Phoenix Convention Center Phoenix, Arizona Targeted E4 Re-Tuning at GSA Facilities Integrated Energy...

Phoenix Convention Center • Phoenix, Arizona

Targeted E4 Re-Tuning at GSA Facilities

Integrated Energy

Low/No Cost Solutions through Building Automation System Control Technologies

August 13, 2015

Nick FernandezPacific Northwest National Laboratory

Linda Baschnagel, P.E.General Services Administration

Energy Exchange: Federal Sustainability for the Next Decade2

2007 - The Heartland Region (R6) began working with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)

Phase I - Energy Efficiency Expert Evaluations (E4)• E4 field audits provided training to identify low-cost and no-

cost energy efficiency measures (EEMs) to GSA Staff and operation and maintenance (O&M) contractors outlining improvements to the operational efficiency of buildings.

• 8 R6 GSA Building (4.7 million SF)• Classroom and field training for 110 GSA Staff and O&M

contractors• 160 recommendations (no-cost/low cost and small repairs)

Targeted E4: Project History


In FY12, DOE funded an assessment to evaluate the impact of the 8 E4 audits.Results• Average savings at the 8 buildings: 6.4%• Only about 50% of the 160 recommendations implemented• Field auditing to identify a list of measures was not totally

effective– Staff did not make audit recommendations a priority– Limited experience by O&M with control systems to perform

implementations– Implementation weighted towards easy changes like scheduling, but

advanced control measures were left on the table.



Based on the results, the Heartland Region and PNNL revised the approach to achieve key EEM implementationPhase II – Targeted E4• Identify and implement control system measures.• Train the O&M staff on the control measures and use of BAS• Two site visits

– Initial visit to identify and implement measures– Second visit to verify functionality of implemented measures– Ongoing remote assistance by tele-conference and remote access to

BAS

• Nov 2011 -Targeted E4 model was tested in 4 buildings– Results – Energy savings range: 9% - 18%– Simple Payback approximately 1 year



The Targeted E4 model was expanded to 5 additional buildings in FY13 and FY14.• Two site visits were conducted over the 1 year assessment

period for each building– Initial visit identified and implemented measures– Second visit scheduled during the opposite season

• Identify and implement additional measures not looked at before– Opportunity for additional on-job-training for staff– Continued remote assistance by tele-conference and remote access to

BAS

The Targeted E4 model has been adopted by the Heartland Region as a standard practice and will be completed on 15 buildings by the end of FY15. (7.3 million SF)




GSA Region 6: 15 Targeted E4 Buildings


• Cooperation and engagement of the building staff and O&M is critical

• Ensure the staff/O&M understand and are comfortable with the implementations and know how make adjustments if necessary

• Training is more effective with hands-on experience• Proper scheduling of site visit is essential

Keys to Success


• Regional Project Manager to assist with logistics before, during and after the site visits is a requirement for success

• Coordination of other work ongoing in the building• Leverage staff ideas for additional opportunities• Onsite support and remote monitoring are key• Continually monitoring of building performance a must

Keys to Success


• Two site visits (minimum) – Site visits during heating and cooling season will result in more

complete analysis

• To date, Region 6 experience indicates the Monitoring and Re-tuning Plans included in each report are not being used for follow-up by the O&M– R6 has engaged spot monitoring building performance with the

assistance of a contract BAS Specialist and the planned hiring of a new Building Systems Analyst FTE

Further Improvements


• Targeted E4 re-tuning helps to quickly identify, and then quickly implement no-cost/low-cost building retuning measures that produce immediate/measurable energy performance improvements

• Targeted E4 produced significantly better results than E4 approach• All buildings improved energy performance• Targeted E4s are sustainable and are showing an impact on the

improved regional energy performance• Targeted E4 re-tuning is a transferable, repeatable model • The R6 Regional Energy Team shared the Targeted E4 approach

and resulting successes with GSA Central Office and other Regions. The Targeted E4 model was expanded throughout GSA in FY14.

• PNNL is currently offering the model to other GSA Regions and federal agencies.

Results from Targeted E4 Implementation



• FY2011-2013: GSA Region 6 funded effort: 9 buildings total (Red)• FY2014: GSA Central Office funded effort: 18 buildings total (Blue)• FY2015: GSA Central Office funded effort: 17 buildings total (Green)


Energy Saving Control Measures

• 341 total measures (59 unique measures) recommended at 39 buildings

AHU and OAHU Air Delivery

Static Pressure Reset

Supply Air Temperature Reset

Economizer Strategy

Preheat Coil Strategy

Outdoor AHU Discharge Temperature

Ventilation (minimum) air flow rate



HVAC Scheduling

AHU Schedule Adjustment

Optimal StartOptimal Stop

Exhaust Fan Schedule/Coordination

Pump Staging and Scheduling




Zone Equip.,T-stat, and Air Distribution

Server Room Equipment Coordination

Thermostat Set points and Dead-bandsVAV box mode configuration

Minimum VAV airflow fraction

Night Setback




Ventilation, Infiltration and Heat Recovery

OAHU coil and wheel control

Minimum outdoor-air damper scheduling

Ventilation (minimum) air flow rate

Demand Control Ventilation

Building Pressurization Control




Chilled Water Plant

Control

Chilled Water Temperature ResetChilled Water Differential Pressure Reset

Condenser Water Temperature Reset

Chiller and coil lockouts

Chiller Staging




Heating Plant

Control

Hot Water Differential Pressure Reset

Hot Water Temperature Reset

Boiler LockoutsIsolation Valves




Lighting Schedules and De-lamping Other

Domestic Hot Water

Faulty ValvesSnowmelt

SensorCalibration

Pneumatic Compressor



• 39 buildings analyzed• Average building: 14.4% total predicted savings(all measures)• Engineering estimates, TMY analysis, building energy models (BEMs)

Where are the Opportunities? Average Predicted Savings

4.02%

2.80%

0.10%

2.36%

1.29%

1.94%

1.48%

0.40%

AHU and OAHU Air Delivery

HVAC Scheduling

Lighting

Zone Equipment, Terminal Boxes, and Thermostats

Chilled Water Plant Control

Heating Plant Control

Ventilation, Infiltration and Heat Recovery

Other (DHW, Compressors, Sensors, and Actuators)


• 27 buildings analyzed• Estimates based on predicted savings by measure, verification of measure

implementation, and monitoring of 12-month energy savings.

