manager, architect, and mechanical engineer. Architectural

drawings obtained from PPD were analyzed. Information such as the number and type

of windows used in individual rooms was noted as well as the glass type used. The

material used and their detail was also gathered from the architectural drawings. Gross

building square footage and individual space square footage was also obtained from the

architectural drawings. All these information were used in creating the different thermal

zones and Light Power Density, which was later, used in creating the baseline model.

Windows used in Anderson Hall construction were smaller, operable and ancient gothic

style while the windows found in Rinker Hall were wider, operable and modern styled.

The windows in both buildings though operable remained constantly closed due to

conditioned space. The windows also had blinds to serve as interior sun shading

devices. Most of the doors were self-closing. It was also observed that conditioned air

temperatures set point, though adjusted for school breaks, nights and weekends

92

(interview with building maintenance officer) still remained or felt the same during these

times. This was observed when buildings were visited during spring break and

weekends. Rinker Hall had occupancy and dimmer sensors in most spaces however;

some were faulty and did not work as expected. No sensors were observed during the

audit in historic buildings. A further interview with the building maintenance officer

indicated that the selected historic buildings for this study did not have such sensors but

light switches were manually operated.

The location of mechanical rooms, electrical and communication rooms were

identified on the mechanical and electrical drawings. The types and wattage of lighting

fixtures as well as the airflow rate were also determined from the mechanical and

electrical drawings. Supply, return and exhaust diffusers and fans were also identified

as well as ventilators and hot water heaters. Cooling and Heating set points were

generated. The Washington State University energy program energy audit worksheet,

NREL energy audit data collection form, and preservation checklist prepared by

researcher were used as a guide for the energy audit. These results can be found in

Appendix B and C. Questions that could not be addressed in the checklist were noted

down and asked during the interview with PPD official and the building maintenance

officer. Interview questions discussed are shown in Appendix D.

Historic buildings are old buildings that use old and obsolete equipment and

technologies. These rudimentary technologies can become a problem in energy

reduction in such buildings. Retrofitting these buildings always require a careful

application of technologies, which can become frustrating to the building owner and

construction team. The selected buildings for the study had been in existence for over

93

fifty years. However, due to UF’s maintenance culture, most of the energy usage

equipment used in the buildings were maintained, repaired or replaced where

necessary. Any repair or replacement was done in accordance with preservation

standards. In most cases on UF campus, building specific preservation guidelines are

followed for all renovation works on campus. In all three buildings, energy efficiency

lamps were seen to be in use. Also the buildings were put on the maintenance

department’s building automation and monitoring systems and the buildings energy

usages are constantly being monitored and improvements made when necessary. It is

always an issue when it comes to the replacement of building elements such as roofs,

windows, and exterior façade. Depending on the preservation type allowed for the

building, such elements might either remain untouched or can be replaced. For

instance, in the case of Newell Hall, the construction team had to wait on a decision to

either to rehabilitate or replace the existing windows. This decision was to be made

based on whether existing windows were original. In cases where replacement is

allowed, extra care should be taken not to affect the historic character of the building.

Energy Modeling Results

Model Calibration

The data gathered from construction drawings and the outcome of the energy

audit was entered into the eQuest energy modeling software to generate a benchmark

model. The benchmark model was then compared to the metered data provided by the

UF PPD. Figure 4-8 and 4-9 shows a comparison of monthly-metered energy use and

simulated end use energy for Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall respectively. The monthly

error in energy use was calculated by the percentage difference of the measured kWh

data and simulated kWh data and dividing it by the measured data for the month.

94

Equation 4-1 and 4-2 show the calculation for the monthly ERRmn error and the

calculation for the Coefficient of Variation – Root Mean Square Error (CV-RMSE_mn)

respectively.

The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) acceptable monthly data

calibration is +/-10% for CV(RMSE_mn) and +/-15 for ERR_mn, while the International

Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) acceptable calibration is

+/-25 for ERR_mn and +/-5 for CV(RMSE). Table 4-2 shows the FEMP and IPMVP

calibration tolerances. Figure 4-10 shows the monthly energy use model error

percentage and the acceptable tolerance for data calibration for both models. Rinker

Hall had an ERR_mn error of -11.7% while Anderson Hall had -2.1%, all of which fell

within the acceptable range. Anderson Hall had a lower end-use energy compared to

Rinker Hall. This also confirmed the hypothesis that historic buildings are energy

efficient.

(4-1)

(4-2)

95

In order to create a benchmark model, a lot of assumptions were made. The

software also comes with some limitations. Below are list assumptions and limitations

that were considered in the building calibration;

• The modeling assumed 31 days per month for all months of the year, which is not always the case especially for the months of February, April, June, September and November that have less than 31 days in the month.

• The modeling also assumed same building use and occupancy schedules throughout the year without taking into consideration school breaks such as summer, Christmas and Spring break, when the building might be unoccupied or will have less occupancy.

• Metal panels and studs are assumed to have an R-Value of 0 h.sf.degF/Btu and also metal studs are assumed to occupy about 8% of transmission area.

• The equipment power density is assumed to be 1.0 for all spaces except the server room, which had 25. This is in accordance with the ASHREA 90.1 standard.

• The eQuest software assumes only conditioned and unconditioned spaces and does not allow for indirectly or partially conditioned spaces to be accounted for so all indirectly conditioned spaces are treated and accounted for as conditioned space.

• The software does not consider doors, rather the program accounts for all doors as windows. Also, all windows in the building are treated as fixed windows, although the buildings used in this research had operable windows and self-closing doors.

• The model uses interior lighting in the calculation of the Light Power Density (LPD) and excludes exterior lighting in the calculation.

• The LPD was calculated by zones on a space-by-space basis. The LPD was calculated by counting the number of lights in a space and multiplying it by its wattage and then dividing it by the floor area.

• Roof and wall construction were done by layers.

