ASHRAE Standard 90.1

ASHRAE Std90 for the Envelope is very stringent and the percent glass now maximizes out at 40% (down from the previous 50%) while the trend in building design today is to try and maximize the percent glass of envelope. ( See Architectural-Design & Perimeter-Zoning)

Significant energy savings cannot be gained by increasing the envelope efficiency. Buildings with more than 40% glass are not going to meet Std90 envelope requirements. Increasing envelope efficiency, and playing around with shape, orientation, azimuth, and other forms of architectural design saves little compared to Std90. Day-lighting remains the main option for saving energy through architectural design. ( See Architectural-Design & Perimeter-Zoning)

ASHRAE Std90 for Lighting for different types of work spaces is already very stringent. 1.0 watt/sf for lighting for an office building with 10 feet or higher ceilings is low. The most efficient type of lighting fixtures for the given space type have to be used to comply with Std90. For some large projects overseas, the lighting design criteria specified by the client is much higher. Lowering the lighting density below Std90 is not an option for saving energy.

ASHRAE Std90 for Mechanical Systems for different types of buildings and sizes are usually the most suitable system that should be used for the given type of building. Std90 efficiencies for types and sizes of equipment are also typical equipment specifications by designers. Increasing the efficiency of mechanical systems and equipment might save a little compared to Std90. Simple and inexpensive energy saving methods such as Airside Economizers are already a part the standard.

Energy savings over Std90 with mechanical systems have to be achieved with methods such as renewable energy, heat recovery methods, under-floor air-distribution (UFAD), chilled-beams, and control systems. These options have their limitations such as first, construction, and maintenance costs. Easy availability of maintenance parts and skilled labor might also be a problem in some locations

Process/equipment loads have to be the same for baseline (Std90) and proposed. The process loads of a Hospital building are greater than that of an Office building. The higher the process load, the lower the percent energy savings (for LEED).

Operating hours have to be the same for baseline (Std90) and proposed. A Hospital operates every hour of year (8,760 hours per year) which is more efficient use of the building than an Office that operates 60 hours per week during the day only (3,000 hours per year). The longer the operating hours, the lower the percent energy savings (for LEED).

Both cases, (1) high process loads and (2) high hours of operation, do not affect Std90 and Code compliance because they have to be the same for baseline (Std90) and proposed. They only make a difference negatively when trying show percent energy savings.

Percent Energy Savings for LEED

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is based on typical building design for type, size and climate. Most building design would follow Std90 as a minimum, even if there was no Std90. Mechanical systems and equipment efficiencies for different types of buildings and types of spaces of Std90 are typical. Reducing the lighting power densities with more efficient lights and increasing the envelope efficiencies will not produce significant energy savings compared to Std90. Energy codes are based on Std90.

Percent energy savings can vary with the type of building and the location. Some types of buildings (like the Middle-School + Community-Center (MCC) in the suburbs example) can exceed Std90 by 50% or more. The High-Rise Mixed-Use (HRMU) building in an urban area is an example where achieving 5% to 10% energy savings represents good, reliable and safe design that will not cause maintenance and replacement problems in the future.

One fixed percent rating system for ranking all types of buildings and climates is like using the same yardstick to measure the performance of classical violinist and a professional wrestler.

If the building envelope complies with Std90, architectural passive design methods, consisting of building shape, orientation, aspect-ratio, azimuths, etc., have little effect on saving energy. It is unreasonable for architects to design glass high-rise office buildings and ask the HVAC engineers to save energy with mechanical design to qualify the building for Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum LEED certification and also keep the first and future maintenance costs competitive.

The increase in energy use by glass buildings can be offset by using day-lighting controls. However, such spaces with high wall and glass heights and high net percent window areas cannot take full credit for all the energy saved because the present standard limits the perimeter zone depth to 15 feet. ( See Architectural-Design & Perimeter-Zoning)

Architects should campaign for extending the perimeter zone depth for day-lighting that should be based on glass height below the ceiling level, and percent net glass area during computer modeling for code compliance. This can confirmed during the Measurement & Verification (M&V) phase or it can be verified by walking into the many glass buildings that exist today.

Mechanical Design Case Studies to Save Energy

Consider the following two projects which emphasize mechanical design to save energy:
(1) "Middle-School + Community-Center (MSCC)" that is based on the Chicago Center for Green Technology (CCGT) which received LEED Platinum (Fig?).
(2) "High-Rise Mixed-Use Building (HRMU)" which includes Retail, Office, Hotel, Restaurant and Mechanical floors.

In the case of the "Middle-School + Community-Center (MSCC)", the roof area to floor area is high (because it is a single story building) and it can be covered with Photo-Voltaic (PV) panels. There is plenty of ground area to install Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHP). The building is 60% glass and operates only during the day only maximizing day-lighting all year. It operates during fall, winter and spring to take advantage of passive solar heating in cold climates. It is possible to achieve more than 50% energy savings over Std90 with such a building.

