a study on building energy labeling to support the … · a study on building energy labeling to...
TRANSCRIPT
A Study on Building Energy Labeling to Support the Uptake of Building Energy Code
18.03.2015 Dr.-Ing. Robert Himmler Tassamon Suppamit
2 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Content
1. Background to this study
2. Evaluation of BEC for 257 Buildings in Thailand
3. Suggestions for tightening the BEC
4. Suggestions for energy performance labelling of buildings
5. Suggestions for implementation of energy performance labelling
3 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Background to this study
• Building Energy Code (BEC) was developed in Thailand since 1995 and approved by Cabinet in 2009
• After first development, BEC standards did not change, while technology may have improved over past 10 years
• Thailand’s Energy Efficiency Development Plan (EEDP) sees BEC implementation as high priority
• Thailand’s EEDP suggests to introduce and implement Building Energy Labels
Objective of the study
• In order to improve uptake of Building Energy Code, it is relevant to know what is the state of the art in energy efficiency of new buildings
• Analysis of state of the art may lead to adjustment of BEC standards • In order to introduce Building Energy Labels, (adjusted) BEC
standards should be basis for labels
4 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Evaluation of BEC for Buildings in Thailand
5 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
How the Building Energy Code works
Thai Building Energy Code (BEC)
System Performance Compliance
Whole Building Energy Compliance
Roof Thermal Transfer Value RTTVP<RTTVR
Lighting Power Density
LPDP<LPDR
coefficient of performance (of an air-conditioning system)
COPP >COPR
Overall Thermal Transfer Value OTTVP<OTTVR
Proposed Building
Reference Building <
6 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Analyses of building data
Goal
• How do existing, new and rewarded buildings perform in comparison with BEC standards?
• What does this mean for possible adjustment of BEC standard?
Sources • 66 Existing Buildings: DEDE (“Dr. Pattana – Study”, 2009); age of
the buildings: not known • 205 New Buildings: DEDE (3 consultants: SU (2010), Phoenix
(2012), KMITL (2013)); age of buildings : corresponding to study • 15 Rewarded Buildings 1: DEDE (DEDE Label (Version 1 with
environmental information (2007 – 2010); age of buildings: renovation projects and new construction
• 7 Rewarded Buildings 2: “Dr. Atch – Buildings” (Buildings with Green building certification); age of buildings: new buildings
7 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Overview of evaluated buildings
A total of 257 buildings!
Building Type
Public Buildings Private Buildings Total
Existing Building
New Building
Rewarded Building
Existing Building
New Building
Rewarded Building
Buildings
Office Building 19 28 3 0 4 1 55
Department store 0 0 0 4 1 3 8
Condominium 9 2 1 6 24 0 42
Hospital 2 33 0 0 0 0 35
Hotel 2 5 0 1 6 0 14
Educational Institute 15 74 0 0 0 0 89
Convention Building 5 9 0 0 0 0 14
8 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Data analysed in this study
- OTTV (Overall Thermal Transfer Value) - RTTV (Roof Thermal Transfer Value) - LPD (Lighting Power Density) - COP (Coefficient of Performance) was not possible,
because data was missing - Whole building energy compliance
The following diagrams represent office buildings only, however results can be transferred to the other building types.
9 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Average OTTV in Office
• Existing Buildings perform better than new buildings • Technically it is no problem to achieve lower
OTTV values (rewarded buildings) • Rewarded Buildings already perform much better
than current BEC requirement
10 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Comparison of existing and new office buildings
Existing Buildings (KMUTT Campus) Rewarded Buildings
Façade Properties (low OTTV): • Single glazing • No coating • Window to wall ratio: <50 % • Fully shaded
Façade Properties (low
OTTV): • Double glazing • Coating • Fully glazed • No shading (internal)
New Buildings
Façade Properties (high
OTTV): • single glazing • tinted glazing • Fully glazed • No shading (internal)
Future (super low OTTV): • Double glazing • Window to wall ratio: <50 % • Fully shaded
11 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 t
o 1
0
10
to
20
20
to
30
30
to
40
40
to
50
50
to
60
60
to
70
70
to
80
80
to
90
90
to
10
0
10
0 t
o 1
10
11
0 t
o 1
20
12
0 t
o 1
30
13
0 t
o 1
40
14
0 t
o 1
50
15
0 t
o 1
60
> 1
60
Nu
mb
er
of
bu
ildin
gs [
-]
OTTV [W/m2]
Statistical Analyses of OTTV in Office Buildings
Rewarded Buildings (4)
New Buildings (32)
Existing Buildings (19)
OTTV in Office
Fail Pass
Limit Value of OTTV
• Around 60 % of all buildings fail system compliance of BEC
• OTTV limit is strict enough, but must be enforced!
