Upload
victor-nava
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
1/41
SIMULATION-POWERED BUILDING ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
SYSTEM
Sung Hong ParkB.A., University of California, Berkeley, 2005
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction ofthe requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL2010
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
2/41
ii
2010
Sung Hong ParkALL RIGHTS RESERVED
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
3/41
iii
SIMULATION-POWERED BUILDING ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLSYSTEM
A Thesis
by
Sung Hong Park
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee ChairDr. Dongmei Zhou
__________________________________, Second ReaderDr. Akihiko Kumagai
____________________________Date
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
4/41
iv
Student: Sung Hong Park
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
Dr. Kenneth S. Sprott Date
Department of Mechanical Engineering
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
5/41
v
Abstract
of
SIMULATION-POWERED BUILDING ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
SYSTEM
by
Sung Hong Park
As efficiency of the equipment improves, there is a need for more sophisticated control
over all equipment to achieve a global optimization. The idea of a simulation-powered building
energy management and control system (SPEMS) to achieve such optimization has interested the
building retrofit community since the 1980s, but there is still no such system available to
consumers today.
In this paper, a 200,000 square foot high-rise office building in San Jose, California, is
used to demonstrate the SPEMS. For this demonstration, DOE-2.2 building energy simulation
was used, and the building model was calibrated to the actual electricity meter interval data for
the year 2007.
The building simulation showed 2.25% energy reduction and the estimated payback time
was 11.4 years. This result is significantly different than the 20% energy reduction result by
Cumali et al. in 1988. The reduction of savings from SPEMS is due to system optimization done
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
6/41
vi
through smarter EMCS and higher building efficiency standard set by California Title 24
Building Code.
_______________________, Committee ChairDr. Dongmei Zhou
_______________________Date
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
7/41
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................ .......................... .......................... ......................... ....... x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .......................... ......................... .......................... ......................... .... 1
1.1 Let There Be Green Industry ........................................................................ 1
1.2 Building Energy Efficiency vs. Renewable Energy Sources .............................. 3
1.3 Further Improvement on Building Energy Efficiency ............... ......................... 5
2. DOE BUILDING SIMULATION ........................ .......................... ......................... ........ 7
2.1 DOE-2.2 ........................... ......................... .......................... ......................... .... 7
2.2 Building Model.............................................. ......................... .......................... 9
3. SPEMS SIMULATION ............................................... ......................... ......................... 16
3.1 Simulation Tactics ........................ .......................... ......................... ................ 16
3.2 Indoor Temperature Set Point Schedule ........................... ......................... ....... 17
3.2.1 Lunchtime Pre-Cool ....................... .......................... ........................ 17
3.2.2 Temperature Set-Back ......................... .......................... ................... 20
3.2.3 The Productive Work Space Temperature and Body Temperature ..... 20
3.3 Running the Simulation at Optimal Indoor Temperature Set Points .................. 22
4. COST EFFECTIVENESS STUDY .......................... .......................... .......................... .. 26
4.1 Implementation Cost .......................... ......................... .......................... ........... 26
4.2 Cost Effectiveness ......................................... ......................... ......................... 26
5. CONCLUSION AND THE FUTURE OF BUILDING CONTROL ......................... ....... 28
5.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 28
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
8/41
viii
5.2 Comparison with Other Studies........................................ ......................... ....... 28
5.3 Sources of Error............................................................................................... 28
5.4 Future Work of Building Control ........................ .......................... ................... 29
References ......................................................................................................................... 30
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
9/41
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Table 1: The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Budget .. 2
2. Table 2: Energy Consumption Comparison ... 25
3. Table 3: Estimated Cost of the Project ... 26
4. Table 4: Economical Summary .. 27
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
10/41
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Figure 1: EMCS Evolution..... 6
2. Figure 2: DOE-2.2 Simulation Flow....... 8
3. Figure 3: Aerial View of Legacy Civic Towers Building... 9
4. Figure 4: Annual Average Hourly Load Profile.... 11
5. Figure 5: Annual Average Hourly Load Profile by End-Use ...12
6. Figure 6: Annual Energy Consumption..... 13
7. Figure 7: Simulated Building Energy Consumption by End-Use..14
8. Figure 8: CEUS Large Office Building Energy Consumption by End-Use..15
9. Figure 9: Weather Independent Internal Load Profile... 17
10. Figure 10: Cooling Tower Cooling ... 19
11. Figure 11: 2007 San Jose Outside Wet Bulb Temperature....20
12. Figure 12: Average Human Body Temperature Profile. 21
13. Figure 13: Energy Demand from Different Temperature Set Point Schedules.. 22
14. Figure 14: Energy Demand Profile by Optimal Schedule.. 23
15. Figure 15: Temperature Set Point Schedule... 24
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
11/41
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Let There be Green Industry
The green industry has existed for more than 30 years, since the first oil crisis hit
the United States. The Department of Energy (DOE) was formed after the first oil crisis
in 1977 to research renewable energy and to improve energy efficiency. The main focus
of DOE is to develop alternative energy sources other than fossil fuels, hence majority of
its budget is allocated in scientific research such as fusion and nuclear physics. While
DOE focused on the research, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE), an agency under DOE, created the green industry to bring energy efficient
technologies and renewable energy sources to consumers.