In the case of the "High-Rise Mixed-Use Bldg (HRMU)", day-lighting is the main energy conservation measure. Everything else is based on Std90 design criteria (for retail, office, hotel, restaurant) because it represents standard HVAC accepted by the industry as being the most suitable and trouble-free in terms of construction and operation.

In such commercial buildings energy cost savings based on the Energy Cost Budget method of Std90 compliance can be significant if there is big spread in Time Of Use (TOU) and Seasonal utility rates. This is done with control strategies, thermal storage, etc. The impact is at the power plant which now does not have be large enough to provide power for the peak demand period and then have to operate at a fraction of its capacity the rest of the time.

The "High-Rise Mixed-Use Bldg (HRMU)" case study shows why almost all commercial buildings (including residential high-rise condominiums and apartments) in downtown Chicago use electricity for heating in winter and domestic hot water all year. Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) has a low seasonal rate for winter which ensures that their power plant does not run on "idle" during the winter months. The study shows that the cost of the building using electricity in winter is less than if it used natural gas.

Energy Conservation Measures for Building Types, Locations and Budgets

High percent energy savings does not therefore necessarily mean a better or optimized designed building in terms of the client's and the general public's interests. Percent energy savings should therefore not be the criteria for energy efficient building design.

Building energy evaluation should be based on Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) that are appropriate for the given type of building that are more energy efficient compared to ASHRAE Std90 for the given type of building and size. This usually results in increased first costs. The ECMs are going to be different for different types of buildings in different locations. If the ECM used is unsuitable, then the client pays a high price for the higher percent energy savings for LEED.

Just because a high rise office building in an urban area does not get a "pass" or "no" certification from LEED based on percent energy savings, does not mean that it is not well designed for optimum energy and functionality compared to a single level school located in a suburban area that receives "platinum" LEED certification.

USGBC LEED rating system has created the impression among the public, including City, County, State and Federal authorities, that building quality can be measured by the LEED rating system. Architects, engineers and building developers are now under pressure from the green (meaning ignorant) public and other environmental idealists to get LEED certification.

Designers should be responsible for creating the optimum building in terms quality and cost which includes complying with all building standards and codes. The measuring yardstick should be the Energy Conservation Measures for different building types, locations, budgets and cultures. Such awards already exist all over the world such as the ASHRAE energy awards.

Building Design Decisions

Building design decisions are not made solely by comparing energy conservation measures (ECMs). First costs, maintenance labor and replacement parts costs and availability, ease of maintenance, reliability and durability of systems, and environmental impacts have to be considered. Final decisions are made based mainly on overall life-cycle costs, payback periods and return on investments. Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is required to compare ECMs.

Readily available and up to data cost estimating programs are therefore required to complement energy programs. They do not have to be the detailed itemized ordering and costing systems used by contractors. The cost estimating systems would be designed for comparing ECMs only and only relative accuracy and reliability are important.

Cost of LEED Certification

The following cost estimate for LEED Certification can viewed and downloaded at:
http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/for_communities/LEED_links/AnalyzingtheCostofLEED.pdf
Analyzing the Cost of Obtaining LEED Certification April 16, 2003
Prepared for: The American Chemistry Council, 1300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209
Prepared by: Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants,
319 Littleton Road, Suite 208, Westford, MA 01886

Extracts from LEED Cost Report:

      "Total Soft Cost Estimates (Incremental cost as a percentage of construction costs): Our best estimate of soft costs of obtaining LEED certification is 2.3 percent of total construction costs with a range of 1.5 percent to 3.1 percent (Exhibit 1). While this falls in the lower end of the overall range we cited earlier (1 to 5 percent), we believe the higher values are indicative of atypical projects (higher levels of certification, limited experience with the process, and small scale projects) and are therefore not appropriate for use in the extrapolation we developed to assess nationwide impacts."
      "Documentation, commissioning, and related costs are the "overhead" of the LEED process. The advantage of going through the process and incurring these costs is the "stamp of approval" earned at the end."
      "We have not analyzed the benefits of LEED as part of our scope, but we believe it is important to balance the discussion of costs with an understanding of the benefits."

"We are confident that LEED certification imposes costs on a project, beyond what would otherwise be required. The soft costs, in particular, are common to all LEED projects and we have illustrated that these may vary as a percentage of construction costs, depending on the size of the project, its complexity, and the experience of the design and construction team."

Architectural Engineering Design (AED) firms and LEED certification

The building design business is almost 100% labor. US Architectural-Engineering design fees for large projects have been going down because of increased competition at home and particularly from overseas where wages are lower.

The client and the public now expect every building to be LEED certified otherwise it is not up to standard. The quality of building design is now measured by the green /ignorant public by its LEED certification. The design cost has increased because the public has been brainwashed into believing that LEED certifies the level of building superiority in terms of saving energy and the environment.

The LEED regulations and requirements keep expanding and gets more detailed and bureaucratic with time. AE firms now require a new type of specialized expert called the LEED Professional which did not exist before. It has added to the time and cost of AE design while design fees keep going down. It has also added to building construction costs.