Most Impactful Measures: Estimated Share of Total Achieved Savings

15.1%

10.9%

10.3%

10.2%

5.4%5.3%4.

7%

4.0%

3.7%

2.7%

27.9%

SAT Reset

HWT Reset

HVAC Schedule Reductions

SP Reset

Minimum VAV Box Airflow Setpoints

Optimal Start

ChW Temp Reset

Night Setback

Economizer Strategy

Garage and Exhaust Fan Scheduling

Other


Quantifying Energy Savings

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 220

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Pre-E4 Weekdays Post-E4 WeekdaysPre-E4, Weekends Post-E4, Weekends

Hour of Day

Elec

tric

ity

(kW

)

• Using Interval metered-data whenever possible (most cases), monthly utility data when not possible• Data “cleaned” to remove meter outages and unreliable data.• Post-site visit data at each meter interval matched to average of pre-site visit data at same hour of day,

same day type (weekday/weekend) and similar OA temperature• Verification that savings patterns in interval meter data match savings in monthly utility data


Verified Energy Savings

• 26 Buildings• Median Savings: 12.7% (9.7% electricity, 17.7% gas/steam)• Wide spectrum of heating meter savings• Electricity savings very commonly in 5-10% range.

Less than 0%

0 to 5% 5 to 10%

10 to 15%

15 to 20%

20 to 25%

25 to 30%

30 to 35%

35 to 40%

40 to 45%

45 to 50%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Overall Energy SavingsElectricity Sav-ingsGas/Steam Sav-ings

Energy Savings Range

Num

ber o

f Bui

ldin

gs


Verified Energy Cost Savings

• Median Savings: $0.127 per square foot per year• 2/3 of buildings saved between 5 and 15 cents per square foot

per year

Less than 0%

$0 to $0.05/sf

$0.05 to $0.1/sf

$0.1 to $0.15/sf

$0.15 to $0.2/sf

$0.2 to $0.25/sf

$0.25 to $0.3/sf

$0.3 to $0.35/sf

$0.35 to $0.4/sf

$0.4 to $0.45/sf

$0.45 to $0.5/sf

$0.5 to $0.55/sf

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Energy Savings Range

Num

ber o

f Bui

ldin

gs


Persistence of Savings

• Four Buildings suitable for long-term analysis• In all 4 buildings, savings has not deviated substantially after

year 1.

0 1 2 3 4 50%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Region 6 Site 1Region 6 Site 2Region 6 Site 3Region 6 Site 4

Year After Re-Tuning Site Visit

Ener

gy S

avin

gs fr

om U

til-

ity D

ata

Anal

ysis


Persistence of Savings

• PNNL Reports Savings based on an analysis of “ION” system sub-metered data using a 6-month monitoring period

• Validating with utility monthly data, corrected for weather, savings has increased slightly (on average) each year, relative to original ION-reported savings.

Year 1 (Utility Data)



0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

+0.10%+1.00%

+2.33%

Savi

ngs I

ncre

ase

Rela

tive

to

Repo

rted

Sav

ings


Factors that Promote Cost Effective Re-Tuning

• Building size matters! • We have consistently achieved simple payback periods under

2 years when buildings are over 100,000 sf.

10,000 100,000 1,000,0000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Building Square Footage

Estim

ated

Pro

ject

Sim

ple

Payb

ack

(Yea

rs)

Minimum expected payback time?



• Initial Energy Efficiency of building (using Energy Star score)• Energy Star scores a building relative to similar buildings in similar climate. 50 is average. 0

is worst building in cohort, 100 is best building in cohort– Not a strong correlation BUT…– For Energy Star scores 80 or below, 6/6 achieved >10% savings– For Energy Star scores above 80, 8/17 achieved <10% savings– Yet 3 buildings with initial scores over 90 saved between 18-25%

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

R² = 0.0659432069281135

Initial Energy Star Score

Annu

al E

nerg

y Sa

ving

s



• Factors that we observe promote success– Presence of variable speed drives, especially on fans– Advanced controls (resets, Optimal Start, etc.) NOT already in place– Direct Digital Control (DDC) as opposed to pneumatic systems – Modern, updated Building Automation System– Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems with energy recovery (commonly lack

advanced controls for optimization)– Strong leaders within region who advocate for energy efficiency and/or have

mechanical and controls expertise• Region 6 (very strong support): 72/96 measures implemented (75%)• Other regions visited: 81/125 measures implemented (65%)

– Building property managers and O&M staff willing to experiment!

Phoenix Convention Center • Phoenix, Arizona

THANK YOU!! -- QUESTIONS?

Nick [email protected]

Linda [email protected]

Date post:	12-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	william-pope
View:	218 times
Download:	1 times

Phoenix Convention Center Phoenix, Arizona Targeted E4 Re-Tuning at GSA Facilities Integrated Energy...

Documents