NBSIR 80-2068

Review of Current Calculation

Procedures for Building Energy

Analysis

Tamami Kusuda

Building Thermal and Service Systems Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

U S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20234

July 1980

Prepared for Architectural and Engineering Systems Branch

-QC — - division of Buildings

Office of Building and Community Systems

-LUU

J.S. Department of Energy

. U56

80-2068

1980

NATIONAL BUREAU

OF STANDARDS

LIBRARY SEP 1 9 1980

NBSIR 80-2068

* t \ REVIEW OF CURRENT CALCULATION

PROCEDURES FOR BUILDING ENERGY

ANALYSIS

Tamami Kusuda

Building Thermal and Service Systems Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

U S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D C. 20234

July 1980

Prepared for Architectural and Engineering Systems Branch

Division of Buildings

Office of Building and Community Systems

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity, Technology, and Innovation

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
; a JTJI ,IA» • r .•

-r.'. I TH> ' v :

'

• 1
REVIEW OF CURRENT CALCULATION PROCEDURES

FOR ENERGY ANALYSIS

by

Tamami Kusuda

ABSTRACT

Existing calculation procedures for building energy analysis, both computerbased and manual, were surveyed by means of questionnaires to determine the

extent to which they were used, and their technical content. It was found

that most of the Nation's building energy consumption analyses are done by

computerized simulation of HVAC system and equipment performance. This

report provides brief descriptions of some energy analysis procedures which

merit further study. It also identifies items not covered in the existing

procedures which need to be developed for the improvement of energy calculation technology.

Keywords: Calculation procedures; computer simulation; energy analysis;

energy conservation.

iii
FOREWORD

This is one of a series of working reports documenting National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) research efforts in developing the energy and economic data

and related research needed to support the Department of Energy (DoE) Building Energy Conservation Criteria research program. The work described in

this report of the Energy Calculation Review project was sponsored by DoE

under Task Order No. A008-BCS of DoE/NBS Interagency Agreement No.

EA-77-A-01-6010.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT iii

FOREWORD iv

1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. QUESTIONNAIRE 2 3. EVALUATION PARAMETERS 3

4. ASHRAE WEIGHTING FACTORS 4

5. BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF COMPUTER-BASED ENERGY ANALYSIS

PROCEDURES 6

5.1 ASHRAE 6

5.2 AXCESS 6

5.3 BECON 6

5.4 BLAST 7 5.5 DOE-1 and DOE-2 7 5.6 E CUBE-4 7 5.7 EP 7 5.8 ESAS 7 5.9 ESP II 8

5.10 NECAP 8

5.11 SCOUT 8

5.12 TRACE 8

5.13 Westinghouse Program 9

5.14 BUILDSIM 9

5.15 DEROB 9

5.16 ENCORE 9

5.17 NBSWHF 9

6. TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE MANUAL PROCEDURES 10

6.1 Bruce Birdsall In-House Procedures 10

6.2 Huber H. Buehrer In-House Procedure 10

6.3 Jim Cochran In-House Procedure 11

6.4 Gregory Conniff In-House Procedure 11

6.5 Home Energy Audit 11

6.6 Mad-II 11

6.7 Milton Meckler Program 11

6.8 Manfred Moses In-House Procedures 11

6.9 REAP 12

6.10 Greg F. Sands In-House Procedure 12

6.11 Peter B. Sherwood In-House Procedure 12

6.12 Solar Analysis 12

6.13 TLF 12

6.14 R. G. Werden In-House Procedure 13

6.15 HEAP 13

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

7. POCKET CALCULATOR PROGRAMS 13

7.1 Scot-Ware Programs 13

7.2 RIBA Programs 13

7.3 Solar Environment Energy Co. Program 13

7.4 Teanet 14

7.5 Hewlett Packard Library for HP-67/97 14

7.6 REAPXTI 14

7.7 Honeywell Home Energy Analyzer 14

8. VALIDATION EFFORTS 14

9. SUMMARY OF THE ENERGY ANALYSIS SURVEY 14

10. ITEMS THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY THE EXISTING ENERGY ANALYSIS

PROCEDURES 15

10.1 Air Infiltration 15

10.2 Multi-Dimension Heat Conduction 15

10.3 Convection of Air Movement Simulation 15

10.4 Multi-Room Problem 15

10.5 System-Load-Equipment Interfacing Under Mismatch

Condition 16

10.6 Control System Simulation 17

10.7 Moisture Absorption and Desorption 17

10.8 Daylighting 17

10.9 Radiation Exchange Among Interior Surface 17

11. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18

12. NEED FOR ENERGY CALCULATION STANDARDS 18

APPENDIX A. ENERGY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE A-l

APPENDIX B. LIST OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS B-l

APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF VARIOUS PROCEDURES C-l

APPENDIX D. PROGRAM CAPABILITIES D-l

APPENDIX E. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPUTER SIMULATED ENERGY

CALCULATION AND THE TC 4.7 PROCEDURE E-l

APPENDIX F. ENERGY ANALYSIS CALCULATION PROCEDURES VALIDATION ... F-l

vi
1

INTRODUCTION

National emphasis on improved building design for energy conservation has

resulted in the development of numerous energy consumption analysis procedures, both manual and computer-based. Over 300 energy analysis procedures

are in use throughout the United States. The proliferation of these energy

analysis procedures and computer programs is creating confusion among code

enforcement officials, architect-engineer firms, and private citizens who use energy calculations to evaluate energy-saving features for buildings.

The pupose of this report is to review the currently available energy analysis

calculation procedures, both manual and computer-based, to support officials

of the U. S. Department of Energy (DoE) for their selection of suitable energy

analysis procedures for the effective implementation of Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS).

In order to assess the existing state of the art, detailed information from the

users of as many of these procedures as possible has been collected by private

contact and by questionnaires which were designed to determine the technical

content of the calculation procedures, as well as user-related information.

The technical information obtained by the questionnaires includes, but is not

limited to, that listed below:

1. Heat loss/gain calculations—steady, steady-periodic, transient hourly

2. Type of weather data

3. Conversion of heat loss/gain to heating/cooling loads

4. Room temperature and humidity fluctuation calculations

thermostat setback, natural cooling, and passive solar

heating

5. Type of solar data used

6. Air-side system simulation options

7 . Water-side system simulation options

8. Central heating/cooling equipment simulation options

9. Economic analysis options

10. Input data requirements

11. Output data format

12. Intended users and uses

13. Validation records

14. Data preparation time

15. Computing time

16. Documentation

17. Program maintenance and management.

Based upon the information thus gathered, each calculation procedure was evaluated. It is found that many of the procedures are similar, differing only in

the degree of sophistication. Calculation procedures that are unique and seem

to merit further study are described briefly in this report. Also included at

the end of this report are items which have not been considered in the current

energy analysis procedures, and recommendations for future work.

1
2 . QUESTIONNAIRE

Jointly with the American Institute of Architects Research Corporation

(AIARC) , the National Bureau of Standards developed a detailed energy questionnaire to evaluate the technical capability of the various energy analysis

procedures for use in Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) being

developed by DoE under Title III of PL 94-385. As shown in Appendix A, the

questionnaire was designed to reveal in-depth information on the building

and systems heat transfer calculations, and the method of interfacing building heat loss/gain with the performance of building heating/cooling systems.

