osu richardson and peavy hall energy...

OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall

Energy Study:

Energy Conservation Measure Analysis

January 25, 2012 {Revised April 30, 2012}

January 25, 2012 OSU Richardson and Peavy Hall Energy Study: Energy Conservation Measure Analysis {Revised April 30, 2012}

11-1077 | iii

CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Building descriptions .................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Richardson Hall ........................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Peavy Hall ............................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Building Operations (observed) .................................................................................. 3

2.4 Observed Operation Issues ........................................................................................ 4

3.0 Overview of Technical Approach ................................................................................... 5

3.1 Building Operation Schedules ..................................................................................... 6

3.2 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems ............................................. 8

3.3 Building Envelope ..................................................................................................... 9

3.4 Lighting Levels ........................................................................................................10

3.5 Miscellaneous Equipment ..........................................................................................11

4.0 Energy Model Renderings ............................................................................................ 12

4.1 Baseline Model Calibration ........................................................................................13

5.0 Achievable Energy Targets .......................................................................................... 15

6.0 Operational Energy Conservation Measures ................................................................ 17

6.1 ECM A: Replace Pipe Insulation Removed During Maintenance ......................................17

6.2 ECM B: Temperature Set Point Adjustment for Peavy Hall & Richardson Hall ...................17

6.3 ECM C: Implement Setback Set Point during Unoccupied Hours – Peavy Hall ..................17

7.0 Analyzed Richardson Hall Energy Conservation Measures ........................................... 18

7.1 ECM #1: Improved Wall Insulation ............................................................................18

7.2 ECM #2: Improved Roof Insulation ............................................................................19

7.3 ECM #3: Improved Window Glazing ...........................................................................19

7.4 ECM #4: West (Admin) Penthouse Envelope insulation .................................................20

7.5 ECM #5: Lighting Controls for Classrooms ..................................................................20

7.6 ECM #6: Daylighting Controls Where Applicable ..........................................................21

7.7 ECM #7: Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plant ..........................................................23

7.8 ECM #8: Steam Trap Monitoring ...............................................................................23

7.9 ECM #9: Demand Control Ventilation with CO2 sensors ................................................24

7.10 ECM #10: Low Flow Plumbing Fixtures .......................................................................25

7.11 ECM #11: Exterior Lighting Control............................................................................25

7.12 ECM #12: Egress Lighting Controls ............................................................................26

7.13 ECM #13: Variable Speed Pumping with VFD and Two-Way Valves ................................26

7.14 ECM #14: Insulate CHW, Steam and HW piping ..........................................................27


11-1077 | iv

7.1 ECM #15: Lighting Upgrade in Lumber Bay .................................................................29

8.0 Analyzed Peavy Hall Energy Conservation Measures ................................................... 30

8.1 ECM #1: Improved Wall Insulation ............................................................................31

8.2 ECM #2: Improved Roof Insulation ............................................................................31

8.3 ECM #3: Improved Window Glazing ...........................................................................32

8.4 ECM #4: Convert Controls to DDC .............................................................................32

8.5 ECM #5: Convert Constant Volume Lab Hoods to Variable Volume .................................33

8.6 ECM #6: Lighting Controls for Classrooms ..................................................................33

8.7 ECM #7: Lighting Controls for Intermittent Spaces ......................................................34

8.8 ECM #8a: Replace Air Handling Unit ..........................................................................34

8.9 ECM #8b: Replace VAV Terminal Boxes ......................................................................35

8.10 ECM #8c: Incorporate Economizer Controls ................................................................35

9.0 ECM #9: Variable Speed Drives for Fans ..................................................................... 36

9.1 ECM #10: Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plant ........................................................36

9.2 ECM #11: Steam Trap Monitoring ..............................................................................37

10.0 ECM #12: Demand Control Ventilation with CO2 sensors ............................................. 37

10.1 ECM #13: Low Flow Plumbing Fixtures .......................................................................38

10.2 ECM #14: Exterior Lighting Control............................................................................39

10.3 ECM #15: Egress Lighting Controls ............................................................................39

11.0 ECM #16: Variable Speed Pumping with VFD and Two-Way Valves ............................. 40

11.1 ECM #17: Insulate CHW and HW piping .....................................................................40

11.2 ECM #18: Replace Motors with Premium Efficiency Motors ............................................43

11.3 ECM #19: Lighting Upgrades ....................................................................................44

11.4 Additional Energy Conservation Measures Not Analyzed ...............................................45

12.0 Results of ECM Analysis .............................................................................................. 46

13.0 Evaluation plan ........................................................................................................... 47


11-1077 | v

FIGURES

Figure 1: Richardson Hall EUI Comparison [kBTU/sf/yr] ................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Peavy Hall EUI Comparison [kBTU/sf/yr] ....................................................................... 2 Figure 3: Lab OCC Schedule : Weekday ...................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Lab OCC Schedule: Weekend ....................................................................................... 6 Figure 5: Admin OCC Schedule: Weekday ................................................................................... 6 Figure 6: Admin OCC Schedule: Weekend ................................................................................... 6 Figure 7: Lab Light: Weekday .................................................................................................... 7 Figure 8: Lab Light: Weekend .................................................................................................... 7 Figure 9: Admin Light: Weekday ................................................................................................ 7 Figure 10: Admin Light: Weekend .............................................................................................. 7 Figure 11: Lab Equip.: Weekday ................................................................................................ 7 Figure 12: Lab Equip.: Weekend ................................................................................................ 7 Figure 13: Richardson Hall 3-D Rendering ..................................................................................12 Figure 14: Peavy Hall 3-D Rendering .........................................................................................12 Figure 15: Richardson Billed Energy Use Comparison ...................................................................13 Figure 16: Peavy Billed Energy Use Comparison ..........................................................................13 Figure 17: With Building Cooling ...............................................................................................14 Figure 18: Without Building Cooling...........................................................................................14 Figure 19: With Building Cooling ...............................................................................................14 Figure 20: Without Building Cooling...........................................................................................14 Figure 21: Richardson Floor 1 Daylight Sensors ..........................................................................21 Figure 22: Richardson Floor 2 Daylight Sensors ..........................................................................22 Figure 23: Richardson Floor 3 Daylight Sensors ..........................................................................22

TABLES

Table 1: Chilled Water Model Parameters .................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Air Handler Parameters for Richardson Hall ..................................................................... 8 Table 3: Air Handler Parameters for Peavy Hall ............................................................................ 8 Table 4: Envelope Parameters as Modeled for Richardson Hall ....................................................... 9 Table 5: Envelope Parameters as Modeled for Peavy Hall .............................................................10 Table 6: Richardson and Peavy Modeled Lighting ........................................................................10 Table 7: Richardson and Peavy Modeled Lighting ........................................................................11 Table 8: Richardson EUI Comparisons .......................................................................................15 Table 9: Richardson Energy Cost Comparisons ............................................................................15 Table 10: Peavy EUI Comparisons .............................................................................................16 Table 11: Peavy Energy Cost Comparisons .................................................................................16 Table 12: List of Current ECMs for Richardson Hall ......................................................................18 Table 13: List of Current ECMs for Peavy Hall .............................................................................30 Table 14: List of ECMs Considered, But Not Pursued ....................................................................45 Table 15: Energy and Payback Results for ECM Analysis for Richardson Hall ...................................46 Table 16: Energy and Payback Results for ECM Analysis for Peavy Hall ..........................................46


11-1077 | vi

PROJECT DIRECTORY

OWNER Oregon State University

Larrie Easterly

Project Manager

Email: [email protected]

ENERGY PAE Consulting Engineers, Inc.

ANALYST 808 SW 3rd Avenue, Suite 300

Portland, OR 97204

503-226-2921

Steve Reidy, PE, LEED AP

Project Manager, P.I.C.


Jeff Becksfort, PE, LEED AP

Mechanical Lead


Mike Smith, LEED AP

Mechanical


Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000140.”

Disclaimer: “This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.”

mailto:[email protected]





11-1077 | 1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon State University Richardson Hall and Peavy Hall have been studied to examine

potential cost-effective energy upgrades for the buildings. A tour of the buildings was

conducted and an energy conservation measure (ECM) list was developed to perform

an energy analysis using computer simulation software. Using eQuest (DOE2.2)

energy analysis software baseline energy models were developed and each ECM was

modeled individually against the baseline to determine the anticipated energy savings

expected by installing the energy efficiency upgrade to the building. This report

presents these results and gives economic considerations for ECM decision making. In

addition, building operational issues were identified that need to be addressed and

impact the performance and energy use of the buildings.

The energy use of Richardson Hall and Peavy Hall were compared to similar typical

buildings. Figures 1 and 2 below indicate a breakdown comparing energy use intensity

(EUI) values for the current energy bills, the modeled existing buildings and average

results from the US Commercial Building Energy Survey (CBECS 2003). Energy use for

Richardson Hall is currently approximately 7.1% higher than an average comparable

building. Energy use for Peavy Hall is currently approximately 18.3% higher than an

average comparable building. The annual building energy costs are also approximately

4.7% and 21.5% higher than average for Richardson and Peavy Halls, respectively.

PAE targeted energy reductions of 25% energy cost below the CBECS average for

these buildings as achievable with appropriate energy conservation measures. Please

see section 5 for a full analysis of building energy use and energy cost comparisons.

Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this report describe the operational and analyzed ECMs

developed for the building and the anticipated impact to building performance and

energy use. Implementation of the full ECM package could save 20% of the annual

energy costs for Richardson Hall and 50% of the annual energy costs for Peavy Hall

compared to the modeled baselines. This would result in a total energy cost savings of

approximately $47,000 for Richardson and $167,000 for Peavy Hall and with a simple

payback on investment of approximately 15 and 11 years, respectively.

PAE recommends implementation of all analyzed energy conservation measures

studied to maximize the opportunity of energy savings. However, the feasibility of

increasing insulation for exterior walls and replacing windows should be studied further

prior to implementation to verify the costs associated with these measures. In

addition, it is recommended that ECMs identified in Section 9 be considered for further

study for possible implementation. In particular, Peavy Hall has an open roof that may

accommodate a rooftop solar heating system for either heating water, hot water or

ventilation air preheat.


11-1077 | 2

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

CURRENT BUILDING MODEL CBECS

Richardson EUI Comparison

[KBTU/SF/YR]

8.7% 7.1%7.1%

165.0

7.1%

177.6 157.4

Figure 1: Richardson Hall EUI Comparison [kBTU/sf/yr]

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

CURRENT BUILDING MODEL CBECS

Peavy EUI Comparison [KBTU/SF/YR]

11.0%

18.3%

165.2 181.0 135.0

Figure 2: Peavy Hall EUI Comparison [kBTU/sf/yr]


11-1077 | 3

2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS

2.1 Richardson Hall

Richardson Hall houses the department offices and laboratories for the College of

Forestry – Wood Science & Engineering Department. Richardson Hall was

completed in 1999. All spaces appear to be used in their originally designed

function. The HVAC systems serving Richardson Hall are primarily central VAV air

handling systems with chilled water and heating water coils with reheat terminal

units serving individual zones. Chilled water is provided by a water-cooled chiller

and cooling tower while heating water is provided by a steam-to-water heat

exchanger connected to the campus steam system. Lab spaces are served by

separate air handling systems with supply and exhaust air valves and dedicated

exhaust fans for the hoods in the labs. The building is controlled by a DDC

system tied into the central campus control system.