• Room occupancy schedule was obtained mostly from the University of Florida’s facilities website and from the architectural drawings counting; the number of furniture in the individual rooms. Also in some cases, when information could not be obtained from these two sources, physical count of people occupying the various spaces was done and at other times, the maximum capacity posted on the walls of the rooms was used.

96

• Since chilled water and steam are supplied to the buildings by nearby chiller and boiler plant, their impact on the building’s energy cost was minimal and did not affect the energy cost and savings.

Energy Efficiency Measures

EEMs were identified and applied to the simulated benchmark model and

calibrated. EEMs were individually assessed and applied to the baseline model and

calibrated. For better comparison, the same EEMs were applied to both Anderson Hall

and Rinker Hall models. Some of the EEMs identified and implemented were;

• All windows were changed to double low E windows with reflective coating. This improved the shading coefficient to 0.18 and the visible transmittance to 0.10. This resulted in a saving of about 16.53% for Rinker Hall and -0.31% for Anderson Hall.

• Changing the building orientation resulted in about 4% - 6% energy savings in both models.

• Lighting fixtures were also improved by the use of LED lamps and some energy efficient lamps. This applied to both exterior and interior lighting and also with the introduction of daylight into the space, the lighting schedule was adjusted for more energy savings. The resulting savings was 14.80% and 4.55% for Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall respectively.

• The LPD was improved by adjusting and removing some light fixtures from areas with high LPD. This was done using the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 standard, shown in Appendix F, as a guide. This resulted in about 13.93% increase in savings for Rinker Hall and 3.20% for Anderson Hall.

• Daylight and natural ventilation was to be introduced especially since buildings have operable windows. Lighting fixtures in daylight areas should be turned off during the day in order to rely on natural lighting.

• The temperature set point was adjusted to 68 for heating and 80 for cooling to make occupants comfortable especially in hot months. This resulted in 16.51% energy savings for Rinker Hall and 6.02% for Anderson Hall. The temperature during these months were set to be too cold. Regulating can save some energy. This was obtained from complaint from students and also personal observation during site visits.

• Most equipment was to be replaced with high efficiency and energy star rated equipment to save energy. This includes but not limited to, computer monitors, printers, microwaves, coffee makers, refrigerators, and vending machines. By

97

doing so, the equipment schedule was also adjusted for energy savings. Savings of 12.86% and 0.11% was achieved for Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall respectively.

• Occupancy sensors and automatic timers should be set to be off when the building is unoccupied and HVAC system and light in daylight areas can be turned off during weekends, nights and vacations when the building is mostly unoccupied. Since buildings have operable windows, windows can be opened to let in fresh natural ventilation into the building. This should however be done having the comfort and health of occupants in mind. Screens can be installed to screen dust and other harmful air particles to create a good indoor air quality.

• Decentralizing the air conditioning system such that room temperature can be controlled in individual spaces will be a good way to reduce energy usage. During the study, it was observed that individual rooms had temperature regulators but these did not control the temperature in the rooms. If the temperature in the rooms can be controlled in the rooms, a lot of energy waste due to extremely high and low temperatures can be avoided since the air conditioners will be off when the rooms are not in use especially for vacations, weekends and nights.

• Occupancy sensors in the building worked for only lighting. If this can be extended to cater for room temperature, then more energy savings can be made.

• The optimum energy efficiency measure to obtain maximum energy reduction is the use of renewable energy. For this study, solar energy using PV system was considered. The aim was to make the buildings Net Zero energy or Net Positive.

Different results were generated from each EEM applied. EEMs with the high-

energy reductions were selected and implemented together to the baseline model to

create parametric models. From Table 4-3 and Figure 4-11 it can be observed that

Rinker Hall had a total energy saving of 20.90%. This was mostly attributed to space

heating and cooling. The total savings from the implementation of all selected EEMs to

Anderson Hall model was 10.12% as shown in Figure 4-12 and Table 4-3. It was

however observed from Figure 4-12 that energy savings in Anderson Hall was mostly

due to improvement to lighting rather than space heating and cooling, as was the case

in Rinker Hall.

98

Energy consumption and improvements made for the two buildings were

analyzed side by side as shown in Figure 4-13 and Figure 4-14. It was observed that

the actual measured energy consumption for both buildings were lower than the

modeled benchmark building, possibly due to assumptions and limitations for modeling.

However, EEMs introduced into the benchmark model also further improved the energy

performance of both buildings. Energy savings was higher in Rinker, about 10% more

than in Anderson Hall. Also, Figure 4-14 shows a higher energy saving improvement in

steam, followed by chilled water and then electricity. This can be attributed to higher

energy usage for space heating and cooling. In selecting the EEMs, consideration was

also given to the cost of implementation.

Making Buildings Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEBs)

As an alternative long-tern energy reduction approach, the use of RE to make the

buildings NZEB or net positive energy building was considered. In considering

renewable energy for the building, solar PV system was the selected choice. This was

based on the fact that the geographical location of buildings, Florida, favors the use of

solar panel system as an alternate REP generation. PV Watt calculator was used to

calculate the required number of solar panels that was needed to produce enough

energy to replace energy used in the building or get the building to Net Zero. This

involved a feasibility study to determine the right location to position the panels.

Normally, the building itself is the first consideration for a suitable location. In situations

where this is not possible or is inadequate, surrounding sites and buildings are

considered. In the case of Rinker Hall, the building was designed to have about 20 kW

PV panels on the roof. This research considered making the buildings Net Zero or Net

Positive. Therefore, the buildings, other nearby sites and buildings were considered for

99

the installation of the panels. Figure 4-16 and 4-17 show possible panel locations for

both Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall respectively. One of the major problems

encountered during the feasibility study, was the installation of the solar panels on the

buildings. Usually, the first consideration is to make the building NZEB:A but since

Anderson Hall is a preservation project, with a pitched roof, the installation of solar

panels on the roof or on the building will affect the historic appearance of the building.