The questionnaire attempted to reveal the ability of each of the programs to

evaluate the explicit advantages of various energy conservation options, such

as improved building envelope design, improved daylight utilization, choice

of HVAC systems and equipment, and control strategies.

Using attendance records of various past technical meetings related to energy

analysis, and technical publications dealing with computerized energy analysis procedure, 800 individuals were selected to receive the questionnaire. A

total of 276 responses were received. Appendix B provides names of contacts

who responded to the questionnaire for commercial and public-domain energy

analysis procedures.

Not included in the survey are 78 in-house energy analysis procedures, most

of which are not well documented for public use. Also, not included in the

survey are many of the passive solar house simulation programs, which have

been well covered in a recent Arthur D. Little report entitled, "Building

Energy Analysis Computer Programs with Solar Heating and Cooling System Capabilities," by S. J. Feldman and R. L. Merriam.

The authors are certain that there are several noteworthy energy analysis programs which were not covered by this survey since new energy analysis procedures are being generated at a rapid pace.

Appendix C lists numbers and users of selected energy analysis programs. It

shows that some of the commercial programs such as TRACE and ESP-1 are very

popular among energy analysts.

Appendix D shows a gross review of the selected energy analysis procedures

with respect to publication status, proprietorship, type of analysis, and

application.

Including the proprietary and in-house procedures, there are 160 in-house

independent annual energy calculation procedures, of which 19 are manual

procedures. Most of these procedures are claimed to address HVAC system

analysis as well as heating and cooling load calculations, although the exact

nature of their algorithmic details is unknown. Judging from the reputation

of the authors and the procedures, however, it is reasonable to assume that

their HVAC system analysis consists of standard psychrometric heat balance

calculation of air systems and some form of seasonal equipment efficiency

analysis

.

2
3

.

EVALUATION PARAMETERS

The following technical evaluation parameters were considered in this

review to select energy analysis procedures to be used for BEPS for

for both residential and non-residential applications.

1. Nature of the dynamic heat conduction calculation through

building envelope

2. Type of infiltration calculations

3. Method for handling effective solar radiation and cloud cover

for conduction heat gain as well as for fenestration heat

gain

4. Manner in which indoor environmental conditions are either

specified or determined by the computations

5. Method of handling ventilated and non-ventilated attic and

crawl spaces

6. Heat loss to the ground through slab-on-grade floors, basement

walls and floors

7. Method of converting heat loss/gain into heating/cooling load

and into equipment energy consumption

8. Extent of the HVAC system-simulation and equipment-performance

analysis

9. Manner of operation of HVAC systems and equipment

10. Manner of handling system capacity and load imbalance

11. Capability for correlation of passive and active solar systems

12. Capability for daylighting analysis.

It has been found that many procedures use steady-state heat transfer calculations or are not suitable for non-residential applications because of their

limited HVAC system simulation capabilities. On the other hand, there are numerous and comprehensive dynamic heat gain simulation programs which do

not go into the HVAC system and equipment simulation phases. Although these

latter procedures could readily be expanded to deal with HVAC system simulation, they were not considered adequate for this evaluation.

Based upon these 12 parameters, 17 energy analysis procedures were selected.

Brief descriptions of these procedures are given in the following section.

All of these procedures covered most of the questionnaire entries by indicating that they would address the 12 evaluation parameters, although the

algorithmic details for handling the specific items are not known. Table 1 shows the list of these 17 procedures, all of which employ computer simulation technique. Seven proprietary computer programs that are not available

for public access are identified with the symbol "P".

3
Table gy Aatalysis Procedures thsE Beet

Initial Twelve Evaluation Parameters

1. ASHRAE

2. AXCESS

3. BECON

4. BLAST

5. DOE-1, 2 6. E- CUBE4

P

7. EP

8. ESAS P

9. ESP-I

10. NECAP

11. SCOUT P

12. TRACE P

13. Westinghouse P

14. BUILDSIM P

15. DEROB P

16. ENCORE

17. NBSWHF

P = Proprietary

4. ASHRAE WEIGHTING FACTORS

Except for the BECON, BLAST, DEROB and NBSWHF programs, all the programs

listed in Table 1 indicated that they use ASHRAE weighting factors for the

conversion of heat loss/gain into heating/cooling loads. The ASHRAE weighting

factor concept is also used to determine the space temperature deviation from

the set point as a result of inbalance between the room heating/cooling

requirement and heating/cooling capacities of the HVAC systems. The basic

objective of ASHRAE weighting factors is to determine the peak cooling load

from the hourly profiles of instantaneous heat gains into the building from

various sources such as solar heat gain, conduction heat gain, infiltration,

heat gain from lights, and heat gain from the occupants.

The sum of the instantaneous heat gain is not necessarily equal to the instantaneous cooling load because a portion of the heat gain will be absorbed by

the building structure. The weighting factors would allow the determination

of instantaneous cooling load by knowing the historical values of the instantaneous heat gains from various sources for the cooling design days. There is

also another weighting factor that permits the determination of temperature

deviations from the set point by knowing the histories of space temperatures

and cooling load. It is rather unfortunate that the ASHRAE weighting factors

have been generated only for the three "typical" office buildings of light,

medium, heavy structure. These weighting factors were calculated by detailed

heat balance equations between the building envelope and air, for a specific

set of conditions representing three "typical" buildings, by Gint Mitalas

of the National Research Council of Canada. Although it has been recognized

‘.‘Procedure for Determining Heating and Cooling Loads for Computerizing

Energy Calculations," ASHRAE Energy Calculation 1, 1976.

4
that these weighting factors would be dependent upon the building construction material, characteristics of windows, and characteristics of internal

heat sources, it is assumed that three typical sets of values derived from

the light, medium, and heavy office buildings are sufficient for the determination of peak heating/cooling loads for typical design days.

In addition, the weighting factor concept basically assumes that all the

heat losses/gains, if integrated over a sufficient time span, would eventually become equal to the integrated cooling load. In reality, however, some fraction of the heat gains could be lost to the outdoors, hence a cor- rection factor is necessary. ASHRAE Handbook uses a factor F

c to account

for the loss of £he heat gains as a function of the overall envelope heat

transfer factor. There is, however, no guarantee that these weighting factors and F„ factor are valid for heating load calculations when outdoor

temperatures are lower than indoor temperatures, and a large amount of the

heat gained is lost through the envelope.

Although simple to use, weighting factor methodology does not allow the

accurate evaluation of heating and cooling loads or space temperature

profile when the building designs are considerably different from the buildings for which ASHRAE weighting factors were originally derived. One way

to resolve this problem would be to make available sets of weighting factors

for a variety of building structures and configurations, so that the energy

analyst could have a reasonable number of choices to represent design features of his specific building. This requires a large number of weighting

factors in the data file. Even if sufficient sets of weighting factors

were available to satisfy most of the design variations, there still are inherent ambiguities about the choice of the right set of weighting factors,

as well as the use of the F

c factor for the heating load calculations. The

only way to eliminate this uncomfortable situation is to perform the detailed

heat balance computation that is the basis for the weighting factor calculations, for every hour. The NBSWHF and BLAST programs, and presumably the

BECON program, do exactly that. Since the published information available

for BECON is very limited and it is available only from the CDC computer

network, its immediate value to the Building Energy Performance Standards

(BEPS) application is questionable.