2.2 Peavy Hall

Peavy Hall is connected to Richardson Hall and houses most of the teaching

classrooms for the College of Forestry – Wood Science & Engineering Department.

Specific Wood Science facilities include: Wood Chemistry Teaching and Research

Laboratories. Original construction of Peavy Hall was completed in 1971. The

building has undergone several renovations through the years to accommodate

the changing needs of the building. Several of the classrooms have been

converted to computer labs and have significantly larger equipment energy and

heat loads than originally designed for. There are a significant number of faculty

offices on each floor of the building. These rooms appear to be used as per their

original intent. Several labs and classrooms have been renovated for use as

graduate and department office space with updated HVAC and electrical services.

The HVAC system serving Peavy Hall is a central air handling unit located in the

basement with chilled water and heating water coils with duct mounted heating

coils. Chilled water is provided from the Richardson Hall chiller system while

heating water is provided by a steam-to-water heat exchanger connected to the

campus steam system. The building is controlled by a pneumatic control system

with minimal connection to the central campus control system.

2.3 Building Operations (observed)

On May 13th, 2011 and June 3rd, 2011 the PAE energy analysts toured the

Richardson and Peavy buildings to observe the condition of building energy using

systems. As part of the walkthrough there was a building tour that accesses each

room. While in each space equipment was catalogued along with the apparent

operation (if it is left on while room appears unoccupied). Lighting type, condition

and controls were observed and listed according to space. The envelope was

inspected to note the conditions and functionality windows and doors to assist in

estimating infiltration rates. Mechanical rooms were inspected to note what

equipment was present with identification tags and appearance of functionality.

The tour also included the facilities office that controls the operation of the

building systems for Richardson and Peavy.


11-1077 | 4

The list of observations was then used to generate inputs for the baseline model.

Equipment was input into the model on a space-by-space basis to capture the

energy use and heat into the space. Photos of lighting fixtures were reviewed

with lighting designers in an attempt to estimate the energy use per fixture. All

mechanical equipment manufacturer information was used to gather equipment

operating information to help guide modeling of HVAC systems. Trend data was

requested to verify the operation of the mechanical systems but this information

has not been able to be provided. Trend data would be used to verify system

controls and operation of the mechanical system for operating schedules, outside

airflow rates, reset schedules, setback temperatures, reset temperatures, etc.

2.4 Observed Operation Issues

The general findings of the walkthrough are noted for both buildings in sections

3.2 through 3.5. Some current operational issues that should be addressed in the

short term are mentioned below.

2.4.1 Peavy Library Remodel

While inspecting the library in Peavy building there were some occupants

that noted some space heating issues in the space. It seems that the

space is experiencing control issues and is overheating the space during

occupied hours. In addition many of the lights were not working and

looked to be very old. The occupants were packing library materials in

preparation for a remodel which is supposed to address some of the space

issues.

2.4.2 Richardson Main Lobby Daylighting Controls

While walking through the west lobbies of Richardson Hall daylight sensors

were observed but seem to not be properly calibrated or controlled. This

was noticed by the high lighting levels while there was direct sunlight

entering the space. Please see the ECM analysis below (Section 5) for

approximated energy savings for this operational energy conservation

measure.

2.4.3 Richardson Wood Science Research Lab

While walking through the high-bay research lab, a head OSU researcher

took the opportunity to express the lack of proper HVAC system operation.

His concern was with regard to proper space temperatures to ensure wood

experiments would be allowed to dry in a controlled environment. He gave

detailed description of how the space would reset after attempts to setback

temperatures and how his colleagues would be forced to physically

override terminal units in the ceiling. The nearby lab space containing the

kiln also had issues keeping up with the equipment load of the space. It is

suspected this issue was due to the drying kiln being larger than

anticipated in the Richardson building design.


11-1077 | 5

2.4.4 Pipe Insulation

It was observed that pipe insulation at some valves and fittings were

removed to service equipment but not replaced. Significant energy loss

will result from the missing insulation for the steam and chilled water

systems. Refer to ECM 14 for Richardson Hall and ECM 17 for Peavy Hall

for approximate energy savings that will result from replacement of

insulation that has been removed.

3.0 OVERVIEW OF TECHNICAL APPROACH

The energy analysis for the OSU Richardson Hall and Peavy Hall buildings was

performed using standard engineering calculation procedures and the DOE2.2

computer analysis program.

The building was modeled by using DOE2.2 inputs that closely approximate the actual

building. The floor plans of the building serve as the foundation of the model, with

individual spaces and areas divided into “zones” based upon space type, usage and the

HVAC system serving the zone. The exterior of the building, or envelope, is added to

the perimeter zones, complete with windows, geographical orientation (North, South,

etc.), glass type, external shading, construction type, insulation values and interior

space finish (carpet, concrete, etc.). Internal heat loads are modeled by adding

people, lights, and equipment to each zone. Occupancy schedules model the

movement of people in and out of the zones over the course of a day. Lighting

schedules model the time of use of lighting in each zone. Space temperatures to be

maintained for each zone in heating and cooling modes are specified.

The DOE2.2 simulation was run using hourly Corvallis, Oregon weather data. The

weather data simulates the effect of solar energy, outdoor air temperature, and wind

speeds on the envelope of the building and the outside air used for ventilation. The

predicted energy use and costs generated by the baseline model are a function of the

local utility rates and the efficiencies of the HVAC systems modeled.

Each energy conservation measure (ECM) is analyzed separately. Then a model with all

of the recommended measures is performed to determine the final energy performance

to capture the interactions between them.

ASHRAE 90.1 - 2004 Appendix G, as well as design drawings/specifications, were used

to determine the recommended building and baseline model characteristics.

Disclaimer

Building energy models are intended to show relative savings and determine the cost

effectiveness of conservation measures. They are not intended to be used for predicting the actual energy use of proposed building.

Actual utility billing is based on a number of factors determined only after the building

has been built and operating. Energy models are based on the best information available

but cannot account for every factor that affects actual building’s energy use. Therefore the information presented here should be understood as a best estimate.


11-1077 | 6

3.1 Building Operation Schedules

Peavy Hall consists of mostly offices and laboratories with some classroom

spaces. Richardson Hall is of similar nature, but with higher activity laboratories

which includes high equipment loads with many large refrigerators and deep

freezers for laboratory materials. Both buildings have high lab hood and exhaust

fan loads which adds to HVAC needs. The two buildings appear to be open all

year with reduced usage in the summer while school is out of session. Below are

sample figures showing some of the schedules used for the baseline models. For

similar space types, the same schedules were used for both buildings. Figures 3

through 12 show the schedules that were developed for the energy models to

help predict energy usage in the building.

Figure 3: Lab OCC Schedule : Weekday Figure 4: Lab OCC Schedule: Weekend

Figure 5: Admin OCC Schedule: Weekday Figure 6: Admin OCC Schedule: Weekend

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

12

-1A

M1

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

PM

12

-11

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

AM

Pe

rce

nt

of

Max

LAB OCC WEEKDAY IN SESSION

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

90%100%

12

-1A

M1

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

PM

12

-11

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

AM

Pe

rce

nt

of

Max

LAB OCC OUT OF SESSION

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

12

-1A

M1

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

PM

12

-11

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

AM

Pe

rce

nt

of

Max

ADMIN OCC WEEKDAY IN SESSION

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

90%100%

12

-1A

M1

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

PM

12

-11

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

AM

Pe

rce

nt

of

Max

ADMIN OCC OUT OF SESSION


11-1077 | 7

Figure 7: Lab Light: Weekday Figure 8: Lab Light: Weekend

Figure 9: Admin Light: Weekday Figure 10: Admin Light: Weekend

Figure 11: Lab Equip.: Weekday Figure 12: Lab Equip.: Weekend

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%70%

80%

90%

100%

12

-1A

M1

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

PM

12

-11

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

AM

Pe

rce

nt

of

Max

LAB LIGHT WEEKDAY IN SESSION

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

12

-1A

M1

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

PM

12

-11

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

AM

Pe

rce

nt

of

Max

LAB LIGHT OUT OF SESSION

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

12

-1A

M1

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

PM

12

-11

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

AM

Pe

rce

nt

of

Max

ADMIN LGT WEEKDAY IN SESSION

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

12

-1A

M1

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

PM

12

-11

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

AM

Pe

rce

nt

of

Max

ADMIN LGT OUT OF SESSION

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%70%

80%

90%

100%

12

-1A

M1

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

PM

12

-11

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

AM

Pe

rce

nt

of

Max

LAB EQPT WEEKDAY IN SESSION

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

12

-1A

M1

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

PM

12

-11

-22

-33

-44

-55

-66

-77

-88

-99

-10

10

-11

11

-12

AM

Pe

rce

nt

of

Max

LAB EQPT OUT OF SESSION


11-1077 | 8

3.2 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems

Both buildings are connected to the OSU campus steam plant which is used for all

heating and hot water needs. There is one chiller located in a Richardson Hall

mechanical room that serves both buildings with chilled water for cooling needs.

Parameters for the chilled water system are listed below in Table 1.

Capacity

[Tons] EWT [°F] LWT [°F]

Pump

Operation

*

Energy

Input

Ratio

CH-1 490 140 180 One Speed 0.160

*Rides pump curve with primary-secondary loop configuration

Central Chilled Water Parameters

Table 1: Chilled Water Model Parameters

For Richardson all the main air handling units (AHUs) were input according to the

as-built documents and observed operation. The as-built documents for Peavy

Hall were limited in mechanical design information so some assumptions were

made based on the era when the building was constructed. Tables 2 and 3 give

parameters used in the models to simulate the air-side HVAC systems for

Richardson and Peavy Halls.

CFM

Supply

Eff.

kW/CFM

Return

Eff.

kW/CFM

Fan

Operation

Percent

OSA Cooling Heating

AHU-1 75,000 0.00094 --- VAV 100% CHW Coils HW Coils

AHU-2 36,165 0.00120 0.00040 VAV 20% CHW Coils HW Coils

AHU-3 19,420 0.00113 0.00031 VAV 8% CHW Coils HW Coils

HVU-1 6,000 0.00070 --- VAV 100% CHW Coils HW Coils

HVU-2 5,100 0.00070 --- VAV 100% CHW Coils HW Coils

Richardson Main Air Handling Unit Parameters

Table 2: Air Handler Parameters for Richardson Hall

CFM

Supply

TSP [in]

Return

TSP [in]

Fan

Operation

Percent

OSA* Cooling Heating

AHU-1 53,250 3.0 0.75 CV 25% CHW Coils HW Coils

AHU-2 74,050 3.0 0.75 CV 25% CHW Coils HW Coils

Peavy Main Air Handling Unit Parameters

*Not found in design documents.