12 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
BEC Reference Value Existing Buildings (19) New Buildings (32) Rewarded Buildings (4)
RT
TV [
W/m
2]
Average RTTV in Office Buildings
Average RTTV in Office
• Existing Buildings perform better than new buildings!
• Technically it is no problem to achieve lower RTTV values (rewarded buildings)
13 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 t
o 5
5 t
o 1
0
10
to
15
15
to
20
20
to
25
25
to
30
30
to
35
35
to
40
40
to
45
45
to
50
50
to
55
55
to
60
60
to
65
65
to
70
70
to
75
75
to
80
> 8
0
Nu
mb
er
of
bu
ildin
gs [
-]
RTTV [W/m2]
Statistical Analyses of RTTV in Office Buildings
Rewarded Buildings (4)
New Buildings (32)
Existing Buildings (19)
RTTV in Office
Fail Pass
• Around 30 % of all buildings fail BEC • RTTV limit is strict enough, but must
be enforced!
BEC Limit Value of RTTV
14 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
BEC Reference Value Existing Buildings (19) New Buildings (32) Rewarded Buildings (4)
LPD
[W
/m2]
Average LPD in Office Buildings
Average Lighting Power Density (LPD) in Office
• All building types are 1/3 below current LPD limit • Therefore LPD has to be tightened • Suggestion: 10 W/m2 (ASHRAE: 9,7 W/m2)
15 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 t
o 2
2 t
o 4
4 t
o 6
6 t
o 8
8 t
o 1
0
10
to
12
12
to
14
14
to
16
16
to
18
18
to
20
> 2
0
Nu
mb
er
of
bu
ildin
gs [
-]
LPD [W/m2]
Statistical Analyses of LPD in Office Buildings
Rewarded Buildings (4)
New Buildings (32)
Existing Buildings (19)
LPD in Office
Fail Pass
BEC Limit Value of LDP
16 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Existing Buildings (19) New Buildings (32)
Ene
rgy
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n [
kWh
/m2a]
Average Energy Consumption in Office Buildings
Average EnergyConsumption(Reference) of OfficeBuildings [kWh/m2a]
Average EnergyConsumption(Proposed) of OfficeBuildings [kWh/m2a]
Average End Energy Results (Existing & New
Building)
• All buildings fulfil BEC requirements, although OTTV & RTTV is often not sufficient
• Bad OTTV & RTTV is compensated by savings due to LPD (reason: LPD easy to fulfil!)
17 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Statistical Analyses of whole building compliance
in Office Buildings
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 t
o 5
5 t
o 1
0
10
to
15
15
to
20
20
to
25
25
to
30
30
to
35
35
to
40
40
to
45
45
to
50
50
to
55
55
to
60
60
to
65
65
to
70
70
to
75
75
to
80
> 8
0
Nu
mb
er
of
bu
ildin
gs [
-]
Energy savings compare to reference building [%]
Statistical Analyses of Whole Building Compliance in Office Buildings
Rewarded Buildings (4)
New Buildings (32)
Existing Buildings (19)
Because of lax LPD requirements savings seem to be substantial
18 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Conclusions of the BEC analysis in 257 buildings
• All office buildings can meet “whole building energy compliance” of BEC, even though they often have unsatisfactory RTTV and OTTV (insulation levels of building envelope)
• An important reason for this seems to be the LPD requirement, which is “Not strict Enough”
• New buildings “glazed facades” with low insulation levels can be reasons for new buildings performing worse than old buildings
• “Rewarded buildings” perform much better than BEC standards!
19 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Suggestions for tightening the BEC
20 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
What is the influence of tightened LPD on the
whole building energy compliance?