The comprehensive energy analysis procedure needed by BEPS for detailed

building heat transfer simulation and the subsequent thermal performance of

the HVAC system, especially under the thermostat dead-band control mode and

the passive heating and cooling mode, cannot be accurately handled by the procedures using the ASHRAE weighting factor approach.

This is a reason that the DOE-2 program is currently being modified to

accommodate the detailed heat balance calculation procedure.

* ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, Chapter 25, Air Conditioning Cooling

Load, p. 25.36, 1977

5
5. BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF COMPUTER-BASED ENERGY ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Procedures that meet the selection criteria of Section 3 and merit further

considerations are briefly described as follows:

5 .

1

ASHRAE

According to Mr. Stephen D. Heath, this program satisfies most of the twelve

criteria mentioned above. Although comprehensive HVAC system and equipment

calculation routines are included, the procedure does not compute the temperature variation from the set point as a result of the inbalance between the

heating/cooling requirements and heating/cooling capacity of the equipment.

The program is developed for the use of the WANG calculator, but documentation

seems to be incomplete as the program is designed for internal use. The procedure employs the daylighting calculations, and the ventilated attic and crawl

space are also treated. The ASHRAE weighting factors are used extensively for

converting the heat loss/heat gain into heating/cooling load.

5.2

AXCESS

Electric utilities developed this very popular energy analysis program for

commercial buildings. The program has been extensively used for the generation of the DoE Design Energy Budget for new buildings (Advanced Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking Title 10, Chapter II - Part 435). Although extremely

comprehensive for HVAC system and equipment simulation, its value for residential applications, especially for the passive solar house, is questionable

because the program does not address the heat transfer processes of attic,

crawl space and ground floor (including basement walls). Also, the building

air leakage calculation for AXCESS is somewhat limited. This program does

not address ventilated or non-ventilated attic and/or crawl spaces at all.

5.3

BECON

BECON is a group of subroutines that are used in conjunction with "MITAS"

,

which is a finite-difference thermal analyzer that has been used by aerospace

industries for more than fifteen years.

Mr. Donald C. Pedreya, the developer of BECON, claims that the program is

very comprehensive and can simulate virtually any building energy problem.

For the heating/cooling load computation, this program solves the detailed

heat balance equations among the various interior surfaces similar to NBSWHF

.

Details of the program are described in a technical paper entitled "Building

Heating and Cooling Load Predictions Using a Finite Element Thermal Analyzer,

which is published in the Proceedings for the Third Symposium on the Use of

Computers for Environmental Engineering Related to Buildings, Banff, 1978.

The system and equipment simulation portion covers most of the air side and

water side distribution systems and major heating/cooling equipment, details

of which are similar to the SINDA program. Although very comprehensive, this

program has not been used as widely as other programs of similar nature, thus

published documentation is rather incomplete.

6
5.4

BLAST

The Department of the Army developed this very comprehensive energy analysis

procedure based upon the detailed heat balance algorithms of NBSLD heating/

cooling load calculation procedures and NECAP system/equipment simulation

subroutines. The heating/cooling load computation is said to be improved

both in its scope and algorithmic efficiency. The equipment simulation portion, especially the part-load performance simulation, employs numerous modifications from the original NECAP version. The program is suitable for the

simulation of both active and passive solar houses, although daylighting

calculation is not available at present. The program also uses Building

Description Language (BDL) to simplify the input data preparation.

5.5

DOE-1 and DOE-2

These public domain computer programs were developed by Lawrence Berkeley

Laboratories under the auspices of the Department of Energy. They are an extension of the NECAP program with some modification in the variable

temperature routine and addition of HVAC systems and equipment. They use BDL (Building Description Language) to simplify the input preparation effort

by means of the Standard Data File and default system to minimize the redundancy of data preparation for similar building construction. Although very

comprehensive, its value for temperature prediction and for a passive solar

house is questionable until the detailed heat balance algorithms are included

to supplement the ASHRAE weighting factors method. However, DoE-2 is cur- rently being considered as a standard reference energy analysis program for

the implementation of BEPS, with the assumption that the foregoing limitations will be removed from the current version by the end of August.

5.6

ECUBE-4

According to Mr. Don Deyoe, unlike the previous versions of ECUBE (ECUBE-1-

ECUBE-3), ECUBE-4 follows very closely the energy analysis procedure recom- mended by the ASHRAE Task Group and has extensive HVAC system/equipment simulation capabilities. Daylighting calculations, however, are not included.

Although the program has been well documented, widely publicized and extensively used through the CDC 6600 computing network, the program is proprietary.

5.7 EP

This is another of the extensive HVAC systems simulation programs suitable

for evaluating commercial buildings. Although the program does not address

daylighting and passive solar designing, it appears to follow very closely

the ASHRAE Task Group procedure and weighting factor methods.

5.8 ESAS

This program, developed by Ross Meriwether, is one of the oldest and most

widely used energy analysis programs for commercial buildings applications.

7
It is, however, proprietary, and its detailed algorithmic structure has never been published. The popularity of this program is based upon its excellent

technical support, versatility for the simulation of the very common hVAC

systems and equipment, and good economic analysis. The program is not designed

for the simulation of residential applications, and thus excludes simulation

of passively boated or cooled buildings.

5.9 ESP II

This program was developed under the auspices of the Automated Procedures for

Engineering Consultants (APEC), to have energy analysis procedures available

for computer-oriented consulting firms. The program is an extension of NECAP,

with the addition of system/equipment simulation subroutines and variable

temperature subroutines. Although very extensive in HVAC system/component

simulation, heat pump simulation and daylighting calculations are not available

at the moment. Documentation is excellent but the program currently is available only through the APEC membership.

5.10 NECAP

This comprehensive building energy analysis program is based upon ASHRAE

weighting factor methodology suitable for commercial building application.

The program was developed by NASA from the original U.S. Post Office program,

USPOD. It was constantly updated, and has a good documentation. Many of the

third generation programs, such as ESP-1, SCOUT, DOE-2, and even BLAST, used

this program as the starting point.

5.11 SCOUT

Gard, Inc., developer of the historical U.S. Post Office program, is responsible for the creation of this versatile energy analysis program suitable

for commercial building application. Most of the features attributable to

DOE-1 and DOE-2 and ESP-1 are applicable to this program, except for the

Building Description Language.

5.12 TRACE

This is a proprietary program developed by the Trane Co. and considered to be one of the most comprehensive and well supported energy analysis procedures.

The program follows the ASHRAE weighting factor methodology for the determination of heating/cooling load from heat loss/gain, and covers all the possible

heating/cooling systems and equipment available in the market. The procedure

is well documented for input data description and basic algorithmic details.

Although the program does not compute the daylighting, it has been used for

the evaluation of several passive and active solar energy utilization systems.

The program is well supported by the Trane Co. and widely used by practicing

engineers for the energy analysis of commercial buildings. It is questionable,

however, that this program is suitable for residential applications because of

lack of ground floor and basement wall heat transfer calculations.

8
5.13

WESTINGHOUSE PROGRAM

Judging from the questionnaire responses, this appears to be an extremely

comprehensive hourly simulation energy analysis program that meets most of

the twelve criteria described in the questionnaire. The program is an extention of the version which was developed by L. Russell of Westinghouse as one

of the pioneering computer simulations of building thermal performance. The

methodology used for converting the heat loss/gain into the heating/cooling

load of the HVAC system, however, is not clear. The questionnaire response

indicates that the daylighting calculation also is included to compensate for

the artificial lighting. Attic, crawl space and ground floor heat transfer

calculations are also covered. The program is proprietary.