EERE runs numerous energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and
historically, put slightly more weight on energy efficiency programs then renewable
energy programs, until recently, as shown in Table 1.
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
12/41
2
Programs2006 Budget 2011 Budget
$ (thousands) $ (thousands)Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D 89,776 220,000
Building Technologies 68,190 230,698Federal Energy Management Program 18,974 42,272Geothermal Technology 22,762 55,000Hydrogen Technology 153,451 137,000Hydropower 495 40,488Industrial Technologies 55,856 100,000Solar Energy 81,791 302,398Vehicle Technologies 178,351 325,302Weatherization and IntergovernmentalActivities 316,866 385,000Wind Energy 38,333 122,500
TOTAL 1,024,845 1,960,658Table 1: The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Budget [1]
In 2006, EERE spent approximately 37% on renewable energy research programs
and 43% on building energy efficiency programs, with more emphasis on the building
energy efficiency programs. The building energy efficiency programs include: building
technologies, industrial technologies, weatherization, and intergovernmental activities.
The building technology program focuses on improving the overall energy
efficiency of new and existing buildings through research, partnerships, and developing
tools for various industries. In past years, EERE focused to improve heating, ventilating,
and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, lighting technology, building design, and other
building technologies. The industrial technology program encourages industries in the
U.S. to reduce their energy consumption by running incentive programs to implement
energy efficient equipment and practices. The weatherization and intergovernmental
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
13/41
3
programs are incentive programs designed to encourage implementing energy efficiency
equipment and practices.
With the growing concerns about global warming, the general public is now more
conscious about where the energy they use is coming from and how to conserve to reduce
their carbon footprint. As a result, renewable energy gains more support and has fueled
the solar, hydrogen, and wind energy industries. Public demand for renewable energy
was reflected in the 2011 EERE budget allocation: 37% for energy efficiency and 45%
for renewable energy. Emphasis has now shifted toward renewable energy.
1.2 Building Energy Efficiency vs. Renewable Energy Sources
Improving building energy efficiency and researching renewable energy are both
effective ways to reduce carbon footprints, but improving building energy efficiency is
money better spent to reduce our carbon footprint. Lets compare two different ways to
reduce building electric bill. The first way is to install photovoltaic panels and generate
20% of building electric bill at the facility. The other method is to install more efficient
light bulbs to reduce electric demand permanently.
Photovoltaic panels are the iconic green energy of today and it is a good example
to address the problems in renewable energy. For an example, if a facility operation
manager installs photovoltaic (PV) panels to supply 25% of a 14-story office building in
San Jose, it takes 29 years to break even without tax incentives and additional 6.7 years to
break even pollutant created during PV panel production. The available solar radiance in
San Jose is 5.48 kWh/m2/day and that would require 36,339 square feet of photovoltaic
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
14/41
4
panels at an average efficiency of 20%. The estimated project cost would be $2.5 million,
without government incentives [2]. Based on PG&Es Billing Schedule E19S summer
peak electricity price of 0.15217 dollar per kWh, it would take 29 years without tax
incentives, ($7,295.41 per month of savings equals 349 months) to break even. If one
considers that the expected lifetime of photovoltaic system is 25 to 30 years, the building
would hardly break even on this investment. Another consideration: in the process of
manufacturing photovoltaic panels, energy has been inputted, this is called embodied
energy. The payback time for manufacturing photovoltaic panels is 6.7 years [3].