Approach: Definition of an hypothetical building and
calculation of energy demand with existing BEC and
tightened BEC (LPD-limit at: 10 W/m2)
• Office building (11 floors)
• Brick wall (no insulation)
• Single glazing
• External overhang shading (SHC = 0.5)
• Lighting power density (LPD): 10 W/m2
• Split units with COP = 2.82
21 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
OTTV RTTV LPD COP
Co
olin
g Lo
ad [
W/m
2]
/ C
OP
[-]
Comparison of proposed and reference building (system compliance)
Reference Building
Proposed Building
System Compliance failed!
Bad building envelope (no system compliance!)
“Average” lighting
22 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Whole building compliance passed!
1928
4
423
24
5647
103 103
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
ReferenceBuilding ProposedBuilding
Floorrelatedelectricenergydeman
d[kW
h/m
2a]
Comparisonofproposedandreferencebuilding(wholebuildingcompliance)
Ligh ng&Equipment
ACduetoInternalGains
ACduetoVen la on
ACduetoBuildingEnvelope
bad building envelope
average lighting
LPD 15 W/m2
23 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Whole building compliance after tightening of
LPD (10 W/m2) failed!
1928
4
421
24
47
47
91
103
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
ReferenceBuilding ProposedBuilding
Floorrelatedelectricenergydeman
d[kW
h/m
2a]
Comparisonofproposedandreferencebuilding(wholebuildingcompliance)
Ligh ng&Equipment
ACduetoInternalGains
ACduetoVen la on
ACduetoBuildingEnvelope
building envelope has to be improved!
LPD 10 W/m2
24 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Recommendations for new LPD requirements
Building Type Actual BEC
[W/m2] Average LPD*
[W/m2] ASHRAE 90.1
[W/m2] Suggested
BEC [W/m2]
Office Building 14 9 9.7 10
Department store 18 7 15.1 15
Condominium 12 5 6.6 8
Hospital 12 8 13 10
Hotel 12 6.5 10.8 10
Educational Institute
14 8 10.7 10
Convention center 18 9 11.6 12
* Building analysis results
25 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Energy savings through tightened LPD for an
example building with different uses
Building Type
Current Reference Suggested Reference Tightening
[%] LPD [W/m2]
*Energy Demand
[kWh/m2a] LPD
[W/m2] *Energy Demand
[kWh/m2a]
Office Building 14 103 10 91 11.7
Department store 18 207 15 191 7.8
Condominium 12 348 8 291 16.4
Hospital 12 348 10 325 6.6
Hotel 12 348 10 325 6.6
Educational Institute 14 103 10 91 11.7
Convention center 18 207 12 174 15.9
* The Value of Energy Demand are calculated from hypothetical building in simplified BEC model.
26 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Conclusions adjustment BEC levels
• To tighten BEC requirements it is sufficient to reduce lighting power requirements.
• This will “automatically” lead to higher whole building energy requirements.
• Suggestions for LPD limit values are derived by ASHRAE and the study on Thai BEC.
• New whole building energy requirements will save between 6,6 %
and 16,4 % energy depending on the building type.
27 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Suggestions for energy performance labelling of
buildings
28 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
A labeling system has been developed by Prof. Surapong
(as in EEDP)
Suggested Labelling Scheme on the bases of BEC Calculation Method:
BEC: Current Building Energy Code HEPS: Higher Energy Performance Standard Level ECON: Economic level NZEB: Net zero energy buildings level developed on bases of life cycle cost (LCC) calculation for energy saving
measures suggested requirements are economically efficient!