5.14 BUILDSIM

This Honeywell program is the only program that attempts to simulate the

effect of HVAC controls in a truly dynamic sense. Since the control

dynamics require very small time-step calculations, this program requires

minute-by-minute simulation of HVAC system performance. Details of the

building load calculation are, however, unclear. No documentation is

published.

5.15 DEROB

According to Dr. Areemi, author of DEROB, this program appears to be one

of the most comprehensive building simulation programs that takes into

account detailed interref lective heat and light transfer processes within

a building. The program is suitable for passive solar building analysis.

It is not suitable for commercial buildings, however, because of the insuficient HVAC system and equipment simulation. Because of its ability to

simulate passive solar design, the program is currently considered a standard reference program for BEPS application on the passive solar design.

Its algorithms are not published.

5.16 ENCORE

ENCORE was developed by the National Research Council of Canada to simulate the complex combination of building heat transfer and air leakage

processes. The heating and cooling load computation portion of the program is based upon ASHRAE weighting factor methodology. HVAC system and

equipment simulation, although limited to residential heating systems,

is very comprehensive.

5.17 NBSWHF

This research program of the National Bureau of Standards is an updated

version of NBSLD and is designed to make a comprehensive simulation of

building thermal performance, heating/cooling load, floating temperature

and humidity, attic ventilation, wholehouse fan, comfort index, and daylighting. This program is limited to the determination of heating/cooling

9
requirements; output of this program is used for other programs that have

system and equipment subroutines. The current version includes part-load

efficiencies of gas- and oil-fired furnace and boiler, central air-conditione^

and heat pump. Thus the program is suitable for the residential energy analysis. The program is based upon detailed heat balance computation among the

interior surfaces and room air for the determination of heating/cooling load,

thus independent of the ASHRAE weighting factor approach. There are several

in-house hourly simulation energy analysis programs which have been developed

from the predecessor of NBSWHF, or NBSLD. Some examples are BLAST, EQUINOX,

SEE, and NBSGLD.

6. TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE MANUAL PROCEDURES

The NBS/AIARC survey revealed that a majority of energy calculations are performed by the computer-based hourly simulated techniques or bin methods

by taking into account the detailed building construction data, coincident

hourly weather data, building occupancy schedule, and types of different

HVAC systems performance. The purpose of the survey also was to reveal

the type and the existing content of manual energy analysis procedures and

the extent to which the manual procedures are used by consulting engineers.

Recent work of ASHRAE Technical Committee 4.7, with respect to their effort in

the development of a simplified energy analysis procedure disclosed that the

manual procedure, if properly done by an experienced engineer, could result in

annual energy consumption estimates suprisingly close to those obtained by

using sophisticated hourly simulation procedures. A summary of the ASHRAE

TC4.7 efforts to compare the simplified procedure with the hourly simulation

procedure is presented in Appendix E, together with a comparative analysis

on larger non-residential buildings, which was done under the AIA Research

Corporation.

The following manual procedures were selected from the nineteen questionnaire

responses on the basis of their ability to handle HVAC system analysis as well

as the building heat loss and heat gain evaluation.

6.1 BRUCE BIRDSALL IN-HOUSE PROCEDURES

This manual energy analysis procedure was developed primarily to teach HVAC

systems performance concepts to Ohio State University students. It is based

upon a bin method, yet an accuracy of +10% error is claimed. Very comprehensive system simulation and equipment analysis are available based upon a simplified heating and cooling load calculation. Payback period is used in

the economic analysis.

6.2 HUBER H. BUEHRER IN-HOUSE PROCEDURE

This manual energy analysis procedure is based upon the degree-hour concept.

It is designed for commercial building applications, yet accuracy of the 10% error is claimed. Solar heat gain effect is treated in a very comprehensive

manner. Details of HVAC system simulation are not given.

10
6.3

JIM COCHRAN IN-HOUSE PROCEDURE

This is a degree-day energy analysis program suitable for residential and

non-residential applications. Mr. Cochran, author of the program, claimed

that this program can perform comprehensive heat loss/gain computations on conventional HVAC systems, such as single-duct and double-duct systems and

most of the residential heating/cooling systems. The procedure includes

economic analysis and passive design modeling.

6.4

GREGORY CONNIFF IN-HOUSE PROCEDURE

The procedure uses degree-day and bin methods, and includes extensive

analysis of HVAC systems and active solar systems. Economic analysis

includes life-cycle cost and payback period and appears to be very com- prehensive. The program was used in the evaluation of underground

structures and heat recovery systems.

6.5 HOME ENERGY AUDIT (Robert D. Busch, Bickle/CM)

This SDC 6000-based home energy audit program has been used very widely

and is claimed to have an accuracy within 15% deviation from measured

value. It is based upon a dynamic simulation of building thermal response.

6.6 MAD-II (L. A. Abbatiello, Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

This program is designed to provide a simple, easy-to-use Annual Cycle

Energy Storage System (ACES) design procedure considering all the major

variables for residential design. It is basically a bin method but has

extensive solar simulation using the Liu-Jordan technique. Although it

appears to be very comprehensive and well validated by many ACES houses,

documentation is incomplete.

6.7 MILTON MECKLER PROGRAM, (MECKLER ENERGY GROUP)

The California State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission developed a manual energy analysis procedure based upon annual degree

hours. This program is unique in that complex HVAC system simulation is

done by a simple system performance factor which has been pre-calculated

for 16 equivalent systems. A step-by-step calculation procedure with

extensive look-up tables has been developed.

6.8

MANFRED MOSES IN-HOUSE PROCEDURE

This is a steady-state-based energy analysis procedure with ability to model

passive design and most of the heating/cooling equipment with limited number

of HVAC systems. Economics analysis is also available. Program is developed

for non-residential application.

11
6.9

REAP (ASHRAE TC4.7 PROCEDURE)

This is an extended "bin" method procedure and was originally developed by

the Carrier Corp. to analyze energy consumption in non-residential buildings

expected to have 15% deviation from the measured value. It is very comprehensive in standard non-residential HVAC system equipment analysis and

includes an economic analysis. Although the procedure is for manual analysis, a computerized version of the procedure is also available.

This procedure was adopted as a starting point for the ASHRAE TC4.7 method.

Comparative analyses between the ASHRAE TC4.7 method and seven comprehensive

computer simulation methods on a typical office building for four different

HVAC systems were conducted recently under the auspices of ASHRAE and results

of this study are given in Appendix E.

6.10 GREG F. SANDS IN-HOUSE PROCEDURE

This program is based upon a combination of degree-day and bin methods. The

program is being used for non-residential buildings with an accuracy of +10%

error. Comprehensive treatment of HVAC systems and equipment and an economic

analysis is available. This procedure was developed at the Energy Division

at Ohio State University and is suitable for manual calculation for energy

analysis and retrofit savings and payback.

6.11 PETER B. SHERWOOD IN-HOUSE PROCEDURE

This degree-day analysis procedure is designed for annual computation for

both non-residential and residential applications. It is supposed to handle

solar influence and comprehensive treatment of ventilated attic and crawl

spaces and ground heat transfer. Mr. Sherwood claims that this program could

analyze most conventional HVAC systems and equipment as well. An economic

analysis is also included.