Table 3: Air Handler Parameters for Peavy Hall


11-1077 | 9

3.3 Building Envelope

Richardson Hall has modern levels of envelope insulation which exceeded OR

energy code levels in 1997 while in design. Being constructed in the early 1970’s

Peavy hall has little to no insulation in many of the exterior surfaces along with an

expectedly higher infiltration rate as compared to newer buildings. Tables 4 and

5 show the envelope parameters used for the Richardson and Peavy building

models.

The tables below give a breakdown of the building envelope parameters used to

model Richardson and Peavy halls.

Category Existing Building

4" Brick Veneer

Air Space

2x6 metal wall with R-19 Batt

5/8" Gyp Board

Overall U-Value = 0.103 [Btuh/ft2/°F]

Built-up roofing

Vapor barrior

2.5" of R-5/in rigid insulation

Ceiling tile


Double pane

Aluminum frame with thermal breaks

Clear tint glazing


Shading Coefficient = 0.81

Infiltration 0.1 Air changes per hour

Richardson Envelope Parameters

Wall Construction

Roof Construction

Window Glazing

Table 4: Envelope Parameters as Modeled for Richardson Hall


11-1077 | 10

Category Existing Building

4" Brick Veneer

Air Space

No Insulation

5/8" Gyp Board


Built-up roofing

Vapor barrior

1" of polystyrene rigid insulation

Ceiling tile


Single pane

Aluminum frame without thermal breaks

Clear tint glazing


Shading Coefficient = 1.00

Infiltration 0.38 Air changes per hour

Window Glazing

Peavy Envelope Parameters

Wall Construction

Roof Construction

Table 5: Envelope Parameters as Modeled for Peavy Hall

3.4 Lighting Levels

Richardson Hall was constructed with modern lighting technology with appropriate

use of lighting controls. Richardson design documents were used to estimate the

lighting levels in the building with operating schedules. Peavy Hall has many

older lighting fixtures through the building which are assumed to be significantly

less efficient as compared to the current energy code or standard lighting

technology being used today. Lighting power densities were raised assuming the

inefficiency of fixtures and design. Table 6 below gives estimated lighting power

densities used in the baseline models.

Richardson Peavy

Office 1.2 1.75

Classroom 1.4 1.75

Lab 1.5 1.75

Restroom 1 1

Corridor 0.75 1

Lobby 1 1.75

Lighting Power Densities [W/sf]

Table 6: Richardson and Peavy Modeled Lighting


11-1077 | 11

3.5 Miscellaneous Equipment

During the building walk through spaces with notably high equipment loads were

recorded. This includes office equipment, lab equipment (including hoods and

large refrigerators/freezers), elevators and any other miscellaneous loads found.

Richardson hall houses numerous computer labs and office spaces making the

miscellaneous equipment loads expectedly higher than Peavy Hall. Peavy hall has

a significant load due to research labs, but does not have as many spaces with

high office equipment loads.

Table 7 below gives the assumed equipment power densities used in the baseline

models.

Richardson Peavy

Office* 1.5 1.5

Classroom* 1.5 1

Lab* 1.75 1

Restroom 0.2 0.2

Corridor 0.2 0.2

Lobby* 0.4 1.5

Equipment Power Densities [W/sf]

*Spaces with noticable equipment loads

were tallied individually Table 7: Richardson and Peavy Modeled Lighting


11-1077 | 12

4.0 ENERGY MODEL RENDERINGS

Figure 13: Richardson Hall 3-D Rendering

Figure 14: Peavy Hall 3-D Rendering


11-1077 | 13

4.1 Baseline Model Calibration

The existing building energy bills were examined to help guide the construction of

the baseline models and provide preliminary understanding of where the facilities

are currently using energy. While some monthly recordings were missing an

average monthly and annual energy use by the buildings was developed. Figures

15 and 16 show a current comparison between the energy bills and the baseline

energy models. The MBTU unit for steam is equal to 1-million BTUs.

Figure 15: Richardson Billed Energy Use Comparison

Figure 16: Peavy Billed Energy Use Comparison

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Richardson Monthly Energy Comparison

BILLED ELEC (KWH)

ELEC (KWH)

BILLED STEAM (MBTU)

STEAM (MBTU)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Peavy Monthly Energy Comparison

BILLED ELEC (KWH)

ELEC (KWH)

BILLED STEAM (MBTU)

STEAM (MBTU)


11-1077 | 14

After conducting a building walk through and examining the energy bills from

both buildings it is understood that the cooling energy (including pumping power

and heat rejection) for both buildings is being captured by the Richardson building

meter. To account for this the building energy models were calibrated to get the

proper energy end use breakdown that is reasonable for the building type and

loads. With the models calibrated the modeled cooling energy is then shifted

from the Peavy building to the Richardson building. A result for doing this has

made the models match the energy bills much more closely. Figures 17 through

20 show the energy end use breakdown for the baseline models with and without

proper accounting for cooling energy.

Richardson BL End Uses

Figure 17: With Building Cooling Figure 18: Without Building Cooling

Peavy BL End Uses

Figure 19: With Building Cooling Figure 20: Without Building Cooling

Lights, 1051.0, 8%

Misc. Equip., 2017.3, 15%

Space Heating,

4649.3, 35%

Space Cooling,

1537.5, 12%

Pumps & Aux, 742.1, 5%

Vent Fans, 2748.5, 21%

DHW, 111.3, 1% Ext. Usage,

357.9, 3%

Richardson Model Energy End Uses [MBTU]

Lights, 1051.0, 7%

Misc. Equip., 2017.3, 13%

Space Heating,

4649.3, 29%

Space Cooling,

2919.2, 19%

Pumps & Aux, 1878.8,

12%

Vent Fans, 2748.5, 17%

DHW, 111.3, 1%

Ext. Usage, 357.9, 2%

Richardson Model Energy End Uses [MBTU]

Lights, 948.6, 5%

Misc. Equip.,

1066.3, 6%

Space Heating, 10127.6,

56%

Space Cooling,

1381.8, 8%

Pumps & Aux, 1136.8,

6%

Vent Fans, 2914.2, 16%

DHW, 117.9, 1%

Ext. Usage, 445.8, 2%

Peavy Model Energy End Uses [MBTU]

Lights, 948.6, 6%

Misc. Equip.,

1066.3, 7%

Space Heating, 10127.6,

65%

Vent Fans, 2914.2, 18%

DHW, 117.9, 1%

Ext. Usage, 445.8, 3%

Peavy Model Energy End Uses [MBTU]


11-1077 | 15

5.0 ACHIEVABLE ENERGY TARGETS

To assist in future goals for the buildings Table 8 through Table 11 give a breakdown of

targets for building energy and energy cost. Using CBECS as a comparison a few

options for paths are listed including a building that would meet the AIA 2030 Building

Challenge, which currently equates to an energy savings of 60% over a CBECS

average building (if achieved before year 2015). A goal of decreasing annual energy

use to approximately 25% below the CBECS average is achievable.

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

CURRENT

BUILDING

CBECS TARGET (25%

BELOW CBECS)

BUILDING WITH

ECMS

2030

CHALLENGE

BLDG

RICHARDSON EUI ENERGY TARGETS [KBTU/SF/YR]

123.8

177.6

113.4

165.0

66.0

Table 8: Richardson EUI Comparisons

$298,000

$284,000

$213,000

$195,000

$114,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

CURRENT

BUILDING

CBECS TARGET (25%

BELOW CBECS)

BUILDING WITH

ECMS

2030

CHALLENGE

BLDG

RICHARDSON EUI ENERGY COST TARGETS

Table 9: Richardson Energy Cost Comparisons


11-1077 | 16

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

CURRENT

BUILDING

CBECS TARGET (25%

BELOW CBECS)

BUILDING WITH

ECMS

2030

CHALLENGE

BLDG

PEAVY EUI ENERGY TARGETS [KBTU/SF/YR]

101.3

165.2

105.9

135.0

54.0

Table 10: Peavy EUI Comparisons

$256,000

$201,000

$151,000 $158,000

$81,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

CURRENT

BUILDING

CBECS TARGET (25%

BELOW CBECS)

BUILDING WITH

ECMS

2030

CHALLENGE

BLDG

PEAVY EUI ENERGY COST TARGETS

Table 11: Peavy Energy Cost Comparisons


11-1077 | 17

6.0 OPERATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES

Trend data was requested to verify the operation of the mechanical systems but this

information has not been able to be provided due to control system maintenance and

upgrades occurring. Trend data would be used to verify system controls and operation

of the mechanical system for operating schedules, outside airflow rates, reset

schedules, setback temperatures, reset temperatures, etc. The buildings would benefit

from a retro-commissioning process that could optimize the building operation and

performance. Trend logs would be required for this process. It is estimated that

between 5% and 15% energy savings would be realized from this process. This

equates to annual energy cost savings of approximately $15,000 to $35,000 for

Richardson Hall and $15,000 to $35,000 for Peavy Hall.

6.1 ECM A: Replace Pipe Insulation Removed During Maintenance

It was observed that pipe insulation in many locations was removed to service

valves and/or steam traps or repair piping. Failure to replace the insulation will

result in heat loss (or gain for chilled water systems). Please refer to ECM 14 for

Richardson Hall and ECM 17 for Peavy Hall for approximate energy savings that

will result from replacement of insulation that has been removed. This is a no

cost measure when insulation is replaced after servicing equipment.

6.2 ECM B: Temperature Set Point Adjustment for Peavy Hall & Richardson Hall

Adjusting temperature set points in the buildings will result in energy savings.

Allowing for a wider comfort range and educating/encouraging users to adapt to

the climate is a no cost energy conservation measure. It is approximated that

raising the cooling set point by one degree and lowering the heating set point by

one degree will result in annual energy savings of $4,000 for Richardson Hall and

$4,000 for Peavy Hall.

6.3 ECM C: Implement Setback Set Point during Unoccupied Hours – Peavy Hall

It was observed that Peavy Hall does not have a setback schedule due to the

inability to program this from the central control system. Implementation of a

DDC control system to control the building systems would enable more efficient

control over all building systems including scheduled operation, temperature

setbacks, reset schedules, etc. Please refer to ECM 4. This is a significant energy

conservation measure and should be studied further.


11-1077 | 18

7.0 ANALYZED RICHARDSON HALL ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES

PAE conducted a meeting on June 24, 2011 to review the preliminary energy modeling

results and determine which energy conservation measures will continue to be studied.

The following results incorporate the comments from this meeting. See appendix for a

copy of the information discussed and the comments documented on this information.

The costs for each measure have been approximated based on compliance with the

Buy American and Davis-Bacon requirements.