Including the payback period for embodied energy, photovoltaic panels end up producing
more of a carbon footprint than if they were not used.
Building energy efficiency, on the other hand, has better monetary return rate.
For an example, upgrading lighting equipment is a common retrofit project among many
businesses. Title 24 requires 1.0 W/square foot for use in office spaces. If a T8 32W
bulb is used, which is the industry standard for office lighting for 200,000 square feet of
office space, it would require 6,250 32W 4-foot T8 bulbs ($2.49) to keep the entire space
at 90 lumens, and a color-rendering index (CRI) of 85. If T5 fixtures were installed
instead, it would need 6,250 28W 4-foot T5 bulbs ($9.75), effectively reducing 120,000
kWh per year at a cost of $61,000. It would only take 3 years to break even. The
payback for the embodied energy of fluorescent light bulbs is only approximately 50
hours.
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
15/41
5
1.3 Further Improvement on Building Energy Efficiency
Building energy efficiency improvement is a much better monetary and
environmental return today. For many years, different industries focused on improving
individual component efficiency. In the last decade, with cheaper and higher processing
power available, the building energy management control system (EMCS) was developed
to optimize the whole system efficiency. The first generation of EMCS was focused on
optimizing performance of the individual HVAC component. Now, EMCS involves the
broader picture of the HVAC system and optimizes the system based on readings from
individual components. The modern EMCS can now run an HVAC system based on
occupancy and equipment schedules, and optimize the system based on those factors.
SPEMS is the next generation of EMCS, and the idea for this system has
interested the industry for over 20 years, to further savings from buildings. For the last
20 years, as shown in Figure 1, EMCS have evolved from traditional component control
to equipment optimization and HVAC system optimization [4]. The next improvement
for EMCS is global optimization using computer simulations.
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
16/41
6
Figure 1: EMCS Evolution
In 1988, Cumali et al. implemented simulation-powered building management
and control systems to actual buildings, and the result showed a 20% energy reduction
from three large office buildings [5]. The result demonstrated attractive savings, but still,
no EMCS with building simulation capability is available on the market today.
In the past 20 years, significant progress has been made in building energy
efficiency and it is questionable that the same rate of savings could be achieved from a
modern building. Building codes have become more rigorous: the building must be more
insulated, EMCS and sensors together achieve HVAC system optimization, system
component efficiency has been improved, and internal building load has been reduced
from efficient plug loads. Using DOE 2.2 building energy simulation of calibrated
building in San Jose, electrical energy savings from the simulation-powered energy
management and control system (SPEMS) were explored and compared with electrical
energy savings from study done by Cumali et al.
Traditional
Application
Equipment
Optimization
System
Optimization
Global
Optimization
Sophistication
Savings
EMCS Evolution
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
17/41
7
Chapter 2
DOE BUILDING SIMULATION
2.1 DOE-2.2
For more than 30 years, building designers and research communities have used
building energy simulation to create energy efficient buildings, assess energy savings
from implementing energy efficient measures, and estimate the size of HVAC equipment.
The DOE building simulation software is the most well-known software in the industry
for its accuracy and usefulness in designing and retrofitting buildings. The DOE building
simulation software was developed by James J. Hirsch in collaboration with Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory. From numerous revisions, the current software version is
DOE-2.2.
DOE-2.2 software is composed of four subprograms as shown in Figure 2. The
BDL Processor subprogram takes user input files and accesses a library to generate the
BDL file. The simulation process uses the BDL file and the local weather data to run the
LOADS subprogram to simulate the building heat load, then the SYSTEMS subprogram
simulates the HVAC system load, and finally, the ECONOMICS subprogram calculates
the hourly energy consumption and its cost [6].
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
18/41
8
Figure 2: DOE-2.2 Simulation Flow Chart
The user input file is composed of the year of building simulation run,
construction materials, various equipment schedules, building design, HVAC system, and
building zoning pattern. It has intuitive names of variables more easily readable by a
human.