29 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
OTTV requirements according to a labeling
system developed by Prof.Surapong (as in EEDP)
OTTV [W/m2] Current
BEC Suggested
BEC BEC+ HEPS HEPS+ ECON ECON+ NZEB
Office Building 50 50 40 30 25 20 17.5 15
Department Store
40 40 32.5 25 20 15 12.5 10
Condominium 30 30 22.5 15 12.5 10 8.75 7.5
Hospital 30 30 22.5 15 12.5 10 8.75 7.5
Hotel 30 30 22.5 15 12.5 10 8.75 7.5
Educational Institute
50 50 40 30 25 20 17.5 15
Convention Center 40 40 32.5 25 20 15 12.5 10
30 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Lighting requirements according to a labeling
system developed by Prof. Surapong (as in EEDP)
LPD [W/m2] Current
BEC Suggested
BEC BEC+ HEPS HEPS+ ECON ECON+ NZEB
Office Building 14 10 9.5 9 7.5 6 3.5 1
Department Store
18 15 13.5 12 10 8 7 6
Condominium 12 8 7.5 7 6.5 5 4.5 4
Hospital 12 10 9 8 6.5 5 4.5 4
Hotel 12 10 9 8 6.5 5 4.5 4
Educational Institute
14 10 9.5 9 7.5 6 4 2
Convention Center 18 12 11.5 11 10 8 7 6
31 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Suggestion for Building Energy Label Scheme
Possible Label Current
BEC Suggested
BEC BEC+ HEPS HEPS+ ECON ECON+ NZEB
Label becomes minimum BEC requirement
2015 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034
1 2 3 4 5
G F E D C B A
32 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Timeline of BEC on the example of a office
building
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ActualBEC(2015)
SuggestedBEC
(2016)
BEC+(2019)
HEPS(2022)
HEPS+(2025)
ECON(2028)
ECON+(2031)
NZEB(2034)
EnergySavingcomparedtoactualBEC
(%)
PowerDensity(W/m
2)
OTTV[W/m2] RTTV[W/m2] LPD[W/m2] EnergySaving[%]
2015 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034
BEC
BEC =Suggested
BEC
BEC =BEC+
BEC =HEPS
BEC =HEPS+
BEC =ECON
BEC =ECON+
BEC =NZEP
33 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
How to achieve building labels on the example of
OTTV
Current
BEC BEC+ HEPS HEPS+ ECON ECON+ NZEB
Orientation South South South South South South South
WWR 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
Overhang [m] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Components
Glazing:
Uf =5.8 W/m2K SHGC = 80%
Wall:
15 cm Brick
Glazing:
Uf =3.53 W/m2K SHGC = 44%
Wall:
15 cm Brick5 cm
Glazing:
Uf =3.53 W/m2K SHGC = 44%
Wall:
15 cm light weight concrete
Glazing:
Uf =3.53 W/m2K SHGC = 44%
Wall:
15 cm Brick 5 cm Insulation (k=0.04W/mK)
Glazing:
Uf =3.53 W/m2K SHGC = 44%
Wall:
15 cm Brick 10 cm Insulation (k=0.04W/mK)
Glazing:
Uf =1.65 W/m2K SHGC = 20%
Wall:
15 cm Concrete (light weight : density 620 kg/m3)
Glazing:
Uf =1.65 W/m2K SHGC = 20%
Wall:
15 cm Brick 5 cm Insulation (k=0.04W/mK)
OTTVP[W/m2] 46.21 34.66 29.42 20.64 17.37 17.03 10.82
OTTVRef
[W/m2] 50 40 30 25 20 17.5 15
34 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Reference
Rewarded Building
OTTV [W/m2]
Are the labeling requirements technically achievable?
OTTV comparison of rewarded office buildings
One office building already meets ECON label!
Several office buildings already meet HEPS label
All rewarded office buildings meet new suggested BEC label
Current
BEC
Suggested
BEC BEC+ HEPS HEPS+ ECON ECON+ NZEB
Bui
ldin
g N
o.6
Bui
ldin
g N
o.8
Bui
ldin
g N
o.2
Bui
ldin
g N
o.18
Bui
ldin
g N
o.7
Bui
ldin
g N
o.4
Bui
ldin
g N
o.15
Bui
ldin
g N
o.13
Bui
ldin
g N
o.5
Bui
ldin
g N
o.17
Bui
ldin
g N
o.16
Bui
ldin
g N
o.14
36 © JGSEE/KMUTT . http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th . BEC . 18.03.2015
Conclusions
• Study on 257 buildings shows, that they all fulfil BEC whole building energy requirements
• Current BEC should be tightened by reducing LPD requirements, which will indirectly lead to an improved building envelope
• EEDP suggests building energy labels, which can be used for a future tightening of the BEC
• Energy labels can be used for financial incentive schemes (will be discussed in the afternoon session)