This problem was addressed by selecting a nearby and adjacent buildings or spaces as

the best option to mount the solar panels.

Also, since, it was difficult to come by a big location for the total energy

consumed by the building, considerations were made to make either just the annual

electric energy or the monthly electric energy or total monthly energy consumed by the

buildings net zero. Making the annual electric energy Net Zero was decided on. This

required a total annual energy generation of about 43,000 kWh for Rinker Hall and

340,087kWh for Anderson Hall. The result of the PV Watt calculator is shown in

Appendix G and Appendix H (PV model to used, SPR-333NE), shows the panel design

specification sheet. Table 4-4 also gives the design calculation summary for both

buildings. Alternatively, panels could be designed to produce an average monthly

electricity of about 28,500 kWh to cater for the average monthly electricity consumption

in the buildings. This will require a lesser space of about 100 square meters, which will

easily fit on the parking lot by Anderson Hall or Rinker Hall.

LEED Checklist Results.

Since UF is has a LEED certification policy for all new construction and major

renovations, the LEED checklist was used to rate proposed Anderson Hall design and

the result in provided in Appendix I. The building had a high score of 70 points, placing it

100

in LEED Gold category. The building had gained more points on indoor air quality, water

efficiency and material reuse. Though it had a low score on energy and atmosphere, the

building had a high score on the use of renewable energy in that section due to the

installation of solar panels. The building scored low points for optimized energy

performance since the proposed building was able to gain about 10% on energy

savings as shown in Table 4-3. Rinker Hall is a LEED Gold certified building with a

rating of 39 out of 69 points using LEED v2. The scorecard used to rate Anderson Hall

was LEED 2009, which gave Anderson Hall a score of 70 out of 110. Using LEED 2009

to rate Rinker Hall, the score for Rinker was 80 points, which took it from LEED Gold to

LEED Platinum classification.

101

Table 4-1. Building Description and Average Energy Consumption from 2008 to 2012 Building name

Year of Construction

GSM LEED points

Avg. Electricity

(kWh)

Avg. Chilled water (kWh)

Steam (kWh)

EUI (kWh/sq.

m)

Anderson Hall

1913 4,425 N/A 351,964 417,555 121,398 201.35

Newell Hall

1909 3,255 N/A 368,822 0 285,885 201.13

Keene Flint Hall

1910 5,460 N/A 418,280 203,066 133,689 138.28

Rinker Hall

2003 4,544 Gold 415,963 290,705 258,855 212.51

Table 4-2. Acceptable and Tolerable Errors Max Tolerances IPMVP FEMP ERR_mn (+/-) 25% (+/-) 15% CV (RMSE_mn) (+/-) 5% (+/-) 10%

102

Table 4-3. Rinker Hall Energy Savings and Comments Anderson Hall Rinker Hall

Type Benchmark Proposed Savings Benchmark Proposed Savings Comments

(kWh) (kWh) (%) (kWh) (kWh) (%) Lights 125,557.51 93,823.77 25.27% 108,026 89,750.09 16.92% Savings is due to

improved interior lighting in proposed lighting design.

Misc. Equip 104,040.23 104,040.23 0.00 88,111.82 88,111.82 0.00 No change

Space Heating

89,679.75 72,974.70 18.63 93,317.39 18,463.48 80.00 Savings may be attributed to improved envelope systems. However, additional time would be required to analyze reasons for high savings in space heating, cooling and fan.

Space Cooling

851,957.60 780,155.19 8.43 1,165,250.57 901,193.54 22.66

Pump & Aux 33,410.10 33,410.10 0.02 136,902.29 136,902.29 0.01

Vent Fan 31,358.60 26,083.33 17.46 123,535.32 119,866.07 3.08

Domestic Hot Water

8,205.99 8,205.99 0.00 8,205.99 8,205.99 0.00 No change

Total

1,244,086.69

1,118,359.20

10.12 1,722,598.48 1,362,595.84

20.90 Savings is due to improved lighting, cooling and heating schedule, equipment, and window in proposed building.

kWh/m2 281.15

252.73 10.12% 379.1 299.86 20.90% Higher savings in Rinker than in Anderson Hall

103

Table 4-4. PV design summary for Anderson Hall and Rinker Hall

Anderson Hall Rinker Hall

Annual Energy Demand (kWh) 339,930 430,002 Monthly Energy Demand (kWh) 28,328 35,778.56 Average Solar Irradiation (kWh/m2/day 5.04 5.04 System Derating Factor 0.8 0.8 Required Area (m2) 1131.61 1431.46 Number of panels Required 694 878 Maximum String /Panel Vmax 600 VDC 9 strings/77 panels 9 strings/98 panels

Minimum String/Panel Vmin 400 VDC 6 strings/116 panels

6 strings/146 panels

Figure 4-1. Anderson Hall Annual Energy Consumption in kWh

104

Figure 4-2. Anderson Hall Monthly Energy Consumption in kWh for the year 2012

Figure 4-3. Newell Hall Annual Energy Consumption in kWh

105

Figure 4-4. Newell Hall Monthly Energy Consumption in kWh for the year 2012

Figure 4-5. Rinker Hall Annual Energy Consumption in kWh

106

Figure 4-6. Rinker Hall Monthly Energy Consumption in kWh for the year 2012

Figure 4-7. Annual Energy Consumption Comparison of all Four Buildings; Anderson

Hall, Newell Hall, Rinker Hall, and Keene Flint Hall

107

Figure 4-8. Rinker Hall, Metered verses Simulated End-Use Energy

Figure 4-9. Anderson Hall, Metered verses Simulated End-Use Energy

20,000

22,500

25,000

27,500

30,000

32,500

35,000

37,500

40,000

42,500

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Metered Data

Simulated Data

20,000

22,500

25,000

27,500

30,000

32,500

35,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Metered Data

Simulated Data

108

Figure 4-10. Monthly ERR_mn for Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall

Figure 4-11. Energy Savings in Percentages for Rinker Hall

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

Erro

r %

Months

% Monthly Error

Rinker

Anderson

14% 0%

65%

18%

0%

3%

0%

Savings (in %)

Lights

Misc. Equip

Space Heating

Space Cooling

Pump & Aux

Vent Fan

Domestic Hot Water

109

Figure 4-12. Energy Savings in Percentages for Anderson Hall

Figure 4-13. Metered, Baseline and Proposed Energy Consumption and Improvement in Rinker Hall and Anderson Hall

35%

0%26%

12%

0%

25%

2%

Savings (in %)

Lights

Misc. Equip

Space Heating

Space Cooling

Pump & Aux

Vent Fan

Domestic Hot Water

110

Figure 4-14. Energy Saving in Electricity, Steam and Chilled Water for Anderson and

Rinker Hall

Figure 4-15. Energy Saving showing percentage save under various energy usage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Anderson Rinker

Savi

ngs i

n % Electricity

Steam

Chilled Water

111

Figure 4-16. PV Panel Potential Locations for Anderson Hall

Figure 4-17. PV Panel Potential Locations for Rinker Hall

112

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS

The role of buildings in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is of

a major concern globally. Despite national and global awareness of this issue, the

world’s energy demand keeps increasing and is projected to still increase. The severity

of this issue calls for a critical look into energy reduction measures especially in the

building sector, which represents the highest energy contributor in the U.S and globally.

This growing concern has led governments around the world to either come up with

directives or set strict targets to address this problem. Sadly, most of these directives

and targets are geared towards energy reduction technologies in new construction,

neglecting the role of old and historic buildings in energy conservation. Typically, it is

believed that it is easier and more flexible to design, plan and implement advanced

energy efficiencies technologies into new construction rather than working around an

existing plan. It is again believed that it is more complex and difficult to incorporate new

energy efficiency technologies into older building. The situation is believed to be even

more complicated when it comes to historic buildings due to strict code compliance.

This research showed that, contrary to common beliefs about energy retrofit in historic

and older buildings, it is not only possible to improve the energy usage of these

buildings, but it is actually easy to do so, as is seen in the implementation of the EEMs

to the benchmark model created. This is because, though historic buildings were not

built with modern energy efficiency technologies, they actually had some energy

efficiency measures incorporated in them through their design and building envelope.

The research again showed that preservation standards are more flexible and easy to

comply. It is also believed that historic buildings are non-renewable and not energy

113

efficient compared to newer buildings. Again, the findings of this research showed that

historic buildings could be energy efficient as can be seen in the results of the energy

consumption comparison between historic buildings and new building on campus; all

three historic buildings had relatively low energy consumption than that of Rinker Hall.

The researched showed Anderson Hall, a historic building having lower energy

consumption compared to Rinker Hall, a LEED Gold certified building. The research

further showed improvement in energy consumption in these buildings when effective

EEMs were implement. Most of these EEMs were passive energy conservation

measures. Passive energy efficiency measures were the first consideration because the

emphasis was on historic buildings and as such, EEMs selected should not affect the

building’s historic value during retrofitting. This shows that passive energy efficiency

measures, when implemented in buildings, can achieve high energy savings and that

these measures are easy to implement and are cost effective compared to active

advanced energy efficiency measures. However, a combination of both active and

passive will yield the best results.

One interesting finding that was observed was the huge savings in space

heating, which can be attributed to leaks or reheat. Further research would be needed

to understand the high energy savings attributed to space heating since Florida is in

climate zone 2A, characterized by hot humid climate, hence less heating is required

throughout the year. This will also require a system to sub meter the specific energy

usage due to lighting, plug loads, space heating and cooling since this system is

currently on available in the UF’s energy metering system. Rinker Hall has a high

window to wall ratio compared to most buildings on campus. This could have

114

contributed to its high energy consumption since more energy will be required to cool

the building especially in hot months. Also, it was noted that when the same EEMs were

applied to the two buildings, Rinker Hall, the newer building had higher savings than the

historic building. This could be due to the fact that Rinker Hall is a LEED certified

building and was designed and constructed to be adaptable and flexible to change.

LEED results from Anderson Hall LEED scorecard showed that, if the building were to

be LEED certified, it would have been able to achieve a LEED Gold certification, which

is in the same category as Rinker Hall. This result confirms the hypothesis that historic

buildings are efficient in terms of energy, water and waste and that making historic

buildings efficient is not a difficult process as believed.

It should also be noted that, apart from the fact that existing research proves that,

it takes a longer time for new buildings to recover carbon used up in construction;

approximately 35 to 50 years and about 25 to 65 years to recoup energy lost to

demolition and reconstruction activities, construction waste generated as a result of

demolition activities cannot also be overlooked. Concentrating on improving the energy

efficiency of historic and older buildings will significantly reduce energy consumption

through embodied energy and carbon and as such reduce the carbon footprint of

constructing new buildings.

In this study, the use of PV system was looked at as a proactive long-term

measure to mitigate energy needs. This was feasible and further study needs to be

undertaken on how to make UF campus Net Zero or Net Positive. Other renewable

energy sources such as biomass and biogas and wind energy should be explored. In

selecting the right RE, considerations must be given to the geographical location of the

115

building and its climate zone. Consideration should be given to adding solar panels to

most buildings on campus to help conserve energy on campus.