The main purpose of the BDL Processor subprogram is to translate a human-
readable user input file to a machine-readable BDL file and access a library of material
properties and various equipment performance curves. The user can simply define the
construction material, such as Polyurethane insulation, in the user input file, and the BDL
Processor inserts the thermal properties of Polyurethane from the library to the BDL file.
It works the same way for equipment components; the user can simply define a chiller
type in the user input file and the BDL Processor accesses the proper compressor
performance curve and includes it in the BDL file.
As previously mentioned, the DOE-2.2 simulates the building using three
subprograms: LOADS, SYSTEMS, and ECONOMICS. The LOADS subprogram uses a
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
19/41
9
BDL file and weather data to calculate the hourly heating and cooling load for a user-
defined building model based on the weather data provided. The SYSTEMS subprogram
calculates the HVAC system performance to meet the user-defined heating and cooling
set point. The ECONOMICS subprogram then calculates the energy consumption and its
cost based on the LOADS and SYSTEMS results. When the building simulation process
is complete, DOE-2.2 generates an Output Report.
2.2 Building Model
To demonstrate the savings from SPEMS, a DOE-2.2 building model of a real
building in San Jose was created. The building is Legacy Civic Towers in San Jose, as
shown in Figure 3. It is a 14-story building with a basement, totaling 200,674 square feet.
Figure 3: Aerial View of Legacy Civic Towers Building [7]
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
20/41
10
The building is open from 6 a.m.to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. For the last
two years, the average building occupancy rate was at 60% of its maximum capacity.
The buildings HVAC system runs at a standard variable air volume with a hot water
reheat system. One 500-Ton York chiller and one 250-Ton Trane chiller supply cools the
chilled water loop, while two gas furnaces heat the hot water loop.
This building was chosen because it is a good representation of a typical high-rise
office building in the San Jose area. The facility was built in 1997, during the dot-com
economic boom era and has participated in multiple PG&E commercial retrofit programs
to keep the building efficiency up to date.
Based on the whole facility survey done by ADM Associates, Inc., in 2009, the
DOE-2.2 building model was created. The whole facility survey includes detailed
information on building construction, HVAC equipment, plug-in equipment,
miscellaneous equipment, facility operating schedules, and EMCS operating setup.
In order to reflect the actual building using a computer model, the model must be
calibrated based on the actual building energy consumption. By running the DOE-2.2
simulation of the building model using the year 2007 weather data from National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and comparing it against the 2007 15-min kW
interval data from PG&E, the model was calibrated to match within 10% of the actual
billing data. The calibration involved adjusting occupancy rate, plug-in equipment load,
and miscellaneous loads.
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
21/41
11
Figure 4: Annual Average Hourly Load Profile
The Figure 4 shows the difference between annual average hourly electric
demand profile from the electric interval data and the simulation result. The hourly
profile calibration calibrates building power demand for every hour. The simulation
hourly profile has an average of a 106% match to the actual building hourly profile. The
building electric demand is allocated to represent the actual building electric demand as
shown in Figure 5, below.
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00400.00
450.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
kW
Hour
Annual Average Hourly Load Profile
Billing Data
Simulation
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
22/41
12
Figure 5: Annual Average Hourly Load Profile by End-Use
The building electric demand is broken up into seven different end-use categories:
space cool, heat rejection, ventilation, pumps, exterior use, plug loads, and lighting. The
space cool is the energy demand from chillers; heat rejection is the energy used by
cooling tower; ventilation is the energy demand from air handling units and exhaust fans;
pumps are the energy consumed by various hydro pumps associated the HVAC system
and domestic hot water; exterior use is the buildings exterior lighting; plug loads are
miscellaneous equipment connected to building via electrical outlet; and lighting is the
demand from lighting fixtures.
This building houses a server room that is running 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, therefore at night, the building still demands approximately 160 kW. The majority
of that demand is from the mainframe computers and cooling associated with them. The
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
kW
Hour
Annual Average Hourly Load Profile by End-Use
Space Cool
Heat
Rejection
Ventilation
Pumps
Exterior Use
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
23/41
13
plot also shows slowly increasing demand at 6 a.m.as employees come to work and
slowly decreases at 5 p.m.as employees leave.