6.12 SOLAR ANALYSIS (by Terry Jackson)

This degree-day analysis procedure developed for Arkla Industries is suitable

for residential and non-residential applications, with a limited amount of

HVAC system simulation available. Simulations for the absorption chillers,

waste heat recovery system, and active solar system are included, as is the

economic analysis. A dynamic simulation algorithm is being added.

6.13 TLF (by Taghi Alereza, Hittman Associates)

A simplified residential energy analysis procedure has been developed

from the comprehensive hourly energy simulation model (BEAM) of Hittman

Associates. Thermal Load Factors (TLF) are available for different types

of houses and different localities in terms of Btu per square foot per

degree day.

12
6.14 R. G. WERDEN IN-HOUSE PROCEDURE

This bin-method manual energy analysis procedure is designed for non- residential application with very comprehensive HVAC system simulation and

equipment analysis. Mr. Werden claims that although the system is very

simple, deviation of the annual energy estimates from the metered energy

consumption data is no more than 2%.

6.15 HEAP (by T. Kusuda of NBS)

This steady-state-type home energy audit procedure was developed for DOE and

has been used by several states. The calculation uses the monthly normal

weather data and Liu/Jordan solar calculation. The heating energy consumption results agree with hourly simulation calculation. The cooling energy

consumption analysis, however, needs improvement.

7. POCKET CALCULATOR PROGRAMS

In addition to the energy analysis procedures mentioned above, several pocket

calculator versions of building heat loss/gain calculation are currently

available, such as follows:

7 .

1

SCOT-WARE PROGRAMS

This company markets TI-59 programs for commercial heating load (HLl),

commercial cooling load (CL2), residential heating and cooling loads

(RL4), commercial air conditioning load (CL4), and several solar energy

applications

.

The CL4 program follows very closely the 1977 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals

procedure by applying solar heat gain factors (SHGF), cooling load factors

(CLF), cooling load temperature differences (CLTD) , and shadow factors.

The program accepts 99 inputs and prints out 61 output quantities. In fact,

the program logic is so large that customized solid-state software (SSS)

is used, in addition to conventional program cards. The program cards are provided to determine separately the heating load, fan loss, motor loss,

air infiltration, coil selection, and opaque wall/roof thermal performance

factors.

7.2

RIBA PROGRAMS

These programs are generated in England and deal with gross energy consumption by empirical method (E/IB), degree-day method (E/1C) and U value

(E/IF) calculation programs. A TI-59 calculator is used.

7.3

SOLAR ENVIRONMENT ENERGY CO. PROGRAMS

The package has TI-59 and/or HP-67/97 versions of solar energy analysis

program (SECI), solar heating system optimization (SECIII), and thermal

storage wall, passive solar heating and life-cycle cost program (SECVI).

13
7.4

TEANET

This is a numerical thermal network analyzer to simulate passive solar systems on TI-59.

7.5

HEWLETT PACKARD LIBRARY FOR HP-67/97

The Hewlett Packard library has several programs for economic analysis of

insulation thickness, heat conduction through composite walls and cylinders,

solar simulation, and semi-infinite thermal heat conduction systems.

7.6 REAPXTI

This is a Carrier Corporation system on an SR-60A calculator designed to

do the energy analysis of commercial buildings by a bin method described

in their REAP manual.

7.7 HONEYWELL HOME ENERGY ANALYZER

This is a specially engineered system for specially designed desk-top computers, details of which are unknown.

8. VALIDATION EFFORTS

Appendix F shows the summary of the item 11 responses to the NBS/AIARC questionnaire. A majority of the respondees claimed that their energy analysis

procedures could predict the metered building annual energy consumption for

heating and cooling to within +10%. NBS is currently in the process of

checking these claims by asking for detailed documentation or references from

those responsible for the questionnaire returns.

9. SUMMARY OF THE ENERGY ANALYSIS SURVEY

The vast majority of the calculation procedures identified by this survey,

both in-house and publicly available, use computers as opposed to handheld

calculators in performing energy analysis.

Appendix D reflects some of the general capabilities of publicly available

energy calculation procedures. The information given stems partly from the

respondents' replies to the questionnaire and partly from discussions with

persons identified as knowledgeable about particular procedures.

• The following conclusions and recommendations were derived from this study:

o There are a large number of in-house as well as publicly available

procedures, most of which claim to have extensive HVAC system simulation capabilities. In-depth study on the extent of these HVAC

system simulations is needed. This requires highly technical evaluation methodology to "smoke out" the strengths and weaknesses of

14
the HVAC system simulation methodology, since it appears that

most of them use simple psychrometric heat balance calculations.

o The majority of the energy analysis procedures currently used are proprietary.

o The public-domain energy analysis programs such as DOE-1 and BLAST

are not yet widely accepted.

o Different users of the same procedure perceive the overall capabilities differently.

o Further detailed examination of procedures meeting minimum criteria will facilitate identification of thorough, cost-effective

procedures.

10. ITEMS THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY THE EXISTING ENERGY ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Although some of the comprehensive energy analysis procedures such as BLAST, DOE-2, and BUILDSIM are designed to handle very complex interactions

of a building with its HVAC systems, controls, and equipment, there are several areas which thus far have defied incorporation into even the most

sophisticated computer programs on energy analysis.

10.1 AIR INFILTRATION

In heating and cooling load calculations, the most important, yet uncertain,

component of energy loss is air infiltration. Despite increased research

activity in infiltration measurement of various buildings under different

climatic conditions, air leakage determination is still very much guesswork

based upon experience.

10.2 MULTI-DIMENSIONAL HEAT CONDUCTION

The heat conduction process through the building envelope has been treated

as one-dimensional flow in most of the energy analysis procedures, ignoring

the complex multi-dimensional heat flow process for building corners, slabon-grade floors, and basement walls. These multi-dimensional effects could

be handled by numerical calculation techniques such as finite-difference technique and finite-element methods, for any type of building geometry provided

that thermal property values of the heat conduction media and the boundary

temperature conditions are well defined, and provided that ample computer

time and computer memories to perform such calculations are available.

10.3 CONVECTION OR AIR MOVEMENT SIMULATION

The building heat transfer process in a space is affected by the convective air motion inside the space, which controls the stratification of the

room air temperature as well as the air leakage through the room envelope.

Although it is possible to simulate the convective air flow pattern in the

15
space by solving the basic fluid-dynamic differential equations by numerical

integration, such calculation is impractical except for the simple air space

geometry.

10.4 MULTI-ROOM PROBLEM

A challenging aspect of building heating/cooling load computation is the so- called multi-space or multi-room problem. When a large building consisting

of many rooms is subjected to a situation in which the heating and cooling

system for the different zones is partially or completely shut off, or undersized, or oversized, each of the spaces in the building is expected

to assume a different temperature and humidity. This is contrary to most

of the existing energy analysis procedures in which the temperature and

humidity levels of all of the interior spaces are either identical or predetermined at known levels. In the multi-room problem, detailed heat

balance equations among the air, interior surfaces, and heating/cooling

systems of all the rooms in the building have to be solved simultaneously.

This requires an enormous computer and an excessive amount of computer time.