116

APPENDIX A CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

117

APPENDIX B

NREL ENERGY AUDIT FORM

118

119

120

121

122

APPENDIX C PRESERVATION CHECKLIST

123

124

125

APPENDIX D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

• What is the maintenance schedule like and how often is it done? There are two types of maintenance schedules: 1) Service Request and 2) Preventative. Service is when something breaks or if a customer has an issue and a work request is called in. Preventative is either prescribed or performance based. Prescribed simply means that the maintenance is prearranged to happen on a weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or annually basis. Performance based is when the actual equipment data (temperature sensors, static pressure sensors, etc.) have thresholds to indicate when maintenance needs to happen. A good example would be static pressure differential across a filter bank. As the filter loads up, the pressure differential will increase. Once it goes past a predetermined threshold, a work order is issued to change the filters.

• How are thermostats on heating and cooling units controlled? There are different types of thermostats for different types of equipment. Therefore the type of equipment will determine the type of control to use and control is regulated. Typically residential AC units works with a thermostat that usually only controls either heating or cooling. On a chilled water system, there are usually discharge air temperature sensors after the cooling coil and zone thermostats in the space. The discharge air thermostat controls the cooling valve to maintain a set point is usually 55 – 65 degree Fahrenheit. The zone thermostat usually controls a re-heat or VAV damper and temperatures are set 70-74 degree Fahrenheit.

• Are thermostat settings adjusted for seasonal changes? It depends on the space type. For most classifications, Yes, the temperature setpoint range changes from 64 unoccupied – 72 occupied in the winter and 82 unoccupied – 74 degree Fahrenheit occupied in the summer. Some spaces like research, hospital, museums, require specific setpoints regardless of the outside temperature.

• Are building temperatures adjusted for unoccupied periods? Yes, for the most part.

• Does air conditioning load trips circuit breaker on extremely warm days? No. Electrical engineers design AC systems to work at their peak load and then add a safety factor to avoid any over current faults. Overcurrent faults usually occur when multiple equipment start at the same time which causes the main power panel to pull more amperage at one time and may cause breakers to trip. Most of the large equipment are usually staged to start at 5 minute intervals to avoid this situations.

• Does the hot water recirculating pumps run continuously? There are two types of systems for “hot water”: domestic hot water and heating hot water. Both systems should be scheduled just like any other equipment

126

and should have an “unoccupied setback”. But sometimes that might be a lower pressure setpoint which allows the pumps to go to a minimum flow for unoccupied mode.

• Do you have drips or leaks evident in hot water systems? The goal is to not have leaks or drips, but on the heating hot water systems the temperature can vary from 180 degrees down to 120 degrees. This temperature difference can cause the materials to contract and expand which may cause some drips or leaks.

• Are ballasts disconnected in fixtures where fluorescent lamps have been removed? No. As part of the de-lamping initiative that removes every other fluorescent fixture, the ballast was not disconnected. Reason being that at some point, the tubes would be re-installed and by disconnecting the ballast would have cost too much in labor to reinstall them again. The ballast only use a small percentage (7%) when there is no bulb so on a two-bulb system where the actual wattage is approximately 50W, the ballast would use approximately 4W. The de-lamping did saved over 35% in the lighting systems.

• Is security or outdoor lighting automatically controlled and/or are lighting levels excessive? Most exterior lighting is controlled with a photocell that detects daylight and sometimes even time clocks are installed. Exterior lighting levels vary depending on the location, type of fixture, and type of exterior space. For example, a building entrance will have a high lumen foot-candle than a pathway in the middle of campus. There are many guides to exterior lighting and we try to incorporate these into our standards. With the advent of LED, the standard metrics are changing which will eventually change the way exterior lighting are designed.

• Does Anderson Hall building have occupancy sensors? No. They are manually controlled with light switches.

• Do transformers remain energized when serving no loads for extended periods? YES. Transformers do not have any isolation or switching that would allow them to turn off. Studies are undertaking on transformers that are oversized to the point where they do not operate in an efficient manner. Companies like Power Quality International are leading the effort to have more efficient transformers.

• Are refrigerator drinking fountains or recirculating chilled drinking water systems controlled for occupancy? No. This has been looked at in the past, but the one time that someone doesn’t get cold water out of the fountain, a work order is placed. We tried this on refrigerated vending machines as well and the same concept holds true.

• Are substantial electricity demand charges incurred? Approximately 25% of our main electricity bill is based on demand charges which is a little

127

over $6/kW. At this time, we do not have any demand limiting strategies in place.

• Do evaporator coils have heavy ice build-up? Most UF buildings use chilled water systems where the temperature does not get below freezing at the cooling coil. On direct expansion (Dx) systems there can be evaporator coils can ice up usually when the outside air is cool with high humidity. Dx system can deliver below freezing temperatures and the condensate will freeze on the coil. Most systems have a “hot gas” bypass that will thaw the coil when it senses that the coil is frozen.

• Is the building sub-metered? No. Currently, energy use is measured at the building level only. Using the BAS, certain loads like HVAC can be calculated, but lighting and plug loads are not distinguished.

• In your opinion, will you say historic buildings on campus have higher energy consumption than newer buildings? If yes, what do you think might be the cause of the high usage? More important than age is how the building is used. We have some older buildings that have lower EUI’s (Energy Use Intensity kBTU/GSF) than newer buildings. The space environment may not be as comfortable as newer facilities, but neither are the expectations. Yes, for the most part. Technology is producing systems that are much more efficient and occupancy based. The level of complexity is also increasing to the point where it can be difficult to maintain the initial efficiencies. The amount of energy usage all depends on how the occupants and/or the systems are configured and maintained.