Once the hourly electric demand is calibrated, the next step is to calibrate electric
energy consumption. The hourly profile gives a daily demand of the electricity, whereas
the annual electric energy consumption gives the monthly profile of electricity
consumption. Figure 6 presents the comparison of annual electric energy consumption
between 2007 Bills and simulation results. On average, the simulation electric energy
consumption agrees to the actual electric bills by 101%.
Figure 6: Annual Energy Consumption
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
kW
h
Month
Annual Energy Consumption
2007 Bills
Simulation Result
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
24/41
14
Figure 7: Simulated Building Energy Consumption by End-Use
The buildings annual electric energy consumption by end-use is shown in Figure
7 above. For this particular building, the plug load is the largest part of the annual
electric consumption, at 37%. HVAC equipment, a combination of space cool, heat
rejection, ventilation, and pumps, is the second largest, at 36%. The lighting fixtures take
up 25% and the exterior lights make up the last 2%. This ratio is comparable to Itrons
California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS) result of large office buildings in
California shown in Figure 8.
Space Cool
10%
Heat Rejection
0%
Ventilation
12%
Pumps
14%
Exterior Use
2%
Plug Loads
37%
Lights
25%
Energy Consumption by End-Use
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
25/41
15
Figure 8: CEUS Large Office Building Energy Consumption by End-Use [8]
The difference in plug loads by comparing results in Figure 7 and Figure 8 comes
from the mainframe computer hosted at the Legacy Partners building. The mainframe
server computers run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and therefore take up large
portions of the total consumption. The general office building in CEUS does not include
facilities with mainframe servers; rather it categorizes separately as high-tech facility.
HVAC
42%
Exterior Use
3%
Plug Loads
30%
Lighting
25%
CEUS End-Use Consumption
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
26/41
16
Chapter 3
SPEMS SIMULATION
3.1 Simulation Tactics
The simulation of the simulation-powered energy management and control system
(SPEMS) is a challenge because there is no function available in DOE-2.2 to simulate
such EMCS. SPEMS is designed to create numerous temperature schedules and run
DOE-2.2 simulation, and uses the temperature schedule that saves the most electricity. In
order to demonstrate the savings from the SPEMS, a simplified approach was taken to
mimic how SPEMS would control indoor temperature. 20 indoor temperature set point
schedules were created based on three factors: Outside weather condition, internal loads,
and the productive workspace temperature. Multiple DOE-2.2 runs were made and the
schedule with the highest savings for every month was chosen to run.
The reason for using the indoor temperature set point is that, in the DOE-2.2
simulation, indoor temperature set point controls the supply of cool air and directly
controls the HVAC system run-time. The indoor temperature depends on human
occupancy, plug loads, lighting loads, sunlight, and the latent heat from walls and
windows. The indoor cooling load varies by time of day. Sunlight and latent heat from
the walls and windows depend on the weather and it affects the performance of chillers.
DOE-2.2 runs system optimization at a given condition, and one can lower the
temperature set point to draw more cooling load inside and indirectly control the chillers
at any given time. Conversely, one can increase the indoor temperature to rest the
chillers.
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
27/41
17
3.2 Indoor Temperature Set Point Schedule
The indoor temperature set point schedules were created based on three energy
savings strategies. The first, is to pre-cool running chillers during lunchtime (Noon to 1
a.m.) to reduce chiller runtime during the peak time. The second is to start temperature
set back as occupancy rates drop in the building. The last strategy is to slowly lower the
temperature set point in the morning until body temperatures reach the optimal level of
98.6F.
3.2.1 Lunchtime Pre-Cool
The lunchtime pre-cool is a strategy to run chillers during lunchtime when there is
less internal load and when the cooling tower efficiency is higher. During that time, the
building occupancy drops as employees leave to have lunch. The following plot in
Figure 9 shows the change in occupancy rate and plug load demand.
Figure 9: Weather Independent Internal Load Profile
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
%ON
Hour
Occupancy
Lighting
Equipment
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
28/41
18
The lighting equipment tends to be powered on during the business hour in an
open office configuration because it is ineffective to install occupancy sensors on every
lighting fixture in an open office space. Therefore, EMCS controls the light in that type
of office.