10.5 SYSTEM-LOAD-EQUIPMENT INTERFACING UNDER MISMATCH CONDITION

Most of the existing energy analysis procedures first determine the heating

and cooling load of each of the spaces in the building. This is done separately for each of the building spaces under pre-determined temperature and

humidity levels. The rate of conditioned air and/or water flow required

to provide heating and cooling of each of the spaces will then be determined

depending on the type of distribution system and the supply temperatures.

The heating and cooling plant output requirements are then computed on the

basis of total heating and cooling loads of all the spaces in the building

and the ventilation air requirements; this phase of computation is the HVAC

system simulation.

The heating/cooling requirement thus determined will then be compared against

the heating/cooling capacities of boilers/chillers to calculate the energy

or fuel consumption. This is done by the procedure called equipment simulation. Although the systems and equipment simulation procedures are relatively

simple, it is virtually impossible to cover all the possible combinations.

In addition, when the capacity of the heating and cooling equipment or the

capacity of the air/water supply system does not match the heating/cooling

requirements of the spaces, the temperature and humidity levels of the room would deviate from the pre-determined values for which the original room heating/cooling loads were computed. When this happens, the entire energy

simulation procedure previously described has to be repeated several times

until the temperature and humidity levels in all the rooms in the building

are stabilized. These iterative procedures have to be performed every hour

for 365 days in order to account for hour-by-hour variations in climatic

conditions and building use schedules that affect the dynamic performance

of building energy consumption. This type of computation requires, once

again, an extremely efficient and large-scale computer not available in the

foreseeable future.

16
10.6

CONTROL SYSTEM SIMULATION

It has also been recognized that the dynamic performance of the heating/

cooling system is strongly affected by the operating characteristics of

control system components such as thermostat, humidistat, and pressurestat,

whose time constant is much shorter than the hourly cycle. In order to

account for the dynamic interactions between the control systems, building

spaces, and building HVAC systems, it is necessary that simulation computation be carried out on a minute-by-minute basis rather than on the commonly

practiced hour-by-hour basis. There is one computer program that performs

the minute-by-minute energy calculations, but such computations are beyond

routine energy analysis; under special circumstances this program may be

used to determine detailed control characteristics critical for annual

energy consumption analysis.

10.7 MOISTURE ABSORPTION AND DESORPTION

None of the present energy analysis procedures are able to account for the

absorption and desorption of moisture by the building structure and by the

interior furnishings. When the building is operated to take advantage of the

cool night air, a large amount of moist air may be introduced into the building and will be absorbed by the interior building surfaces and by interior

furnishings. This absorbed moisture is removed from the conditioned air space

during the mechanical cooling period. In order to account for the energy

requirements to accomplish this dehumidification process and to estimate the

space relative humidity during the nighttime period, it is necessary to simulate the absorption and desorption processes of building components and

interior furnishings.

10.8 DAYLIGHTING

It is believed that use of daylighting to supplement electrical lighting, by

on/off switches and dimmers, is extremely effective for cutting down electric

consumption for lighting and air-conditioning. This is especially true for

office buildings in which artificial lights are used throughout the occupied

hours at a time when daylight is plentiful. In order to account for the

potential energy savings brought about by the use of daylighting, consideration must be given to: lighting levels for the task area, window designs,

optical characteristics of interior surfaces, outdoor conditions, and the

reduction of cooling requirement during the summer as well as the increase of

heating requirement during the winter. Although a limited number of computer

programs are available to predict the available daylight characteristics,

such computations are usually extremely complex and computer time consuming.

10.9 RADIATION EXCHANGE AMONG INTERIOR SURFACES

Current procedures used for interior surface radiation heat exchange in some

of the advanced load programs such as NBSWHF and BLAST are somewhat oversimplified. Other programs ignore the problem completely. Since infrared

reflectivity is different from surface to surface, for example 0.1 for the

opaque wall and 0.16 for window glass, it cannot be accurately handled in

17
current surface heat balance calculations. Radiocity calculation techniques

to handle the interreflective radiation heat exchange are needed, as are convective heat transfer coefficients that are a function of temperature

difference between the surface and air.

11. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The NBS/AIARC survey on existing energy analysis procedures revealed that

most comprehensive energy calculations are being done on proprietary computer

programs using hourly simulation techniques the closely follow the procedures

recommended by the ASHRAE Task Group on Energy Requirements (Technical Committee TC 4.7: Energy Calculation). Although several manual or pocket calculator procedures are used, they are carried out by a limited number of experienced engineers and not widely publicized. The survey showed that two

prominent public-domain energy analysis programs, DOE-2 and BLAST, have not

yet gained wide acceptance. Most of the proprietary energy analysis programs

claim to have addressed critical elements needed for the simulation of HVAC

systems and equipment, in addition to providing comprehensive load analysis.

Yet the extent to which these critical elements are handled is not disclosed

by the survey. Judging from the conversations with the developers of the programs, their publications, and from the general background information on the

state-of-the-art, it is believed that no existing program handles the systemsload linkage in a satisfactory manner.

Some proprietary programs, such as TRACE, ESP-1, and ESAS, are very popular

among practicing engineers and appear to be supported by the developer of the

program to accommodate a wide variety of system configurations. Intimate

and expeditious program support capability seems to be an essential part of

successful commercial energy analysis programs.

It is recommended that technical evaluation procedures be developed for the

examination of algorithmic reliability and versatility of simulation algorithms for HVAC systems and equipment. At the same time, practicing design

engineers of modern commercial buildings should be contacted to indicate

types of systems most commonly used, and the kind of simulation technique

that needs improvement or development. Users of the energy analysis program

should also be contacted to identify the limitations of the currently available HVAC/equipment and systems simulation algorithms.

12. NEED FOR ENERGY CALCULATION STANDARDS

The several energy analysis procedures reported on in this survey tend to yield

different results, even for the well defined simple building (such as used by

the ASHRAE TC 4.7, shown in Appendix E) and are a major source of concern among those involved with building energy conservation standards activities.

Energy analysis procedures use building data differently, depending upon the

specific algorithmic structure of the particular procedure. A listing of

items that are handled differently would include the following:

18
air leakage;

wall construction. ... treatment of studs; zone designation;

control strategy;

hour designation (beginning, mid-hour, end) for the occu- pancy and use schedule;

ceiling height;

partition walls;

interstitial spaces;

gabled roof, attic space;

crawl space;

ground temperature;

basement wall;

time or date when the heating and/or cooling plant

becomes operational;

solar radiation;

internal heat gains;

surface convective coefficients.

The differences in the annual energy consumption calculations are due not

only to the difference in the procedures and the input data requirements,

but also to the qualification of the users. This results from difficulties

in interpreting the actual building system data into input data for specific

computer programs. Full understanding of HVAC system operation by the user

is essential. No matter how sophisticated the calculation procedure, simulation techniques include numerous simplifying assumptions as to the room

shape, wall construction, air distribution and system controls. Even the simplest data such as room floor area or room ceiling height require interpretation and affect the air results. Thus it is imperative that as a prerequisite

to energy analysis standards, clear and concise guidelines must be developed

to ensure consistent interpretation of drawings and other sources of basic

building data.

Algorithmic standards for heat loss/gain may readily be developed and adopted.

But this is only the beginning of the complex energy analysis calculations.

Calculation standards for heating and cooling loads from the basic heat loss

and heat gain are difficult, because the existing ASHRAE weighting factor

method used by a majority of the popular programs is, in many cases, incompatible with the exact detailed heat balance calculation, which requires highly

complex algorithms and larger computers and more computing time.