1 Improved Wall Insulation (meet current OR Energy Code levels)

2 Improved Roof Insulation (meet current OR Energy Code levels)

3 Improved Window Glazing (meet current OR Energy Code levels)

4 West (admin) penthouse envelope insulation

5 Lighting controls for the classrooms

6 Daylighting controls where applicable

7 Waterside economizer for chiller plant

8 Steam trap monitoring, temperature sensors for failure of traps / replacement of traps

9 CO2 demand based ventilation

10 Low flow plumbing fixtures

11 Exterior lighting control

12 Egress lighting controls

13 Pumping energy savings with VFD and two way valves for HW & CHW

14 Insulate steam and condensate piping where missing (traps, PRV's, etc.)

15 Lighting upgrade for Lumber Bay

Richardson Hall - Energy Conservation Measures

Table 12: List of Current ECMs for Richardson Hall

7.1 ECM #1: Improved Wall Insulation

Currently the building has R-19 batt insulation between 2x6 metal wall studs as

shown in the original design documents. This ECM evaluates the energy use

impact of increasing the wall insulation from the existing conditions to meet the

current 2010 Oregon Energy Code levels. This consists of adding rigid insulation

to the wall construction to meet an overall assembly value of U = 0.064 Btu/h-ft2-

°F. This is assumed to be achieved by adding blown-in insulation to the wall with

the addition of more rigid insulation if necessary to meet code Levels. This

measure should also help in reducing infiltration and make occupants closer to the

perimeter more comfortable throughout the year. Accuracy for the performance

of the ECM will depend on the quality of installation and local weather patterns.

Wall Area

Existing

Baseline

Input

ECM Input First Cost

Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

43,090 SF U = 0.103 U = 0.064 $144,000 44,547 $998 144.3

ECM #1: Richardson Improved Wall Parameters


11-1077 | 19

7.2 ECM #2: Improved Roof Insulation

The building currently has about 2.5-inches of rigid insulation in the built-up roof.

This ECM evaluates the energy use impact of increasing the roof insulation from

the existing levels to meet the current 2010 Oregon Energy Code levels (U =

0.048 Btu/h-ft2-°F). This consists of adding more rigid insulation to the roof

assembly such that the overall roof assembly meets OR code. The additional

insulation will make a difference in occupant comfort for those occupants in the

top floor of the building. Accuracy for the performance of the ECM will depend on

the quality of installation and local weather patterns.

Roof Area

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

35,930 SF U = 0.088 U = 0.048 $96,000 243,300 $4,736 20.3

ECM #2: Richardson Improved Roof Parameters

7.3 ECM #3: Improved Window Glazing

The windows shown in the drawing, and appear to be installed in the building, are

double-pane windows with aluminum frames that are thermally broken. This ECM

evaluates the energy use impact of replacing the windows with glazing that has a

higher thermal resistance with better shading properties. The windows studied

for the ECM match the new 2010 OR Energy Code with U-0.45 Btu/h-ft2-°F and

shading coefficient of 0.46. Replacing these windows should have a beneficial

impact on maintenance cost since they will be new and operate better with less

leaks and similar problems. Accuracy for the performance of the ECM will depend

on the quality of installation and local weather patterns.

Glazing

Area

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

10,640 SFU = 0.67

SC = 0.81

U = 0.45

SC = 0.46$240,000 786,770 $14,525 16.5

ECM #3: Richardson Improved Glazing Parameters


11-1077 | 20

7.4 ECM #4: West (Admin) Penthouse Envelope insulation

The West penthouse currently has no insulation above the mechanical room. This

ECM evaluates the energy use impact of adding insulation in the penthouse that is

above the mechanical room in the admin area. It is assumed that R-13 batt could

be laid in this space to help reduce heat gain/loss from the mechanical room to

nearby interior spaces. This should have no added maintenance staff impacts or

other effects other than reducing heat loss from the mechanical room.

Roof Area

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

3,080 SF No Insulation U = 0.077* $20,000 69,750 $1,360 14.7

ECM #4: Richardson Mechanical Penthouse Insulation Parameters

*Assuming continuous lay in of batt insulation

7.5 ECM #5: Lighting Controls for Classrooms

Currently many classrooms lack the ability to automatically shut down lights when

the space is unoccupied. This ECM evaluates the energy use savings by adding

lighting controls for classroom spaces. This would consist of adding occupancy

sensors to ensure lights power down when classrooms are not in use. Since there

is no way to explicitly analyze how often the lights could be powered down during

a typical school day in session it is customary to take a 10% credit from the

lighting power density. The credit was taken for five classrooms in the building

(Classroom 107, GIS 203, GIS 217, Computer Lab 215, Wood Science Teaching

243). This measure will have added maintenance costs to keep occupancy

sensors and controls working properly to serve the space well by shutting down

lights at appropriate times without disruption of function to space. The savings

estimates are seen as conservative and should save a minimum of 10% off of the

lighting in the space. Savings will depend on how frequently particular

classrooms are currently having lights left on when people leave the classroom.

Rooms

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

5 No Sensors

Sensor in

each of 5

classrooms

$1,500 11,770 $200 7.5

ECM #5: Richardson Classroom Lighting Control Parameters


11-1077 | 21

7.6 ECM #6: Daylighting Controls Where Applicable

Richardson Hall currently has daylight sensors in the main lobby and upper west

lobbies. Many of these spaces are receiving ample light to have daylighting photo

sensors added along ballast controls. This ECM evaluates the energy use impact

of adding daylighting controls where they are not already in place (or not fully

functioning) in areas of adequate sun exposure. It was assumed that multi-step

dimming fixtures would be used to adjust lighting levels when receiving natural

light. Daylighting sensors were placed in the model as shown below. Some of

the spaces given daylighting control include the lobby, first floor classroom, west

and south facing offices. Office lights could be controlled by photo sensors with

occupants given the ability to override controls or use task lighting if needed.

Below are floor plans showing placement of sensors in the energy model. The

sensors places in the model do not necessarily suggest the number of sensor that

would have to be purchased to control the spaces that are daylight controlled in

the model. This measure will add costs for maintenance to keep sensors and

lighting controls operating properly. The energy model is able to predict the

hours of the year when there will be sufficient sunlight to shut the lights off.

Using the 30-year-average weather file the model uses this to predict the total

energy savings throughout the year. The actual performance of the added

daylighting sensors will heavily depend on actual weather and proper installation

of sensors and controls.

Figure 21: Richardson Floor 1 Daylight Sensors


11-1077 | 22




11-1077 | 23

Daylight

Spaces

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

14 No SensorsDaylight sensor

in 14 spaces$3,000 32,726 $533 5.6

ECM #6: Richardson Daylighting Control Parameters

7.7 ECM #7: Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plant

The existing central chiller system currently has no water-side economizer. This

ECM evaluates the energy use benefits of adding water-side economizer operation

to the central chiller plant to take advantage of free cooling opportunities. This

involves adding a plate and frame heat exchanger and pumps to help bypass the

chiller when it is not necessary to run it. Modeled energy savings are broken out

separately for each building even though there is one central chiller plant for both

buildings. This measure will be an added maintenance cost to the facility. The

pumps and heat exchanger will have to be maintained plus facility operators will

have to make sure that the chilled water system is operating as designed to take

advantage of free cooling when conditions allow.

Existing Baseline

InputECM Input First Cost

Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

No Central

Waterside

Economizer

Add Waterside

Economizer to Central

Chiller Plant

$51,000 165,937 $2,821 18.1

ECM #7: Richardson Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plants

7.8 ECM #8: Steam Trap Monitoring

The building currently has steam traps delivering steam to the building from the

campus steam plant. As with all steam traps there is a certain amount of steam

that is being wasted by the traps being stuck open. This ECM evaluates the

energy benefits of adding a temperature sensor to steam traps to ensure that

steam is not wasted when traps become stuck open. When this happens the trap

allows steam into the condensate reservoir which then becomes a waste. A hand

calculation was performed to estimate the amount of steam and thus energy that

could be saved throughout the year by installing these sensors that will alert

anytime the trap fails and allows steam to be wasted. This measure should add no

maintenance coast to the facility and potentially save money by making facility

personnel aware when traps are failing to close. Accuracy of the calculation

resides on the assumption that traps fail 10% of the operating hours throughout

the year. This is expected to be quite conservative relative to how much the trap

often do fail in practice.


11-1077 | 24

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

No Steam Trap

Monitoring

Monitoring of Steam

Trap Through Temp

Sensors

$9,000 256,663 $5,005 1.8

ECM #8: Richardson Steam Trap Monitoring Parameters

7.9 ECM #9: Demand Control Ventilation with CO2 sensors

The building does not appear to currently have CO2 sensors that monitor building

occupancy. This ECM evaluates the energy use benefits of adding CO2 sensors on

the return side of the air handlers. This would allow systems to turn down the

minimum outside air when spaces are not occupied. The savings will be most

significant for spaces with high intermittent occupancy. This measure is modeled

by turning on sensors in the main air handlers and when the occupancy schedules

show rooms being less occupied it turns down the minimum outside air that is

required. The addition of CO2 sensors will add maintenance expenses to keep

sensors and controls working properly. Accuracy of energy savings estimates will

depend primarily on how intermittent spaces are used and the amount of time the

system can ramp down minimum ventilation requirements.

Main Air

handlers

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

AHU-1 to -3 No DCV

Return Sensors

in Main Air

Handlers

$89,000 595,905 $13,100 6.8

ECM #9: Richardson Demand Control Ventilation Parameters

Building Steam Trap: 9284 lb/hr steam @ 15 psi

Assumption: Trap fails 10% of the time = 365*24*.1 = 876 hours annually

Safety Factor: 9284 lb/hr x 2.0 safety factor = 18,600 lb/hr

Trap Orifice Size: 21/32" from catalog for 15psi and 18,600 lb/hr

Steam Flow Using Using Napier formula: 24.24*Pa*D2 = 24.24*(14.7+15)*(21/32)^2 = 310 lb/hr

Average Annual Energy: 876 hours * 310 lb/hr = 271,600 lbs

Steam @ 15 psi = 945 Btu/lb

Average Annual Energy (Mbtu/year): 271,600 lbs * 945 Btu/lb = 256,663 Mbtu/year

Richardson Steam Trap Monitor Savings Calculation


11-1077 | 25

7.10 ECM #10: Low Flow Plumbing Fixtures

According to design documents the plumbing fixtures are relatively efficient for

the period when they were installed, but are now inefficient by standards of

today. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing low flow plumbing

fixtures for sinks and shower heads to conserve water and save domestic hot

water (DHW) heating. Of the steam used in the building it was estimated that

111,300 MBTUs (2.5% of total steam used in building) of steam is used for

domestic hot water. Using this total and distributing it accordingly with the

occupancy in the building, over the course of the year, gives a peak DHW flow of

1.57 gpm. With new low flow fixtures it is estimated that this peak could be cut

in half. Some of the fixtures used for the estimate are listed below. This

measure should not add any maintenance costs for the facility once installed. The

amount of energy saved is expected to be accurate depending on the level of

usage of plumbing fixtures in the building.