As occupancy rates fall, equipment demand falls due to office equipment going
into idle mode. For example, personal computers consume less energy when it lowers the
CPU clock speed to use less CPU and power down monitors when no one is using them.
Copy machines goes to a sleep mode when they are not used for more than an hour. An
automatic system like this can bring the plug load down during lunch.
Outside wet bulb temperature is closely related to cooling tower efficiency and it
is better to run the tower when the wet bulb temperature is lower. As outside wet bulb
temperature increases, the cooling capacity on a cooling tower falls, as it becomes
difficult to remove the heat using the evaporation of water. Figure 10 shows how the
outside wet bulb temperature affects the cooling capacity of the cooling tower. As the
wet bulb temperature increases, cooling capacity drops.
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
29/41
19
Figure 10: Cooling Tower Cooling Capacity [9]
Based on the 2007 NOAA San Jose weather record, an average wet bulb
temperature plot was created as shown in Figure 11. Three average hourly wet bulb
profiles are displayed: January, July, and the annual average. The outdoor wet bulb
temperature peaks at 1 p.m., so by reducing the cooling tower run-time during this hour,
the building can potentially save energy. The January profile is an example of a winter
wet bulb temperature profile, and the July profile is an example of a summer wet bulb
temperature profile.
757
704
631
558
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
66 68 70 72
Coo
lingCapacityinGPM
Outside Wet Bulb Temperature
Cooling Tower Cooling Capacity
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
30/41
20
Figure 11: 2007 San Jose Outside Wet Bulb Temperature
3.2.2 Temperature Set-Back
Starting at 5 p.m., employees begin to leave work, and the temperature set back
strategy should begin to reduce chiller run-time. As shown in Figure 9, occupancy,
lighting, and equipment loads fall after 5 p.m. For example, when the SPEMS predicts
lower demand ahead, it forces the chillers to run at their highest efficiency even if it is a
lower cooling supply. If at 4:30 p.m. the internal set point temperature is at 74F and the
chiller needs to run at 90% load to meet that cooling load, SPEMS can decide to run the
chiller at 85% load because the chiller efficiency is higher at that load, but it produces
enough cooled air to keep the internal temperature at 75F.
3.2.3 The Productive Work Space Temperature and Body Temperature
The indoor temperature set point and body temperature together are an important
factor for keeping employees productive and comfortable. In many studies of
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
F
Hour
Outside Wet Bulb Temperature
July
Average
January
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
31/41
21
productivity at work, researchers found an inverted U-shape relationship centered
between 72F (22C) and 77F (25C) [10]. As the indoor temperature deviates from
that range, productivity falls by 2% per every degree Celsius. Hence, the temperature
between 72F to 77F is the range of temperature and SPEMS can fluctuate without
sacrificing productivity.
Thermal comfort is another factor related to work productivity. The comfortable
temperature is relative to the temperature difference between body and ambient. Body
temperature varies throughout the day; it is lowest at 4 a.m. and highest between 4 p.m. to
6 p.m. as shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Average Human Body Temperature Profile [11]
Optimal body temperature is 98.6F. The body feels different depending on if
body temperature is below or above optimal temperature. In the morning, the body
97.2
97.4
97.6
97.8
98.0
98.2
98.4
98.698.8
99.0
99.2
99.4
99.6
99.8
100.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Bo
dyTemperature
(F)
Hour
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
32/41
22
temperature is below the optimal temperature, therefore, the person prefers a warmer
ambient temperature until their body temperature reaches the optimal level. Warmer
ambient temperature minimizes body heat loss so it helps body to reach the optimal level.
In the afternoon, the body temperature is well above optimal levels, so the cooler ambient
temperature feels better as it helps the body to regulate its temperature.
3.3 Running the Simulation at Optimal Indoor Temperature Set Points
Based on the three energy saving strategies described in the previous section, 20
temperature schedules were created and compared against the baseline. Based on
independent DOE-2.2 runs of different temperature schedules, SPEMS chooses the
optimal temperature schedule to run the building.