The client should pay an additional fee surcharge for LEED certification. The fee should cover the cost of screwing up the building to get high LEED certification. The client should be responsible for future problems regarding maintenance and replacement costs because of high LEED certification.

The impact of USGBC and LEED on energy (percent energy savings over Std90) and the environment (imported bamboo flooring saves the environment in the US; collecting rainwater regardless of whether the location has wet a climate, with rivers and lakes; roof gardens on top a high-rise building with little roof space, etc.) is questionable.

I was involved with a double-walled glass office building where the architects expected the engineers to do something (anything) to get at least a LEED Silver. The double wall gets 1 credit under innovation & design which includes a system per floor and where the return air passes through the double glass wall for preheating in winter. In the end we were scrambling around just to get a "pass".

A similar case was a predominantly glass research hospital building that operated for 24 hours. The 24 hours and high process loads kills the percent energy savings.

Impact of Building Energy Standards in Perspective

Std 90 and energy codes have ensured that architects and engineers consider energy performance of building in design. The prescriptive method defines the minimum or maximum limits.

Increasing social affluence in the way buildings are used, indirectly nullifies the impact of Building Energy Codes. Building energy use per person in the US is increasing exponentially. Affluence has also resulted in more indirect building energy use per person by way of transportation.

The following are guesstimates for the US. In reality it might be much worse. Housing in 1950 for a family of 4 was about 1,500 sf. Today it is about 3,000 sf. In 1950 the use of public transportation was common and people lived close to the place where they worked.

Today people live as far away as possible from work and drive oversized large luxury autos (one occupant per vehicle) to and from work during the same rush hour time, resulting traffic jams which add to the commuting time and auto idle time when the vehicle uses fuel but does not move.

Affluence has also resulted in families owning a second vacation home as far away as possible from their primary home. They might use this home for about a month during the year in summer. In winter it have to heated to prevent the pipes from freezing. There is also the cost of transportation to and from the vacation homes. Those who do not have second homes use hotels.

Power plants have to be built as far away as possible from human civilization. Nobody wants them in their backyards. Only 30% of the fossil fuel energy is delivered to the building as electricity. This includes transporting the power from a remote land which involves more losses.

The remote location of the power plant also means that the 70% waste energy cannot be delivered to consumers in the form of district steam and high-pressure high-temperature hot-water (HTHW). The steam (from waste heat) can also generate district chilled water using absorption chillers.

Energy standards and building energy codes have not reduced the overall real net energy consumption by buildings on a per capita basis. Energy use is actually escalating with increasing standards of living.

Building energy codes should limit the conditioned housing and work floor areas allowed per person and limit the distance between home and work. This can be done with incremental taxation by floor area allowed per person and gasoline use allowed per person.

The solution requires new energy efficient towns and cities that address the problem of housing and transportation simultaneously. Alternatively eliminate summer air-conditioning and use horses and camels for transportation the way it was before the French, American and Industrial revolution.

The Impact of Building Energy Standards on Saving the Planet.

Human population growth

BC
BC

The population of America is about 300 million, Europe's (Western, Eastern, and Russia) is about 700 million, and in Japan and Korea it is about 200 million. There are about another 800 million in the rest of the world (China, India, Brazil, etc.) with same standard of living. This represents less than 30% of the world's population of 7,000 million. However, this 30% use almost all of the earth’s resources and is responsible for almost all of the industrial pollution and global warming.

There is no population growth in the 30% segment of the population with a high (energy wasting) standard of living, but their energy use per capita is escalating at faster rate than the population which is escalating at an alarming rate. If the other 70% population were to reach the same standard of living as the energy wasters and polluters we would have to consider "Global Heating". Standard of living might curb population growth but it results in escalating energy use and atmospheric pollution.

Industrial pollution would make life impossible on this planet if the other 70% of the world's population (which is escalating) were to reach the living standards of the existing 30%. Industrial pollution is not the main threat. At the present rate of human population growth, forests, vegetation, and most large animal life will be devastated in a few hundred years. This has happened in the past as with the dinosaurs.

Uncontrolled human population growth has destroyed forests and vegetation. It is responsible for destroying animal life as well, particularly the large mammals that require large amounts of forest and grassland to survive. Tigers, lions, elephants, giraffes, rhinos and hippos are going join dinosaurs as interesting science education in schools. Humans will soon be competing for space on this planet only with rats, cockroaches, flies, and insects. History has shown that the smaller creature will win.

High-Rise Mixed-Use Bldg - 1 Model

High-Rise Mixed-Use Bldg-2 Results

High-Rise Mixed-Use Bldg-3a Design-Criteria-1

High-Rise Mixed-Use Bldg-3b Design-Criteria-2

Middle-School + Community-Center - 1 Floor-Spaces-Zoning

Middle-School + Community-Center - 2 eQUEST-Model

Middle-School + Community-Center - 3 Results-Electric-Heating

Middle-School + Community-Center - 4 Results-Gas-Heating

Middle-School + Community-Center - 5 Design-Criteria