Fixture Water Use

Urinal 0.125 gal/flush

Toilet 1.1-1.28gal/flush

Showers 1.5 gpm

Bathroom Sink 0.35 gpm

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

1.57 gpm 0.785 gpm $12,000 55,650 $1,085 11.1

ECM #10: Richardson Low Flow Plumbing Fixture Parameters

7.11 ECM #11: Exterior Lighting Control

Currently the exterior lighting is lacking sufficient controls to ensure that lights

are not on when there is sufficient sunlight outside. This ECM evaluates the

energy benefits of installing controls systems to properly operate outdoor lighting

to ensure exterior fixtures operate only when needed throughout the year. Based

on the site plans and electrical plans there appears to be about 24 kW of exterior

lighting on the building. Adding photo sensors to control the lights will make sure

that they are turned off when not necessary. Further examining particular lights

that can be turned on by motion sensor would also make an improvement to the

energy usage by exterior lighting. Exterior lighting schedules were adapted to

help show expected savings through controls (10% credit on early and late night

lighting levels). In addition to schedule modifications the peak wattage was

changed from 24W to 20W for anticipated savings through use of motion sensors

for non-essential exterior lighting. There will be minor maintenance costs added

to the systems to ensure lighting controls are working properly. The accuracy of


11-1077 | 26

the energy savings projections is expected to be accurate depending how

scheduling of exterior lights is programmed.

Existing

Baseline InputECM Input First Cost

Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

Minimal Controls

Photo and

Motion

Sensors

$2,000 59,925 $1,020 2.0

ECM #11: Richardson Exterior Lighting Control Parameters

7.12 ECM #12: Egress Lighting Controls

Currently corridors and egress paths are lacking controls to shut off lights when

not needed. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing controls systems

to properly operate egress lighting to ensure that they are on only when needed.

This would involve interfacing with the DDC system and installing motion sensors

to turn egress lighting on only when needed during unoccupied hours. Savings

could also be achieved through scheduling in the DDC system to turn lights off

during unoccupied periods. To model this savings a 15% credit on the lighting

power density was taken for applicable corridors to account for unoccupied hours

when lights could be powered down. This should add some maintenance costs to

ensure proper functioning of lights. The energy savings estimates are expected

to be accurate based on hours that the lights can be turned off when not needed.

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

0.75 w/sf 0.64 w/sf $3,500 17,664 $300 11.7

ECM #12: Richardson Egress Lighting Control Parameters

7.13 ECM #13: Variable Speed Pumping with VFD and Two-Way Valves

The central chilled, hot and condenser water loops currently run as constant

volume with the use of three way valves. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits

of installing variable frequency drives and two-way valves to operate pumps for

hot, chilled and condenser water loops that serve the building. Two way valves

replace the need for a primary-secondary system using three-way valves since

pumps will be able to ramp down flows to the loop. Below are a list of the pumps

that were modeled with variable flow for the ECM. There will be minor

maintenance costs additions do to the addition of variable speed drives, controls,

and two-way valves. The accuracy of the energy savings for this measure

depends on the loads of the building systems and demand on circulation loops.


11-1077 | 27

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

Constant flow loops

with three-way valve

operation

Varible flow loops

with two-way

valves

$48,000 94,870 $1,600 30.1

ECM #13: Richardson Variable Speed Pumping Parameters

7.14 ECM #14: Insulate CHW, Steam and HW piping

There currently appears to be places in the mechanical space where much of the

piping insulation has been removed and not replaced or not ever installed initially.

This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing insulation for all main CHW

and HW pipe mains. This would help minimize heat loss while transferring chilled

and hot water to conditioned spaces. Calculations for energy savings and

insulation cost were done on a linear foot basis so both measures are scalable

while keeping payback estimates the same. There should be no added

maintenance cost to deal with the addition or replacement of piping insulation.

Accuracy of energy saving estimates resides on how much piping insulation is

needed on the circulation loop mains and the operation of the system.

Maintenance staff will need to be educated of the importance of replacing piping

insulation when it is removed to service equipment. It was approximated during

site visits that the following pipe sizes and lengths were not insulated.

Chilled Water

Piping Steam Piping

Pipe

Size

(in.)

Length

(ft.)

Pipe

Size

(in.)

Length

(ft.)

1 10 1 15

1.5 10 1.5 10

2 10 2 10

3 0 3 0

4 10 4 10

6 10 6 10

8 0 8 10

10 0 10 0

Pump System Served GPM HP

HWP-1 Heating Water 450 15


CHP-1 Secondary Chilled 660 15

CHP-2 Primary Chilled 1175 40

CHP-3 Intertie Chilled 660 10

CWP-1 Condenser Water 1390 30


11-1077 | 28

No

Insulation

With

Insulation

0.5 2.5 58.0 6.9 $8.73

0.75 2.5 70.5 7.7 $10.72

1 2.5 86.0 8.8 $13.19

1.5 2.5 119.7 10.2 $18.70

2 2.5 146.8 12.1 $23.00

2.5 2.5 175.1 12.9 $27.71

3 2.5 210.1 15.6 $33.23

4 3 265.9 16.2 $42.65

5 3 324.8 19.0 $52.23

6 3 383.3 21.7 $61.77

7 3 438.2 23.3 $70.87

8 3 493.0 25.6 $79.84

9 3 547.6 27.9 $88.78

10 3 608.9 30.9 $98.74

0.5 1 12.5 2.8 $1.45

0.75 1 15.1 3.4 $1.75

1 1 18.4 3.5 $2.22

1.5 1.5 25.5 3.6 $3.26

2 1.5 31.2 4.1 $4.03

2.5 1.5 37.1 4.2 $4.89

3 1.5 44.4 5.4 $5.81

4 1.5 56.1 6.6 $7.38

5 1.5 68.4 8.0 $9.00

6 1.5 80.6 9.3 $10.62

7 1.5 92.1 10.1 $12.21

8 1.5 103.5 11.2 $13.74

9 1.5 114.9 12.3 $15.28

10 1.5 127.7 13.1 $17.06

Pipe Heat Loss

[btu/hr/ft]

Ste

am

/ H

ot

Wate

r Pip

ing

Energy Cost

($/lf)

Chille

d W

ate

r Pip

ing

Pipe

Size

(NPS,

in)

Insulation

Thickness

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

Uninsulated

Pipe

Insulation on

HW and CHW

Pipe Mains

$29,600 234,830 $4,050 7.3

ECM #14: Richardson Pipe Insulation Parameters


11-1077 | 29

7.1 ECM #15: Lighting Upgrade in Lumber Bay

The lighting the Lumber Bay appears to be 1000 Watt Metal halide. These lamps

may be retrofitted with either a multi-lamp CFL equivalent or T5HO High Bay type

lamps for significant energy savings. This information was provided by Greg

Smith (OSU) for inclusion in this report.

#of LampsExisting

BaselineECM First Cost

Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

101000 Watt

Metal Halide

CFL Equivalent

or T5HO

Highbays

$7,000 101,507 $1,726 4.1

ECM #15: Richardson Lighting Upgrade for Lumber Bay


11-1077 | 30

8.0 ANALYZED PEAVY HALL ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES

PAE conducted a meeting on June 24, 2011 to review the preliminary energy modeling

results and determine which energy conservation measures will continue to be studied.

The following results incorporate the comments from this meeting. See appendix for a

copy of the information discussed and the comments documented on this information.

The costs for each measure have been approximated based on compliance with the

Buy American and Davis-Bacon requirements.

1 Improved Wall Insulation (meet current OR Energy Code levels)

2 Improved Roof Insulation (meet current OR Energy Code levels)

3 Improved Window Glazing (meet current OR Energy Code levels)

4 Convert controls to DDC controls (set back and schedule savings)

5 Constant volume to variable volume lab hood conversions

6 Lighting controls for classrooms

7 Occupancy sensors for commons & restrooms

8a Replace air handling unit

8b Replace VAV boxes

8c Incorporate economizer controls

9 Variable speed fans for fan systems

10 Waterside economizer for chiller plant

11 Steam trap monitoring, temperature sensors for failure of traps / replacement of traps

12 CO2 demand based ventilation

13 Low flow plumbing fixtures

14 Exterior lighting control

15 Egress lighting controls

16 Pumping energy savings with VFD and two way valves for HW & CHW

17 Insulate CHW, HW, steam and condensate piping where missing

18 Replace motors with premium efficient motors

19 Lighting upgrade for offices and classrooms

Peavy Hall - Energy Conservation Measures

Table 13: List of Current ECMs for Peavy Hall


11-1077 | 31

8.1 ECM #1: Improved Wall Insulation

Currently the building has little to no insulation in the walls as shown in the

original design documents. This ECM evaluates the energy use impact of

increasing the wall insulation from the existing amount to meet the new 2010

Oregon Energy Code levels. This consists of adding rigid insulation to the outer

portions of the wall construction to meet an overall assembly value of U = 0.064

Btu/h-ft2-°F. This is assumed to be achieved by adding blown-in insulation to the

wall with the addition of more rigid insulation if necessary to meet the 2010

Oregon Energy Code Levels. This measure should also help in reducing infiltration

and make occupants closer to the perimeter more comfortable throughout the

year. Accuracy for the performance of the ECM will depend on the quality of

installation and local weather patterns.

Wall Area

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

26,815 SF U = 0.130 U = 0.064 $105,000 644,270 $11,676 9.0

ECM #1: Peavy Improved Wall Parameters

8.2 ECM #2: Improved Roof Insulation

The building currently has about 1-inch of rigid insulation in the layers. This ECM

evaluates the energy use impact of increasing the roof insulation from the

existing levels to meet the current 2010 Oregon Energy Code levels (U = 0.048

Btu/h-ft2-°F). This consists of adding more rigid insulation to the roof assembly

such that the overall roof assembly meets OR code. The additional insulation will

make a difference in occupant comfort for those occupants in the top floor of the

building. Accuracy for the performance of the ECM will depend on the quality of

installation and local weather patterns.

Roof Area

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

81,910 SF U = 0.161 U = 0.048 $70,000 786,675 $14,133 5.0

ECM #2: Peavy Improved Roof Parameters


11-1077 | 32

8.3 ECM #3: Improved Window Glazing

The windows in the original drawings and observed during the walk through are

clear single pane windows with aluminum frames that have no thermal breaks.

This ECM evaluates the energy use impact of replacing the windows with ones

that have a higher thermal resistance with better shading properties. The

windows studied for the ECM meet the new 2010 OR Energy Code with U-0.45

Btu/h-ft2-°F and SHGC of 0.40. Replacing these windows should have a beneficial

impact on maintenance cost since they will be new and operate better with less

leaks and similar problems. Accuracy for the performance of the ECM will depend

on the quality of installation and local weather patterns.