Figure 13: Energy Demand from Different Temperature Set Point Schedules
Figure 13 shows hourly demand for a 2007 peak day average. The peak day was
defined by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the hottest three consecutive
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
kW
Hour
Energy Demand from Different Temperature Set Point Schedule
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
33/41
23
weekdays in 2007, which are July 17 to July 19. As shown above, 20 different
temperature schedules create different demand profiles. Even with the same temperature
schedule, depending on the weather, demand can be different.
Figure 14 compares the peak day average profile to the baseline schedule, the
75F constant temperature set point schedule, and the July optimal schedule.
Figure 14: Energy Demand Profile by Optimal Schedule
In the morning, the optimal schedule demands less energy because lower
temperature set points provide comfortable temperatures until body temperature reaches
its optimal 98.6F. The cooling load continues to increase throughout the morning to
cool the building until noon. From noon to 2 p.m., the energy demand stays constant as
the pre-cool pays off by slowly increasing the temperature set point. At 4 p.m., SPEMS
anticipates the lower cooling demand after 5 p.m. and starts the set back process.
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
kW
Hour
Energy Demand Profile by Optimal Schedule
Baseline75F
Optimum
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
34/41
24
The average indoor temperature set point for the July optimal schedule during
business hours is 74.8F but the average indoor temperature between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m.
is 72.5F. The plot in Figure 15 shows the difference between the baseline and optimal
temperature set point schedules.
Figure 15: Temperature Set Point Schedule
The result of running SPEMS on the building mode is presented in Table 2. The
annual energy savings from the SPEMS is 52,254.36 kWh, which is a 2.25% energy
reduction. The building is in PG&E rate schedule E19S, which charges $0.15217 per
kWh during the summer. The monetary annual savings is $7,951.55.
65
70
75
80
85
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Temp
(F)
Hour
Temperature Setpoint
Optimum Schedule
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
35/41
25
Month Baseline(kWh)
SPEMS(kWh)
Savings(kWh)
% Reduction
Jan 178,360.69 175,152.61 3,208.08 1.80%Feb 161,804.56 159,092.47 2,712.08 1.68%
Mar 190,674.90 186,478.07 4,196.83 2.20%
Apr 185,931.65 180,807.08 5,124.57 2.76%
May 204,114.26 197,789.72 6,324.54 3.10%
Jun 205,737.04 200,071.64 5,665.40 2.75%
Jul 220,771.72 215,409.32 5,362.39 2.43%
Aug 227,791.59 221,881.21 5,910.38 2.59%
Seo 198,779.49 195,799.50 2,979.99 1.50%
Oct 196,154.30 191,964.31 4,189.99 2.14%
Nov 177,464.92 172,974.90 4,490.02 2.53%
Dec 175,102.85 173,012.75 2,090.09 1.19%
TOTAL 2,322,687.96 2,270,433.59 52,254.36 2.25%
Table 2: Energy Consumption Comparison
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
36/41
26
Chapter 4
COST EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
4.1 Implementation Cost
The estimated cost of implementing SPEMS is $90,480.00 for a 200,000 square
foot office building. The cost breakdown is listed in Since there are no EMCS with
building simulation available to the consumer today, a control engineer must integrate the
building simulation to the existing EMCS. More sensors are required to be installed on-
site to provide more feedback to SPEMS. In order to create a building model, a full
building audit is needed. On top of the cost of implementing the SPEMS, there is also
cost involved to commission the project, creating a report and a user manual, and training
employees.
Components Material ($) Hours Rate ($/hour) T&M Cost ($)
Integration with BAS/EMS 5,000.00 80 120 14,600.00Sensor Installation 15,000.00 240 60 29,400.00Building Audit 1,000.00 80 120 10,600.00Computer Modeling 160 120 19,200.00Commissioning 80 120 9,600.00Report/manual 1,000.00 40 80 4,200.00Training 24 120 2,880.00
Total Cost ($) 90,480.00
Table 3: Estimated Cost of the Project
4.2 Cost Effectiveness
Table 4 provides the economical summary and indicates that SPEMS
implementation requires 11.4 years to break even, based on annual energy savings. The
Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) estimates the expected useful life of
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
37/41
27
typical HVAC equipment at 15 years and the SPEMS can break even before its predicted
lifetime.