128

APPENDIX E DESIGN CALCULATIONS

Anderson Hall

The floor area needed, the total number of panels or modules needed and

the array layout needed to produce a PV system that can generate 339,930 kWh

of energy was calculated as follows;

1. Average daily DC energy output = 5.04kWh/m2/day (this is taken from PV watt calculator) x 20.4% (this is from the panel efficiency from Appendix G) = 5.04 kWh/m2/day x 0.204 = 1.028 kWh/m2

2. Average daily AC energy output = 1.028 kWh/m2 (from question 1 above) x 0.8 (total derating factor, this is given) = 1.028 kWh/m2 x 0.8 = 0.823 kWh/m2

3. The area required to produce 339,930 kWh AC energy = (339,930 kWh/365 days)/0.823 kWh/m2/day (from question 2 above) = (931.32 kWh/day)/0.823 kWh/m2/day = 1131.61m2

4. From specification sheet of the panel from Appendix H, the panel size is

1559mm (61.39in) x 1046mm (41.18in) Hence panels required: = 1131.61m2 (this is the area required, from question 3)/(1.559m x 1.046m) = 1131.61m2/1.63m2 = 694.24 = 694 panels

5. Arranging panel in a string to develop 400 VDC to 600 VDC, the

Sunpower open circuit voltage Voc from panel specification is used. Thus from Figure 4-15 = 65.3 V = 600 VDC String Arrangement (600/65.3 =9.19 = 9 strings), giving 9 x 77 modules = 400 VDC String Arrangement (400/65.3 =6.13 = 6 strings), giving 6 x 116 modules

Rinker Hall

The floor area needed, the total number of panels or modules needed and

the array layout needed to produce a PV system that can generate 430,008 kWh

of energy was calculated as follows;

129

1. Average daily DC energy output = 5.04kWh/m2/day (this is taken from PV watt calculator) x 20.4% (this is from the panel efficiency from Appendix G) = 5.04 kWh/m2/day x 0.204 = 1.028 kWh/m2

2. Average daily AC energy output = 1.028 kWh/m2 (from question 1 above) x 0.8 (total derating factor, this is given) = 1.028 kWh/m2 x 0.8 = 0.823 kWh/m2

3. The area required to produce 430,008 kWh AC energy = (430,008 kWh/365 days)/0.823 kWh/m2/day (from question 2 above) = (1178.10 kWh/day)/0.823 kWh/m2/day = 1431.48m2

4. From specification sheet of the panel from Appendix H, the panel size is

1559mm (61.39in) x 1046mm (41.18in) Hence panels required: = 1431.48 (this is the area required, from question 3)/(1.559m x 1.046m) = 1431.48m2/1.63m2 = 878.20 = 878 panels

5. Arranging panel in a string to develop 400 VDC to 600 VDC, the

Sunpower open circuit voltage Voc from panel specification is used. Thus from Figure 4-15 = 65.3 V = 600 VDC String Arrangement (600/65.3 =9.19 = 9 strings), giving 9 x 98 modules = 400 VDC String Arrangement (400/65.3 =6.13 = 6 strings), giving 6 x 146 modules

130

APPENDIX F ASHRAE SPECIFICATION FOR LPD

131

132

APPENDIX G PV WATT CALCULATOR

Anderson Hall

133

Rinker Hall

134

APPENDIX H PANEL SPECIFICATION SHEET

135

APPENDIX I LEED CHECKLIST

Anderson Hall

136

Rinker Hall

137

LIST OF REFERENCES

Agdas, D., Srinivasan, R. S., Frost, K., & Masters, F. J. (2015). Energy use assessment of educational buildings: Toward a campus-wide sustainable energy policy. Sustainable Cities and Society, 17, 15-21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.03.001

Alliance to Save Energy (ASE). (2014). Education: Energy use in school building. Retrieved from http://www.ase.org/initiatives/education

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). (2015). State energy efficiency scorecard: Florida. Retrieved from http://aceee.org/state-policy/scorecard

Bonnema, E., Leach, M., Pless, S., & Torcellini, P. (2013). Development of the advanced energy design guide for K-12 Schools–50% energy savings. Contract, 303, 275-3000.

Burns, J. A. (1982). Energy conservation features inherent in old homes. U.S. department of housing and urban development with U.S. department of the interior. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/tps/sustainability/greendocs/conservation-features-older-homes.pdf

Cantell, S. F. (2005). The Adaptive Reuse of Historic Industrial Buildings: Regulation Barriers, Best Practices and Case Studies,

Castro, R., Holtzhower, L., Priest, K., Robert R. (2014). Value & limits of net zero energy, water & goods production - A DCP research symposium

Crawley, D. Pless, S. & Torcellini, P. (2009). Getting to net zero. ASHRAE J, 51 (9) (2009), pp. 18–25. Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46382.pdf on 06/24/2016

De santoli, L., Bellia, L., Corgnati, S. P., D’Ambrosio Alfano, F., Filippi, M., Romagnoni, P., & Sciurpi, F. (2014). Energy efficiency in historic buildings.

Deng, S., Wang, R., & Dai, Y. (2014). How to evaluate performance of net zero energy building–A literature research. Energy, 71, 1-16.

Energy Design Resource. (n.d.). eQUEST: The quick energy simulation tool. Retrieved from http://www.doe2.com/download/equest/eQUESTv3-Overview.pdf

Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2007a). International annual energy 2005. Retrieved from www.eia.doe.gov/iea

Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2007b). International energy outlook 2007. Retrieved from www.eia.doe.gov

138

Energy star. (2006). Building manual facility type: K-12 schools. chp 10. pg 2. Retrieved from http://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/singlesite_uploads/buildings/tools/EPA_BUM_CH10_Schools.pdf

Frey, P., Anderson, P., Andrews, M., & Wolf, C. (2010). Building Reuse: Finding a Place on American Climate Policy Agendas,

Groezinger, J., Boermans, T., John, A., Seehusen, J., Wehringer, F. & Scherberich, M. (2014). Overview of Member States information on NZEBs. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Updated%20progress%20report%20NZEB.pdf

Hensley, J. E., & Aguilar, A. (2011). Preservation briefs: Improving energy efficiency in historic buildings. [National Park Services; U.S. Department of Interior] , January 17, 2016.