Glazing

Area

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

3,310 SFU = 1.30

SC = 1.00

U = 0.45

SC = 0.46$175,000 531,670 $9,570 18.3

ECM #3: Peavy Improved Glazing Parameters

8.4 ECM #4: Convert Controls to DDC

The building currently lacks direct digital controls. As a result there is no night

setback operation of the HVAC system. This ECM evaluates the energy savings

through installation of DDC controls for building automation. This will allow the

building to save energy by using setback operation during unoccupied hours. The

modeled energy savings focuses only on the HVAC systems (heating, cooling,

fans, pumps, auxiliary). There are many other energy saving opportunities with

DDC controls (demand control ventilation, interior lighting, exterior lighting, plug

loads, etc), but these are accounted for in other ECMs. To show energy savings

for the installation of the DDC system schedules for the operation of the HVAC

system were adjusted to account for when the DDC system would be able to

operate the building in an unoccupied mode. It was assumed, due to the age of

the building, that the building does not have a true setback mode to ramp down

HVAC operation. This measure will have added cost maintenance to the facility.

The DDC controls will need to be adjusted and reprogrammed to make sure

building systems are operating as expected. Assuming that the schedules of the

automation system are properly adjusted to capture setback periods when the

building unoccupied, the energy savings are expected to be accurate.

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

No DDC InstalledDDC system for HVAC

setback and operations$336,000 3,627,440 $66,788 5.0

ECM #4: Peavy DDC System Parameters


11-1077 | 33

8.5 ECM #5: Convert Constant Volume Lab Hoods to Variable Volume

Currently the lab hoods run on constant speed drive motors with no ability to

modulate flow of hood. This ECM evaluates the energy savings by installing

variable frequency drives to have the ability to turn down the air flows for lab

fume hoods. There were 19 lab fume hoods inputted (350cfm to 2,600cfm) into

the model with schedules applied to simulate the expected usage. Variable

frequency drives were added to allow the hood to ramp down to 30% when not

fully needed. This measure should add little maintenance costs to the facility and

add better functionality to lab researchers. The results of the analysis depend on

the actual needs of the lab hoods and when they can be modulated to minimum

flows or be shut off.

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

Constant Volume

Lab Hoods

Installed VFDs to Vary

Hood Flow$250,000 906,860 $16,700 15.0

ECM #5: Peavy Variable Volume Lab Hoods Parameters

8.6 ECM #6: Lighting Controls for Classrooms

Currently classrooms in Peavy Hall are lacking lighting controls that will ensure

that lights are shut off when the facility is unoccupied. This ECM evaluates the

energy use savings by adding lighting controls to these spaces. This would

consist of adding occupancy sensors to ensure lights power down when spaces

are not occupied. Since there is no way to explicitly analyze how often the lights

could be powered down during a typical work day it is customary to take a 10%

credit from the lighting power density. This measure will have added

maintenance costs to keep occupancy sensors and controls working properly to

serve the space well by shutting down lights at appropriate times without

disruption of function to space. The savings estimates are seen as conservative

and should save a minimum of 10% off of the lighting in the space. Savings will

depend on how frequently particular classrooms are currently having lights left on

when people leave the classroom.

Rooms

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

20 No Sensors

Sensor

installed in

space

$11,000 46,130 $740 15.0

ECM #6: Peavy Classroom Lighting Control Parameters


11-1077 | 34

8.7 ECM #7: Lighting Controls for Intermittent Spaces

Currently intermittent spaces in the building are lacking controls to shut off lights

when not needed. This ECM evaluates the energy use savings by adding lighting

controls to spaces of intermittent occupancy (restrooms and meeting rooms).

This would consist of adding occupancy sensors to ensure lights power down

when spaces are being used. Since there is no way to explicitly analyze how

often the lights could be powered down during a typical work day it is customary

to take a 10% credit from the lighting power density. The credit was taken for 2

meeting rooms and 6 restrooms throughout the building. This should add some

maintenance costs to ensure proper functioning of lights. The energy savings

estimates are expected to be accurate based on hours that the lights can be

turned off when not needed.

Rooms

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

8 No Sensors

Sensor

installed in

space

$2,100 12,220 $115 18.2

ECM #7: Peavy Intermittent Space Lighting Control Parameters

8.8 ECM #8a: Replace Air Handling Unit

Currently the building is served by a central air handling unit in the basement that

is very old and lacks modern functionality and efficiency. This ECM evaluates the

energy use savings by replacing the main air handling unit (AHU) in the basement

with a more efficient and up to date model that includes more operational

capabilities. A new air handler can be installed with premium efficient motors

(94% efficient for 50 HP motor) that will be significantly more efficient than the

main fan motors that are in place (probably 60% efficient). Along with a more

efficient motor, the fans will operate on a VFD allowing the main supply fans to

ramp down to close to 30% when conditions allow. The added maintenance would

be for the new controls and operating of a new AHU. This may actually be a cost

savings depending on how much maintenance the old air handler required. This

would need to be further evaluated by maintenance personnel. The exact

operation of the current AHU can be a bit of a mystery, but based on the

technology of the time of installation, energy use estimates are expected to have

good accuracy.

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

Orginal Basement

Air Handlers

New AHU's with premium

efficiency motors and VFD

fan operation

$250,000 291,335 $4,952 50.5

ECM #8a: Peavy New Air Handling Unit Parameters


11-1077 | 35

8.9 ECM #8b: Replace VAV Terminal Boxes

The building is currently be served by old standard terminal units that lack the

ability to mix return air with incoming outside air from the main air handler. This

ECM evaluates the energy use savings by replacing the existing standard VAV

terminal units with parallel fan powered boxes. This includes installing the boxes

with fans to reuse air from the space to save on cooling and heating energy.

Each parallel fan powered box was modeled with a fan power of 0.035 W/sf.

There will be added maintenance costs with the addition of fan powered boxes.

With use of these units maintenance personnel will have to change filters in the

boxes once to twice a year up in the ceiling where they are installed. The results

from the energy model are expected to be accurate and will fluctuate based on

the great demands on the HVAC system.

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

Standard Terminal

Units

New Parallel Fan Powered

Boxes$125,000 449,510 $8,400 14.9

ECM #8b: Peavy VAV Terminal Boxes Parameters

8.10 ECM #8c: Incorporate Economizer Controls

The current main air handles lack the ability to take advantage of economizer

hours and save on cooling energy. This ECM evaluates the energy use savings by

incorporating economizer controls at the central air handling units. This would

involve tying the main air handlers into a DDC system so the outdoor air dampers

will be opened when air temperatures are at appropriate levels for the HVAC

supply air. This measure should pose little to no cost add for maintenance once

the dampers are installed and properly calibrated. The accuracy of this measure

is expected to be accurate from the results found in the energy model.

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

No Economizer

Operation

Air Handlers Controlled for

Economizer Operation$50,000 129,940 $2,210 22.6

ECM #8c: Peavy AHU Economizer Controls Parameters


11-1077 | 36

9.0 ECM #9: VARIABLE SPEED DRIVES FOR FANS

Currently the supply and return fans for the main air handlers run on constant

volume drives. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing variable

frequency drives (VFD) to existing fans so the volume of air being supplied can be

ramped down when design conditions are not needed. Below shows the supply

fans where VFDs were installed for this ECM. This will add minor cost adds for

maintenance. The VFD will need to be maintained and ensured that they are

operating properly. This should be of minor, but noticeable costs. The energy

savings predictions are expected to be accurate based on expected building loads

and ability to ramp down fans.

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

Constant Volume

Fan Operation

Install VFD for Variable Air

Volume Supply Fan Operation$70,000 595,175 $10,880 6.4

ECM #9: Peavy Variable Speed Fan Parameters

9.1 ECM #10: Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plant

The existing central chiller system currently has no water-side economizer. This

ECM evaluates the energy use benefits of adding water-side economizer operation

to the central chiller plant to take advantage of free cooling opportunities. This

involves adding a plate and frame heat exchanger and pumps to help bypass the

chiller when it is not necessary to run it. Modeled energy savings are broken out

separately for each building even thought there is one central chiller plant for

both buildings. This measure will be an added maintenance cost to the facility.

The pumps and heat exchanger will have to be maintained plus facility operators

will have to make sure that the chilled water system is operating as designed to

take advantage of free cooling when conditions allow.

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

No Central

Waterside

Economizer

Add Waterside

Economizer to Central

Chiller Plant

$23,000 135,248 $2,299 10.0

ECM #10: Peavy Waterside Economizer for Chiller Plants

Pump System Served CFM HP

B-1 Basement Supply Fan 53250 50

B-6 AHU Supply Fan 7000 7.5


11-1077 | 37

9.2 ECM #11: Steam Trap Monitoring

The building currently has steam traps delivering steam to the building from the

campus steam plant. As with all steam traps there is a certain amount of steam

that is being wasted by the traps being stuck open. This ECM evaluates the

energy benefits of adding a temperature sensor to steam traps to ensure that

steam is not wasted when traps become stuck open. When this happens the trap

allows steam into the condensate reservoir which then becomes a waste. A hand

calculation was performed to estimate the amount of steam and thus energy that

could be saved throughout the year by installing these sensors that will alert

anytime the trap fails and allows steam to be wasted. This measure should add no

maintenance coast to the facility and potentially save money by making facility

personnel aware when traps are failing to close. Accuracy of the calculation

resides on the assumption that traps fail 10% of the operating hours throughout

the year. This is expected to be quite conservative relative to how much the trap

often do fail in practice.

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

No Steam Trap

Monitoring

Monitoring of Steam

Trap Through Temp

Sensors

$15,000 617,685 $12,045 1.2

ECM #11: Peavy Steam Trap Monitoring Parameters

10.0 ECM #12: DEMAND CONTROL VENTILATION WITH CO2 SENSORS

The building does not currently have CO2 sensors that monitor building occupancy

and allow minimum ventilation rates to be reduced. This ECM evaluates the

energy use benefits of adding CO2 sensors on the return side of the air handlers.

This would allow systems to turn down the minimum outside air when spaces are

not occupied. The savings will be most significant for spaces with high

Building Steam Trap: 8,000 lb/hr steam @ 60 psi

Assumption: Trap fails 10% of the time = 365*24*.1 = 876 hours annually

Safety Factor: 8,000 lb/hr x 2.0 safety factor = 16,000 lb/hr

Trap Orifice Size: 21/32" from catalog for 15psi and 16,000 lb/hr

Steam Flow Using Using Napier formula: 24.24*Pa*D2 = 24.24*(14.7+60)*(21/32)^2 = 780 lb/hr

Average Annual Energy: 876 hours * 780 lb/hr = 683,280 lbs

Steam @ 60 psi = 904 Btu/lb

Average Annual Energy (Mbtu/year): 683,280 lbs * 904 Btu/lb = 617,685 Mbtu/year

Peavy Steam Trap Monitor Savings Calculation


11-1077 | 38

intermittent occupancy. This measure is modeled by turning on sensors in the

main air handlers and when the occupancy schedules show rooms being less

occupied it turns down the minimum outside air that is required. The addition of

CO2 sensors will add maintenance expenses to keep sensors and controls working

properly. Accuracy of energy savings estimates will depend primarily on how

intermittent spaces are used and the amount of time the system can ramp down

minimum ventilation requirements.