Cost $90,480
Energy Savings 52 MWhAnnual Cost Savings $7,952
Simple Payback Time 11.4 year
Table 4: Economical Summary
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
38/41
28
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION AND THE FUTURE OF BUILDING CONTROL
5.1 Conclusion
The payback period for SPEMS is 11.4 years which makes it difficult to sell to
customers because a payback period over 10 years is considered to be too long. Because
of the sophistication of the SPEMS implementation, cost is high as shown in Chapter 4.
In order to market proliferate SPEMS, the payback period needs to be less than 3 years,
and otherwise facility managers find it difficult to justify the project cost.
5.2 Comparison with Other Studies
Unfortunately, SPEMS showed only a 2.25% energy reduction from the Legacy
Civic Towers building. In 1988, Cumali et al. implemented simulation-powered EMCS
on three large office buildings and they were able to achieve a 20% energy reduction.
The major source of this discrepancy between these two numbers is from the building
code of higher efficiency standard enforced by local governments. A modern building,
like Legacy Civic Towers, has better insulation, better glazing, more efficient office
equipment, and more efficient HVAC components. Along with these technological
improvements, EMCS can optimize the system, so savings from global optimization have
diminished compared to Cumalis experiment in 1988.
5.3 Sources of Error
In this analysis, the SPEMS were simplified and it may not demonstrate its full
capability. The proper way to simulate the SPEMS, temperature schedule and energy
consumption should be a multi-variable function, and SPEMS should run numerous
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
39/41
29
DOE-2.2 simulationsiteratively to find the optimal temperature schedule. SPEMS should
create a new optimized schedule on a daily basis.In this paper, for simplicity, monthly
optimized schedules were created.
5.4 Future Work of Building Control
It was difficult to create a DOE-2.2 simulation of SPEMS as envisioned by author
of this paper. The SPEMS of the future should be able to communicate with local
weather stations and the utility companys server. Employees in the building would have
a radio frequency identification (RFID) card so the SPEMS can monitor building
occupancy level. Based on the building occupancy, SPEMS could shut down lights and
plug loads in vacant rooms, also estimating the cooling load required for the next hour.
SPEMS also would monitor indoor CO2 levels to control the percent of outside air intake
and air recirculation to minimize the quantity of air to be conditioned. The local weather
data could be automatically downloaded by SPEMS and used on its DOE-2.2 simulation
runs. The building could have photovoltaic panels, and based on an hourly electric rate,
SPEMS can decide whether to store, sell, or use the electricity being generated. If all
these capabilities were simulated, the savings could be large enough to be worth
implementing SPEMS on all buildings.
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
40/41
30
REFERENCES
1. Office of Chief Financial Officer.Department of Energy FY 2011 Congrational BudgetRequest. Washington DC: Depart of Energy, 2010, 25.
2. Cooler Planet. Cooler Planet. http://solar.coolerplanet.com/Articles/solar-calculator.aspx(accessed June 23, 2010).
3. Corkish, Richard. "Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in theirManufacture?" Solar Progress (Photovoltaics Special Research Center), 1997: 16-17.
4. Thielman, Davis. "System Optimization - The Global Approach to HVAC Control." FirstSymposium. 1984.
5. Cumali, Z. "Global Optimization of HVAC System Operations in Real Time."ASHRAETransaction 94(1), 1988: 729-1744.
6. Simulation Research Group.DOE-2 Home. http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirsoft/d2whatis.html(accessed June 23, 2010).
7. Microsoft.Bing Maps. http://www.bing.com/maps/ (accessed July 30, 2010).8. Itron, Inc. California Commerical End-Use Survey. Consultant Report, Itron, Inc, 2006,
158.
9. Evapco. "LSTB/LPT Forced Draft Cooling Towers." Evapco, 22.
10.Encyclopaedia Britannica.Animal Heat. Vol. 2, inEncyclopaedia Britannica, 11thEdition, 49. 1911.
11.Seppanen, Olli, William J. Fisk, and David Faulkner. Control of Temperature for Healthand Productivity in Offices. Institute of Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning,
8/3/2019 Simulation-powered Building Energy Management and Control System
41/41
31
Helsinki Univsersity of Technology, Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
2004, 2.