Standards acceptable to the majority of the existing energy analysis procedures may not be technically valid for the energy conservation design of

certain buildings, especially the building with passive solar heating design.

Although it appears relatively straightforward, standards for HVAC system

and equipment simulation calculation are by no means less difficult than

the load calculation. Again the rigorous calculation requires simultaneous

solution of a set of system and equipment performance equations, which has

been implemented in only a small number of energy analysis programs.

19
The consensus standards acceptable to the majority of popular commercial

energy analysis programs must be based upon many simplifying assumptions

that, when implemented, may yield technically incorrect results, especially

when evaluating the control strategies.

Although difficult in the basic heat transfer and thermodynamic calculations, many commercial or proprietary energy analysis programs have

included several unique features on certain HVAC system operations and

equipment combinations, the advantages of which cannot be adequately

evaluated by the standardized procedure.

These are some of the reasons that standardization of energy analysis procedures has not been well accepted by the developers of the popular energy

analysis procedures as well as by practicing energy analysts and computer

programmers. The standard energy analysis procedure should first be technically accurate for different types of buildings under different operating

conditions, and their HVAC systems. It should also be easy and economical

to use, and less susceptible to input preparation error. Such a procedure

should be identified or developed, evaluated and demonstrated so that existing popular energy analysis programs could make use of it.

20
APPENDIX A. ENERGY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

ENERGY ANALYSIS CALCULATION PROCEDURES

AIA Research Corporation

December 1978

AIA/RC is participating in a major research program to develop energy performance standards for new buildings, under

contract to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Energy. In the course of this work it has become apparent that there i3 a recognized need for the design community in general to have access to

accurate, cost effective, and easy-to-use energy calculation procedures as building design tools.

The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information about energy analysis calculation procedures available and

used by practicing design professionals. If you use or have developed an energy analysis calculation procedure, please

complete all of the questionnaire. If you use more than one procedure, please copy the questionnaire and complete

as many as needed.

If convenient, we would also appreciate recieving you input forms, sample output, and any documentation or

descriptions of the procedure. Because the focus is on the practical use of such tools during building design,

the information will be reviewed by an advisory committee of practicing professionals.

PLEASE CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ANSWERS AND COMPLETE BLANKS WHERE REQUIRED

GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Person completing this form: 5. Availability of the procedure:

Name

Firm

Address

City State Zip

Phone

2. Type of firm:

Arch. Eng. A/E

Other (specify)

3. Number of people in firm:

4. Name of calculation procedure:

(If a proprietorship or public procedure is specified, please give the generic name, e.g.

REAP, TRACE, etc. and give the date of the version or the version number if known

(e.g. DOE-1 version 1.3).)

Name Date or version

(If an inhouse program, please indicate so)

Distributor

Address

City State Zip

Phone J ) .

Cost of materials S

6. Documentation of the procedure or program:

Published Proposed Publication

Proprietary Internal Use Only

Non-proprietary

Other (specify)

7. Indicate the general nature of the procedure:

Degree Day

Bin Method

Dynamic Simulation over time

Other (specify)

A-l
USE OF THE PROCEDURE

8. What do you use the procedure for: (check all applicable)

13. For computerized procedures indicate which

computer network(s) you use it on:

Energy Audit - Inhouse computer IBM

Peak heat loss/heat gain for equipment

sizing

University Computing GSA (RAMUS) System

Thermal loads analysis over time Boeing

CSC/Infonet

Design aid

MACAUTO CDC/Cybemet

HVAC system optimization Other (specify)

Energy analysis during: 14. Calculations are done for the following

Conceptual design

building types:

Design development stage

Construction documents stage

Single family detached Commercial

Buildings

Single family attached Post-design performance check Schools

Retrofit design

Multi family Low-rise

Hospitals

Multifamily High-rise

Other (specify) Industrial Offices buildinqs

9. How often do you use the procedure per year: ______

Others (specify)

10. What type of personnel are required to perform the analysis: 15. Please answer questions 16 and 17 for one

Experienced professional of the following:

Technical Residential: A typical 2-storv, 2000 square foot single family detached house. Non- technical/clerical

Non- Residential : A typical 4-story, Other (specify) 40,000 square foot office building.

11. Validation information: 16. Time required to prepare input data for

calculation procedure:

Never validated with actual metered

energy consumption

Half day Three days

Validated with actual metered energy consumption

Day Week

Two days Other (specify) Percent deviation (1) 17. Calculation time and cost for energy analysis:

Note: (1) Average of differences in actual metered

and calculated data. Computer (please give best estimate)

12. Calculations are done by: Preparation cost $

Computer cost $ Manual (Hand-held calculator) • CPU time (if known) sec. Computer Manual Computer Type Number of person days

ALOADS

The following questions address the loads portion ' . of the calculation procedure. Note : For 22. Heat lOSS through the Sky:

questions requiring time step, use the following _

. Roof heat loss to the sky Code Time Step

1 Minute-by-mi r.ute

2 Hourly

3 Daily

4 Monthly

5 Heating/Cooling Season

6 Yearly

18.

Conduction heat transfer through the

building envelope:

Cloud cover considered

Dry roof only

Wet roof included

Wind speed consideration

23. Solar heat gain (Glazing):

Steady state calculation Summer only

Dynamic calculation involving: winter heat 9 ain =°"s idered

Heat storage

Time lag

Decrement

19. Conduction heat transfer calculation including non—linear (multi—dimensional) heat flow

through:

Wall studs Basement floors Basement walls Slab-on-grade

Other (specify)

20. infiltration:

Not considered

Air change method

Crack method

Wind effect if considered, indicate the basis of wind velocity:

Monthly average

Seasonal average

Yearly average

Stack effect

Other method (specify)

Cloudless sky

Cloud cover considered

Exterior shading

Side fins

Overhangs

Adjacent buildings

Interior shading device

Venetial blinds

Drapes

Other (specify) .

Varying shading coefficients

Varying glazing systems

Daylighting

Skylight calculation

24. Interior environment:

Constant temperature/humidity

Variable temperature/humidity

Temperature variation from room (zone) to room (zone)

Radiation heat transfer between interior

surfaces

21.

Solar effect on the building exterior surfaces:

Sol-air temperature used

Heat balance calculation used

ASHRAE TLTD method

Cloud cover effect considered

Material absorptivity considered

Material moisture content considered

Sides fins shadow effect

Overhang shadow effect

Two-position thermostat - deadband

temperature between two setpoints when heating and/or cooling energy

is zero

Proportional thermostat control

On-off thermostat control

Comfort index

Room to room air interchange

Furniture heat storage

Thermal mass heat storage

25. Internal heat gains considerations:

Adjacent building shadow effect Lighting Equipment Occupants

A3
LOADS (continued 1 26.