Main Air

handlers

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

AHU B-1

and B-6No DCV

Return Sensors

in Main Air

Handlers

$105,000 1,944,500 $35,360 3.0

ECM #12: Peavy Demand Control Ventilation Parameters

10.1 ECM #13: Low Flow Plumbing Fixtures

The building currently contains older plumbing fixtures that are not efficient by

standards of today. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing low flow

plumbing fixtures for sinks and shower heads to conserve water and save

domestic hot water (DHW) heating. Of the steam used in the building it was

estimated that 118,000 MBTUs (2.0% of total steam used in building) of steam is

used for domestic hot water. Using this total and distributing it accordingly with

the occupancy in the building, over the course of the year, gives a peak DHW flow

of 1.35 gpm. With new low flow fixtures it is estimated that this peak could be

cut by 20%. Some of the fixtures used for the estimate are listed below. This

measure should not add any maintenance costs for the facility once installed. The

amount of energy saved is expected to be accurate depending on the level of

usage of plumbing fixtures in the building.

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

1.35 gpm 1.08 gpm $8,000 24,000 $470 17.1

ECM #13: Peavy Low Flow Plumbing Fixture Parameters

Fixture Water Use

Urinal 0.125 gal/flush

Toilet 1.1-1.28gal/flush

Bathroom Sink 0.35 gpm


11-1077 | 39

10.2 ECM #14: Exterior Lighting Control

Currently the exterior lighting is lacking sufficient controls to ensure that lights

are not on when there is sufficient sunlight outside. This ECM evaluates the

energy benefits of installing controls systems to properly operate outdoor lighting

to ensure exterior fixtures operate only when needed throughout the year. Based

on the site plans and electrical plans there appears to be about 41 kW of exterior

lighting on the building. Adding photo sensors to control the lights will make sure

that they are turned off when not needed. Selection of individual lights that can

be turned on by motion sensor will also make an improvement to the energy

usage by exterior lighting. To account for the savings through control strategies

it is estimated that 15% of the lighting load can be saved annually. This brings

lighting levels from 41 kW to approximately 34 kW. There will be minor

maintenance costs added to the systems to ensure lighting controls are working

properly. The accuracy of the energy savings projections is expected to be

accurate depending how scheduling of exterior lights is programmed.

Existing

Baseline InputECM Input First Cost

Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

Minimal Controls

Photo and

Motion

Sensors

$12,000 74,327 $1,260 9.5

ECM #14: Peavy Exterior Lighting Control Parameters

10.3 ECM #15: Egress Lighting Controls

Currently corridors and egress paths are lacking controls to shut off lights when

not needed. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing controls systems

to properly operate egress lighting to ensure that lights are only on when needed.

This would involve interfacing with the DDC system and installing motion sensors.

Savings could also be achieved with scheduling the DDC system to turn lights off

during unoccupied periods. To model this savings a 20% credit on the lighting

power density was taken for applicable corridors to account for unoccupied hours

when lights could be powered down. This should add some maintenance costs to

ensure proper functioning of lights. The energy savings estimates are expected

to be accurate based on hours that the lights can be turned off when not needed.

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

1.0 w/sf 0.8 w/sf $25,000 17,590 $300 83.6

ECM #15: Peavy Egress Lighting Control Parameters


11-1077 | 40

11.0 ECM #16: VARIABLE SPEED PUMPING WITH VFD AND TWO-WAY VALVES

The central chilled, hot and condenser water loops currently run as constant

volume with the use of three way valves. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits

of installing variable frequency drives and two-way valves to operate pumps for

hot, chilled and condenser water loops that serve the building. Two way valves

replace the need for a primary-secondary system using three-way valves since

pumps will be able to ramp down flows to the loop. Below are a list of the pumps

that were modeled with variable flow for the ECM. Since Peavy shares the hot

and chilled water plants with Richarson, the energy savings is calculated through

the energy model according to the needs of the building for hot and chilled water

to meet HVAC loads. There will be minor maintenance costs additions do to the

addition of variable speed drives, controls, and two-way valves. The accuracy of

the energy savings for this measure depends on the loads of the building systems

and demand on circulation loops.

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

Constant flow loops

with three-way valve

operation

Varible flow loops

with two-way

valves

$12,000 40,000 $770 15.6

ECM #16: Peavy Variable Speed Pumping Parameters

11.1 ECM #17: Insulate CHW and HW piping

There currently appears to be places in the mechanical space where much of the

piping insulation has been removed and not replaced or not ever installed initially.

This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing insulation for all main CHW

and HW pipe mains. This would help minimize heat loss while transferring chilled

and hot water to conditioned spaces. Calculations for energy savings and

insulation cost were done on a linear foot basis so both measures are scalable

while keeping payback estimates the same. There should be no added

maintenance cost to deal with the addition or replacement of piping insulation.

Accuracy of energy saving estimates resides on how much piping insulation is

needed on the circulation loop mains and the operation of the system.

Maintenance staff will need to be educated of the importance of replacing piping

insulation when it is removed to service equipment.

Pump System Served GPM HP



CHP-1 Secondary Chilled 660 15

CHP-2 Primary Chilled 1175 40

CHP-3 Intertie Chilled 660 10

CWP-1 Condenser Water 1390 30


11-1077 | 41

Chilled Water

Piping Steam Piping

Pipe

Size

(in.)

Length

(ft.)

Pipe

Size

(in.)

Length

(ft.)

1 10 1 20

1.5 10 1.5 20

2 10 2 20

3 0 3 0

4 10 4 20

6 10 6 10

8 0 8 10

10 0 10 0

No

Insulation

With

Insulation

0.5 2.5 58.0 6.9 $8.73

0.75 2.5 70.5 7.7 $10.72

1 2.5 86.0 8.8 $13.19

1.5 2.5 119.7 10.2 $18.70

2 2.5 146.8 12.1 $23.00

2.5 2.5 175.1 12.9 $27.71

3 2.5 210.1 15.6 $33.23

4 3 265.9 16.2 $42.65

5 3 324.8 19.0 $52.23

6 3 383.3 21.7 $61.77

7 3 438.2 23.3 $70.87

8 3 493.0 25.6 $79.84

9 3 547.6 27.9 $88.78

10 3 608.9 30.9 $98.74

0.5 1 12.5 2.8 $1.45

0.75 1 15.1 3.4 $1.75

1 1 18.4 3.5 $2.22

1.5 1.5 25.5 3.6 $3.26

2 1.5 31.2 4.1 $4.03

2.5 1.5 37.1 4.2 $4.89

3 1.5 44.4 5.4 $5.81

4 1.5 56.1 6.6 $7.38

5 1.5 68.4 8.0 $9.00

6 1.5 80.6 9.3 $10.62

7 1.5 92.1 10.1 $12.21

8 1.5 103.5 11.2 $13.74

9 1.5 114.9 12.3 $15.28

10 1.5 127.7 13.1 $17.06

Pipe Heat Loss

[btu/hr/ft]

Ste

am

/ H

ot

Wate

r Pip

ing

Energy Cost

($/lf)

Chille

d W

ate

r Pip

ing

Pipe

Size

(NPS,

in)

Insulation

Thickness


11-1077 | 42

Existing

Baseline

Input


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

Uninsulated

Pipe

Insulation on

HW and CHW

Pipe Mains

$36,200 289,260 $4,983 7.3

ECM #17: Peavy Pipe Insulation Parameters


11-1077 | 43

11.2 ECM #18: Replace Motors with Premium Efficiency Motors

The building currently has older motors that are much less efficient compared to

what can be installed today. This ECM evaluates the energy benefits of installing

new premium efficiency motors in replacement of existing motors used for fans

and pumps in the building. Using these new motors saves various amounts of

electricity over the course of the year depending on motor run time. The motors

that operate the largest number of hours stand to save the most electricity. The

motors that are currently installed in Peavy hall are assumed to be operating

between 60% and 70% efficiency depending on size. This measure is expected to

have no added maintenance cost. It may even be cheaper since new motors will

be less likely to fail or breakdown. The energy savings estimates were based on

assumed usage and expected motor efficiency. The calculated savings are

expected to be conservative, but real savings could vary widely. Below is a list of

the main motors looked at for the study. The number of run hours is determined

by the energy model and need for HVAC operation.

Below is a table that compares modern standard and premium motor efficiencies

with an annual energy comparison for a motor running for 2,000 hours per year.

Motor HPStandard

Efficiency

Premium

EffciencyStd kW Prem kW

Std

kWh/Year

Prem

kWh/Year

1 82.5 85.5 0.9 0.9 1,808 1,745

1.5 84 86.5 1.3 1.3 2,664 2,587

2 84 86.5 1.8 1.7 3,552 3,450

3 86.5 89.5 2.6 2.5 5,174 5,001

5 87.5 89.5 4.3 4.2 8,526 8,335

7.5 88.5 91 6.3 6.1 12,644 12,297

10 89.5 91.7 8.3 8.1 16,670 16,270

15 91 93 12.3 12.0 24,593 24,064

20 91 93 16.4 16.0 32,791 32,086

25 91.7 93.6 20.3 19.9 40,676 39,850

30 92.4 94.1 24.2 23.8 48,441 47,566

40 93 94.1 32.1 31.7 64,171 63,421

50 93 94.5 40.1 39.5 80,214 78,941


11-1077 | 44

The following motors were considered for replacement for this ECM.

Motor HP

Basement Supply Fan 50

1st & 2nd fFloor Supply Fan 75

AUD Supply Unit 7.5

EXH. Recirc Fan 40

Reheat Coil Circ Pump 10

Duplex Cond. Return Pump 2

Existing Baseline


Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

Existing Motors

(60%-70%

efficient)

Replace Motors with

Premium Efficiency

Motors

$36,000 608,117 $10,300 3.5

ECM #18: Peavy Premium Efficiency Motor Parameters

11.3 ECM #19: Lighting Upgrades

The lighting the classrooms and offices in Peavy Hall appear to be T12 lamps.

These lamps may be retrofitted with T8 lamps for significant energy savings. This

information was provided by Greg Smith (OSU) for inclusion in this report.

# of LampsExisting

BaselineECM Input First Cost

Annual

Energy

Savings

[KBTU]

Annual

Energy

Cost

Savings

Simple

Payback

1,2362 - T12

Lamps2 - T8 Lamps $123,600 619,933 $10,538 11.7

ECM #19: Peavy Lighting Upgrade for Classrooms and Offices


11-1077 | 45

11.4 Additional Energy Conservation Measures Not Analyzed

Other high-performance ECMs were considered for both buildings, but given the

potential scope of building upgrades many were not considered to be ideal for this

project or requiring a large amount of capital investment making them less realistic for

consideration. Table 14 below gives a list of other ECMs that were not analyzed, but

could be considered in a future retrofit for the two buildings.