Hosmer, C. B. (1965). Presence of the past: A history of the preservation movement in the united states before williamsburg. New York: Putnam. Retrieved from http://ufl.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwhV3fS8MwED6GexF92I-KPybkaW-TNI1r96jT0McN3HNImgQErQW3h_333qVzTlGEQqEJ9GtC7o7rfd8BZOKGT37YBB5y4Zz19takjqd2mnOJVkKmJLBVBdr4VZkv1VQ9yLIDn00dN2Gv4xiqXS1QQxYrFsWTpqDgK0USLui1BFF-qY0D_Zq9n33jLpDnCC8HnkP14IjYBH3o-HoAJ3cHafsBJK1Gx5aNGQ2Y2GR3O4ThInKCKs_eAsMAjTXmfZ3ASD0-zcsJvkHv4Oo9JnEGp4aK1et1JLW5c2CFw6jK-IxL4_GyBd4KUc2sCI6opBcw_oKuN_VzTb2Z9atrdJuiwLgCP1T-PzHlBTqcDCcmv6K7_OP5FRyT1GCbaxhBN-BZ8NdxET8ArlKHhA

Jackson, M. (2005). Embodied energy and historic preservation: A needed reassessment retrieved on january 20,2016. ( No. APT Bulletin Vol. 36, No 4 (2005) pp. 47-52).Association for Preservation Technology International (APT). doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003163

John F. Kennedy: Presidential Library Museum. (n.d.). The white house restoration. Retrieved from http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/The-White-House-Restoration.aspx

Kelsey, J. (n.d.). Updated procedure for commercial building energy audit. Retrieved from https://www.kw-engineering.com/services/retrofit/PEC%20-%20Green%20Book%202011-10-26.pdf

Kennelly, N. M. (2014). Historic preservation in lafayette, louisiana Retrieved from http://ufl.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1LS8NAEB6KJ1FQ8dVaIT_AaLOTbDYnD9aQQy9CPYd9QqG0VduD_96ZNKni4-ZxWbIsG_abbx47HwCK21H8DRNQKY3BGyIQKK3kplDaCZN7562whkO8z1X-VMpynFY96CRc27_dgWSD3G5pOWh-x1ybCYIc3a9eYpaR4nRrp6mhW60FTtkUgn36REi1Teb-4s0zkhPXSEZtU57dOP-

139

B0Y3hKY_-f4_HcDD-koM_gZ5fnELctQuJuCajC9RGs0U00UG_cz3QTTRZbmb85lKfwbR8nD5UcaukEK8yrr4wieI-LKGg2-iCIiutQ5rRtgpnfWYsos0LhcYTGUSvnKUxzZI3Jjy6FM_hUHPB_WLdPMxzlxApg1bbQgSimGmhEy0TmXlhvUCUWvo-XHRHUrv5vCZXmCwfrZr0YbibaS_MW_15UoM_P7yCfaIr6TYAMoS99evGXxMlCPMPWnCzDA

Kibert, C. J., Monroe, M. C., Peterson, A. L., Plate, R. R., & Thiele, L. P. (2011). Working toward sustainability: Ethical decision-making in a technological world John Wiley & Sons.

Kim, J., & Jeon, B. H. (2012). Restoration of a historic town to commemorate national identity: Colonial williamsburg in the early twentieth century. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 11(2), 245-251.

Krarti, M. (2010). Energy audit of building systems: An engineering approach CRC press.

National Institute of Building Science. World Building Design Guide (WBDG). (2014). Sustainable Historic Preservation. Retrieved June 10, 2015 from http://www.wbdg.org/resources/sustainable_hp.php

National Park Services, D. (2006). Database: National register of historic places focus database. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm

National Park Services, D. (n.d). Sustainability: Energy efficiency in historic buildings. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm

National Park Services, D. (n.d.a). A history of the secretary of interior's standards. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/history-of-standards.htm

National Park Services, D. (n.d.b). Introduction to standards and guidelines: Choosing an appriopraite treatment for the historic building. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/standguide/overview/choose_treat.htm

National Park Services, D. (n.d.c). National register home. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm#start

National Trust for Historic Preservation. (n.d.a). Energy advise for owners: Historic and older homes. Retrieved from http://www3.epa.gov/region5/sustainable/pdf/Energy-advice-for-owners-of-older-homes.pdf

National Trust for Historic Preservation. (n.d.b). Rehabilitation as A treatment. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm

140

National Trust for Historic Preservation. Preservation Lab. (2011). The greenest building: Quantifying the environmental value of building reuse. (). Retrieved from http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/green-lab/lca/The_Greenest_Building_lowres.pdf

Office of Sustainability, U. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://sustainable.ufl.edu/topics/buildings-grounds/building-energy-use/

Parrish, K., & Regnier, C. (2012). Proposed design process for deep energy savings in commercial building retrofit projects. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 19(2), 71-80.

Passive House Institute. (2006, Passive house for schools: Protocol volume no. 33 of the research group for cost-efficient passive houses phase III .33

Passivhaus Institute. (2014). Passive house schools: Requirement. Retrieved from http://www.passipedia.org/planning/non-residential_passive_house_buildings/passive_house_schools/passive_house_schools_requirements

Passivhaus Institute. (2015a). EnerPHit: The passive house certificate for retrofits. Retrieved from http://passipedia.org/certification/enerphit

Passivhaus Institute. (2015b). Passive house requirement. Retrieved from http://passiv.de/en/02_informations/02_passive-house-requirements/02_passive-house-requirements.htm

Passivhaus Institute. (2015c). What is passive house. Retrieved from http://passipedia.passiv.de/passipedia_en/basics/what_is_a_passive_house

Planning, Design & Construction, UF. (n.d.). LEED program history at UF. Retrieved from http://www.facilities.ufl.edu/leed/history.php

Pless, S. D., & Torcellini, P. A. (2004). Energy performance evaluation of an educational facility: The adam joseph lewis center for environmental studies, oberlin college, oberlin, ohio National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden, Colorado.