1 Chiller Repair (Steam Leaks)

2 Heat Recovery High-Efficiency Chiller

3 High-Efficiency VRF HVAC System

4 Skylights with Additional Daylighting Controls

5 Geothermal HVAC Loop

6 Rooftop Solar Air Preheat System

7 Solar HW System for HVAC

8 Solar HW System for Domestic Hot Water

9 Lab Kiln Heat Recovery

10 Occupancy Controls (Receptacles, HVAC Setback, HVAC Window Switches)

Energy Conservation Measures Not Pursued

Table 14: List of ECMs Considered, But Not Pursued


11-1077 | 46

12.0 RESULTS OF ECM ANALYSIS

Table 15 below shows the energy savings for each of the ECMs studied for Richardson Hall

2,477,076 4,761,300 13,213,083 136.2 $236,516 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ECM 1 Improved Wall Insulation (meet current OR Energy Code levels) 2,492,244 4,665,000 13,168,537 135.8 $235,518 44,547 0% $998 0% $144,000 144.3 0.7%

ECM 2 Improved Roof Insulation (meet current OR Energy Code levels) 2,475,875 4,522,000 12,969,686 133.7 $231,780 243,398 2% $4,736 2% $96,000 20.3 4.9%

ECM 3 Improved Window Glazing (meet current OR Energy Code levels) 2,381,393 4,301,000 12,426,313 128.1 $221,990 786,770 6% $14,525 6% $240,000 16.5 6.1%

ECM 4 West (admin) penthouse envelope insulation 2,477,076 4,691,550 13,143,333 135.5 $235,156 69,750 1% $1,360 1% $20,000 14.7 6.8%

ECM 5 Lighting controls for the classrooms 2,473,626 4,761,300 13,201,312 136.1 $236,316 11,771 0% $200 0% $1,500 7.5 13.3%

ECM 6 Daylighting controls where applicable 2,464,759 4,770,600 13,180,357 135.9 $235,983 32,726 0% $533 0% $3,000 5.6 17.8%

ECM 7 Waterside economizer for chiller plant 2,428,443 4,761,300 13,047,146 134.5 $233,695 165,937 1% $2,821 1% $51,000 18.1 5.5%

ECM 8 Steam trap monitoring, temperature sensors for failure of traps / replacement of traps 2,477,076 4,504,637 12,956,420 133.6 $231,511 256,663 2% $5,005 2% $9,000 1.8 55.6%

ECM 9 CO2 demand based ventilation 2,650,111 3,575,000 12,617,179 130.1 $223,419 595,905 5% $13,097 6% $89,000 6.8 14.7%

ECM 10 Low flow plumbing fixtures 2,477,076 4,705,650 13,157,433 135.6 $235,431 55,650 0% $1,085 0% $12,000 11.1 9.0%

ECM 11 Exterior lighting control 2,459,601 4,761,000 13,153,159 135.6 $235,496 59,925 0% $1,019 0% $2,000 2.0 51.0%

ECM 12 Egress lighting controls 2,471,899 4,761,300 13,195,419 136.0 $236,215 17,664 0% $300 0% $3,500 11.7 8.6%

ECM 13 Pumping energy savings with VFD and two way valves for HW & CHW 2,447,307 4,768,000 13,118,211 135.2 $234,920 94,872 1% $1,596 1% $48,000 30.1 3.3%

ECM 14 Insulate steam and condensate piping where missing (traps, PRV's, etc.) 2,414,576 4,739,723 12,978,256 133.8 $232,470 234,827 2% $4,046 2% $12,000 3.0 33.7%

ECM 15 Lighting upgrade for Lumber Bay 2,447,326 4,761,300 13,111,576 135.2 $234,790 101,507 1% $1,726 1% $7,000 4.1 24.7%

2,061,353 3,962,219 10,995,554 113.4 $194,078 2,217,529 17% $42,438 18% $719,000 16.9 5.9%

Total

Energy

Usage

(KBTU)

Preliminary Energy Conservation Measure Analysis

Oregon State University - Richardson Hall

Simple

Payback

(years)

Energy

Cost

Savings

(%)

Energy

Savings

($)

Energy

Savings

(%)Measure #

ROI

(%)

PAE

Estimated

Increment

al Cost

ANNUAL SAVINGS

Energy

Savings

(KBTU)

Energy Use

Index

(KBTU/SF) TOTAL ($)

Interactive Total of ECMs

Baseline Building

ECM / Model Description

Electricity

Usage

(KWH)

Steam

Usage

(KBTU)

Table 15: Energy and Payback Results for ECM Analysis for Richardson Hall

Table 16 below shows the energy savings for each of the ECMs studied for Peavy Hall

2,312,772 10,246,000 18,137,178 215.9 $333,938 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ECM 1 Improved Wall Insulation (meet current OR Energy Code levels) 2,208,795 9,956,500 17,492,909 208.2 $322,262 644,270 4% $11,676 3% $105,000 9.0 11.1%

ECM 2 Improved Roof Insulation (meet current OR Energy Code levels) 2,171,308 9,942,000 17,350,503 206.5 $319,805 786,675 4% $14,133 4% $70,000 5.0 20.2%

ECM 3 Improved Window Glazing (meet current OR Energy Code levels) 2,219,523 10,032,500 17,605,512 209.5 $324,366 531,666 3% $9,572 3% $175,000 18.3 5.5%

ECM 4 Convert controls to DDC controls (set back and schedule savings) 1,850,218 8,196,800 14,509,742 172.7 $267,150 3,627,436 20% $66,788 20% $336,000 5.0 19.9%

ECM 5 Constant volume to variable volume lab hood conversions 2,197,133 9,733,700 17,230,319 205.1 $317,241 906,859 5% $16,697 5% $250,000 15.0 6.7%

ECM 6 Lighting controls for classrooms 2,293,316 10,266,256 18,091,049 215.3 $333,204 46,129 0% $733 0% $11,000 15.0 6.7%

ECM 7 Occupancy sensors for commons & restrooms 2,298,347 10,283,000 18,124,960 215.7 $333,823 12,218 0% $115 0% $2,100 18.2 5.5%

ECM 8a Replace air handling unit 2,227,387 10,246,000 17,845,843 212.4 $328,985 291,335 2% $4,952 1% $250,000 50.5 2.0%

ECM 8b Replace VAV boxes 2,270,079 9,942,160 17,687,671 210.5 $325,537 449,507 2% $8,401 3% $125,000 14.9 6.7%

ECM 8c Incorporate economizer controls 2,274,690 10,246,000 18,007,241 214.3 $331,729 129,937 1% $2,209 1% $50,000 22.6 4.4%

ECM 9 Variable speed fans for fan systems 2,227,387 9,942,160 17,542,003 208.8 $323,061 595,175 3% $10,877 3% $70,000 6.4 15.5%

ECM 10 Waterside economizer for chiller plant 2,273,133 10,246,000 18,001,930 214.3 $331,639 135,248 1% $2,299 1% $23,000 10.0 10.0%

ECM 11 Steam trap monitoring, temperature sensors for failure of traps / replacement of traps 2,312,772 9,628,315 17,519,493 208.5 $321,893 617,685 3% $12,045 4% $15,000 1.2 80.3%

ECM 12 CO2 demand based ventilation 2,012,800 9,325,000 16,192,674 192.7 $298,580 1,944,504 11% $35,358 11% $105,000 3.0 33.7%

ECM 13 Low flow plumbing fixtures 2,312,771 10,222,000 18,113,175 215.6 $333,470 24,003 0% $468 0% $8,000 17.1 5.9%

ECM 14 Exterior lighting control 2,290,988 10,246,000 18,062,851 215.0 $332,674 74,327 0% $1,263 0% $12,000 9.5 10.5%

ECM 15 Egress lighting controls 2,307,617 10,246,000 18,119,589 215.7 $333,639 17,589 0% $299 0% $25,000 83.6 1.2%

ECM 16 Pumping energy savings with VFD and two way valves for HW & CHW 2,134,144 10,268,000 17,549,699 208.9 $324,006 587,479 3% $9,931 3% $51,000 5.1 19.5%

ECM 17 Insulate CHW, HW, steam and condensate piping where missing 2,235,768 10,219,478 17,847,918 212.4 $328,954 289,260 2% $4,983 1% $36,200 7.3 13.8%

ECM 18 Replace motors with premium efficient motors 2,130,147 10,261,000 17,529,062 208.6 $323,638 608,117 3% $10,300 3% $36,000 3.5 28.6%

ECM 19 Lighting upgrade for classrooms and offices 2,131,080 10,246,000 17,517,245 208.5 $323,400 619,933 3% $10,538 3% $123,600 11.7 8.5%

1,075,296 4,763,756 8,432,665 100.4 $158,709 9,704,513 54% $175,229 52% 1,878,900 10.7 9.3%

Electricity

Usage

(KWH)

Steam

Usage

(KBTU)

Total

Energy

Usage

(KBTU)

Energy Use

Index

(KBTU/SF) TOTAL ($)

PAE

Estimated

Incrementa

l Cost

Simple

Payback

(years)

ROI

(%)

Energy

Savings

(KBTU)

Energy

Savings

(%)

Energy

Savings

($)

Energy

Cost

Savings

(%)

Baseline Building

Interactive Total of ECMs

ANNUAL SAVINGS

Preliminary Energy Conservation Measure Analysis

Oregon State University - Peavy Hall

Measure

# ECM / Model Description

Table 16: Energy and Payback Results for ECM Analysis for Peavy Hall


11-1077 │47 | 47

13.0 EVALUATION PLAN

Once the building energy efficiency measures are completed it is suggested that a

measurement and verification plan be developed and implemented to observe the new

performance of the building and ensure new installed systems are operating as

expected.

The objective of the M&V plan is to provide the owner with valuable feedback on the

operation of the building systems. As commissioning is important in tuning the

building systems to operate correctly after installation, similarly, the M&V plan will

provide continual feedback of the building performance over time which allows the

owner the ability to view the benefit of the various energy conservation measures

incorporated into the building design as well as the opportunity to address energy

inefficiencies. Electricity use of major building components should be metered and

logged into a readily accessible on-site computer. Making hourly, daily, weekly, and

monthly data trends available will better inform the owner of required maintenance,

repair or replacement of building components.

Once the building has been fully occupied and completes a minimum of one year of

stable and optimized operation variables will be documented and incorporated into the

design and baseline building energy models. The energy analyst will compare the

revised baseline and design energy models to one another and generate a report

summarizing the results, including but not limited to whole building performance and

performance of specific energy conservation measures.

Weather for the period of observation must be considered and factors developed to

normalize the energy bills to account for any weather patterns differentiating from the

30-year norm for that location.


11-1077 │I | 1

APPENDIX

JUNE 24, 2012 MEETING NOTES


11-1077 │II | 2


11-1077 │III | 3


11-1077 │IV | 4


11-1077 │V | 5


11-1077 │VI | 6


11-1077 │VII | 7

osu richardson and peavy hall energy...

Documents