Pless, S. D., Torcellini, P. A., & Long, N. (2007). Technical support document: Development of the advanced energy design guide for K-12 schools--30% energy savings National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Sadineni, S. B., Madala, S., & Boehm, R. F. (2011). Passive building energy savings: A review of building envelope components. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(8), 3617-3631.

Schenkel, Shultz. (n.d). CBD Basis of Design pdf. WUFI Envelope Analysis Rev1 pdf Retrieved on 6/30/2016.

141

Schneider Electric. (2008). Making permanent savings through acitive energy efficiency. Retrieved from http://www.schneider-electric.com/solutions/ca/en/med/4871553/application/pdf/1213_161-active_ee_white-paper02_control.pdf

SHC TASK 40- ECBCS ANNEX 52. http://www.iea-shc.org/task40/, [accessed 24.06.16].

Stipe, R. E. (2003). A richer heritage: Historic preservation in the twenty-first century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Retrieved from http://ufl.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwdV07T8MwED5VsCAxlBJEIUieuhU5adKkI68oKxIVo-XaZwlRQhW1Q_89d86DgmC0b_BDuofP930HMItv5fSXTUBcaDRxLi0mmdOWHs_aSUxtyh9tHiO2LLPnYl48JuUAuqaOO9fzODrT1gJt2GL5onjmFIzlsuA-kxyHM4yP2zjw1-z9os-0eK-UzRryR3KIWcZkgM2A4ocoaXl4OuH8YMzy_AcKgn2QWx_4oGIIR4xLOIMBViMIGnqPvZgI5o7Vvj_vfgRhA7cVr7h2ukYSdxOf9fs5DO9EzbWftWDY35ZsSQBh8fTyUE5pOdXeguqPGl_AqeYa-GrrsXL2kuHXTFAW5Yi0b2lWK4ukvk5K41Jj8mQMk-9zqF31VnHLZ_VhN6rJfFAsRA-aKB9D8OeiV__MX8OJr3HzmYkQjh1pDt74i_oC1w-LdA

Teague, E. H. (2011). UF builds: The architecture of the university of florida. Retrieved from http://web.uflib.ufl.edu/ufarch/historic.htm

Torcellini, P., Pless, S.,Deru, M., & Crawley D. (2006). Conference paper: Zero energy buildings: A critical look at the definition.

UF Planning, Design & Construction, University of Florida. (n.d.). Projects, UF-212-Newell Hall renovation. Retrieved from http://www.facilities.ufl.edu/projects/project.php?prj=2041

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2009). Building energy data outlook. Retrieved from http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/docs%5CDataBooks%5C2009_BEDB_Updated.pdf

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2011). Energy efficiency and renewable energy; building information program: A guide to energy audits. Retrieved from http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-20956.pdf

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2012a). Building sector energy consumption: Buildings share of U.S. primary energy consumption. Buildings energy data book.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2012b). Building sector energy consumption: Shares of U.S. buildings generic quad. Buildings energy data book ()

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2012c). Building sector energy consumption: World primary energy consumption and population by country/region. Buildings energy data book ()

142

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2012d). Environmental data: Carbon dioxide emissions for U.S. buildings by year (million metric tonnes). Buildings energy data book ()

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2003). Commercial building energy consumption survey. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/tps/sustainability/energy-efficiency.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2014a). Carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption by source., January 18, 2016-Table 12.1.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2014b). International energy outlook 2014. ( No. DOE/EIA-0484(2014)).

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2015a). Annual energy outlook 2015. ( No. AEO2015).

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2015b). U.S. states rankings: Total net electricity generation. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/#/series/51

U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). (2016). Leed. Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/leed#why

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2015). Sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved from http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

Wallace, M. (1996). Mickey mouse history and other essays on american memory Temple University Press.

Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. (2011). Sustainability and historic preservation; exercutive summary. Retrieved from http://www.dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/209SustainabilityStudy_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Wells, G. T. (2008). The greening of historic places: Finding common ground between historic tax credits and LEED certification ProQuest.

Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG). (2014a). Sustainable historic preservation. Retrieved from https://www.wbdg.org/resources/netzeroenergybuildings.php

Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG). (2014b). Net Zero Energy buildings. Retrieved on July 19, 2016 from https://www.wbdg.org/resources/sustainable_hp.php

Wiedl III, M. F. (1975). Historic district ordinances. Conn.L.Rev., 8, 209.

143

Zhai, J., LeClaire, N., & Bendewald, M. (2011). Deep energy retrofit of commercial buildings: A key pathway toward low-carbon cities. Carbon Management, 2(4), 425-430.

Zimmerman, S. (2008). Energy costs in an old house: Balancing preservation and energy efficiency, January 18, 2016.

https://schenkelshultz.sharefile.com/document/#preview/fi1e9479-7793-acaa-0003-7683daa57300/85c5961c977b493d

144

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

In Fall 2013, Shirley Nelly Morque began her master’s degree program at the

M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Construction Management, University of Florida, after she

had worked in the projects department of a mining company for nearly five years. Prior

to that, Shirley had graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Post-Graduate

Diploma in Architecture, from Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,

Ghana. During the course of her master’s program, she worked as a graduate research

assistant and also a graduate teaching assistant. She also participated in the IISBE Net

Zero Conference held on UF campus in spring, 2014 and also in the Green Build

conference held at Washington DC in 2015, as a student volunteer. Her research

interest is in sustainable construction, energy and water efficiency, waste management,

Lifecycle Assessment (LCA), Net Zero (NZB) and green buildings, passive house

design, construction safety and Building Information Modeling (BIM). She also gained

an OSHA 30 hour certification and competent person training certificate in Excavation

and Confined Space training. Shirley is also a Project Management Professional (PMP).