Lighting considerations:

Artificial lighting (check all applicable)

:

Lighitng energy use is calculated for:

Occupied period Unoccupied

Hourly profile of peak installed

lighting used

Percent of heat gain from lighting

to return air considered

Lighting profile can vary from zone

to zone

More than one lighting type per zone

More than one profile for a zone

Lighting types specified

Any Library of types

Daylighting

Not considered

Considered separate from artificial

lighting

Considered with artificial lighting

Thermal impacts considered

Artificial lighting reduced based on:

Availiable daylighting

Switching system (e.g. manual, photocell)

Other (specify)

Time period used for daylighting:

Hourly Daily

Monthly average Yearly average

27. Attic or plenum heat transfer:

Not considered

Ventilated attic Ventilated plenum

Ventilation rate calculated

Ventilation rate given or prescribed

Mon-ventilated attic or plenum

Radiative heat exchange between attic ceiling

and attic floor considered

28. Crawl space heat transfer:

Not considered

_____ Ventilated crawl-space

Ventilation rate calculated

Ventilation given

Non-ventilated crawl-space

29. Ground heat transfer:

Not considered

One Two Three Dimensional

heat transfer Steady state calculation

Transient calculation

Basement walls

Basement floor

Slab-on-grade

Time step code

30. Load outputr

Output for:

_____

Indiv. zones Building Both

Peak Information Time Step Information

Heat loss/gain Heat loss/gain

Infiltration Infiltration

Air Change (CFM) Ventilation (CFM)

Heating/cooling Heating/cooling

load load

Comfort Index Comfort Index

Interior Surface Interior Surface Temperature Temperature

Interior Air Temp. Interior Air Temp.

Humidity Humidity

Mean Radiant Temp. Mean Radiant Temp.

Heat transfer with Heat transfer with adjacent rooms adjacent rooms

Heat flux of various Heat flux of various surfaces surfaces

Refrig. Load Refrig. Load Profile Other (specify) Other (specify)

31. Time step code used for loads analysis:

32. Passive design modeling:

Passive Solar Heating

Direct Gain (e.g. glazing)

Indirect Gain (e.g . trombe wall)

Sunspace (e.g. greenhouse)

Passive cooling

Natural ventilation

Induced ventilation

Internal Thermal Mass Storagete.g. walls, rock

beds, water)

Other (specify) _

Time step code used for calculations

A4
ENERGY

The following questions address the energy or systems-plant (equipment) portion of the procedure.

Mote : “or questions requiring time step, use the following code:

Code Time Step

1 Minute-by-minute

2 Hourly

3 Daily

4 Monthly

5 Heating/Cooling Season

6 Yearly

B. Non-residential

Systems Time step code

Single duct

Single duct w/reheat

Constant volume

dual duct

Multi-zone

2-pipe fan coil w/outside air

4-pipe fan coil w/outside air

2-pipe fan coil w/primary air

33. How do you convert heat loss/heat gain to equipment loads:

They are the same

Mot considered

Other (specify)

Carrier storage

factor

ASHRAE weighting

factor

34. How do you convert equipment loads

into energy consumption:

Not considered

Weighting factor

Dynamic simulation or simultaneous

solution

Other (specify)

35. Check all of the following HVAC systems

your procedure can simulate:

A. Residential Time step code*

Heating

Central Forced Air Heat Pump

Wall or Floor Baseboard Resistance

Furnace

Hot Water or Steam

Radiant Panels

Other (specify)

Cooling

Stove or Furnace

Active Solar

System

None Window/Wall Refrig.

Top Air Conditioning

Swamp/Evaporative Unit Cooler on Roof Heat Pump

Window/Wall Evap. Cooler Central Electric

Re frig. Air Cond. Central Gas Re frig. Unit

Air Conditioning Unit

Other (Specify)

Multi-zone with

sub-zone heating

VAV

_____ VAV w/reheat

VAV w/dual conduit

VAV double duct

Whole house fan

Unitary Heat Pump

Air source

Water source

Radiant heating/

cooling panels

Other (specify)

Plant Time step code

Full load performance

only

Part load performance

Room air conditioner

Elect, centrifugal

chiller

Absorption chiller

Reciprocating comp. chiller

Engine-driven reciprocating chiller

Boiler

Steam

Hot water

Gas furnace

Waste heat recovery system

Heat pum{>

Rankine cycle

Evaporative

cooling

4-pipe fan coil w/primary air

2-pipe induction w/primary air

4-pipe induction w/primary air

Economizer

Dry bulb

Enthalpy

Permiter baseboard radiation

Hot water

Electric

Double bundle condenser

Aux. heating

Cooling tower

Dry cooler

Evap. condenser

Engine generators

Fan performance

Pump performance

Electric motors

Steam trubines

Hot water heater

Active solar systemsThermal storage

Direct energy

District chilled

water

District steam

Districe hot water

A-5

Other (specify)
36. Does your procedure include heat exchanger

simulation:

No Yes If yes:

Cooling and dehumidifying coils

Heating coils (steam)

_____

Heating coils (hot water)

Heat recovery wheels (or heat-pipe type, runaround coil)

Terminal devices

Shell and tube

Kathabor-type apparatus

Flat Plate

Others (specify)

37. Does your procedure include temperature

control simulation:

tto Yes If Yes:

Proportional control

Two position control - deadband

40. Breakdown of energy consumption:

Daily total Daily peak

Monthly total Monthly peak

Annual total Annual peak

Space heating Space cooling

Dorn, hot water Lighting

Electric machinery Non-electric

or equip. machinery or equip.

Electricity and fuel separated

Monthly electricity bill

Monthly fuel bill

Monthly demand charge

Monthly solar fraction

Auxilliary energy requirement

41. Does your procedure include an economic

analysis:

Proportional control w/deadband

Time step code used for calculations

38.

Room (zone) temperature adjustment due

to mismatch between the zone load and

the HVAC system capacity:

Hot considered Variabel temp. routine

A3H3AE weighting factor

Other (specify) ________________

No Yes

Cost benefit

Present cost method

Inflation rate

Fuel escalation

Other (specify)

If yes:

Annual cost analysis

Owning-cost analysis

Life-cycle cost

payback period

39.

Which of the following fuels does your

procedure consider:

Oil *2 Oil 44,06

Natural gas

Electric

District hot water

Wood

Bio-mass

Other (specify) _

Coal

District steam

District chilled water

Solar

Geothermal

A-6
COMMENTS

42. Describe how the calculation procedure

or computer program is evaluated or

reviewed for periodic updating highlighting

the weakest part of the procedure and any

plans you may have for improving the

procedure.

44. Please document all sources of climatic

input data (e.g. temperature, humidity,

solar, etc.) used in energy estimating

methods.

43. If you use the procedure in any innovative

way(s) or have developed innovative energy

analysis procedures for specific design

analysis please briefly describe those

procedures here.

45. Additional comments on areas you feel are not covered adequately by the quest

ionnaire.
N

.. i
APPENDIX B

List of Questionnaire Respondents

CALCULATION PROCEDURE

ASHRAE BIN, DD, TC4.7

AXCESS

BECON

BLAST

BLESS

BUILDSIM

CALERDA

CALIFORNIA TITLE

24 COMPLIANCE

DIRECT GAIN

DOE-1

DOE-2

ECP

EP

CONTACT

ASHRAE, 345 East 47th St., NY, NY 10017.

Edison Electric Institute, 90 Park Ave.,

NY, NY 10016.

Syska & Hennessy, 110 W. 50th St., NY,

NY 10020.

Donald Pedreyra, 8531 Lehigh Ave.,

Denver, CO 80237

NTIS , 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,

VA 72150.

U.S. Army CERL, P.0. Box 516, St. Louis,

MO 63166.

MCAUTO , Box 516, St. Louis, MO 63166.

Gideon Shavit, Honeywell, Inc., 1500 West

Dundee Rd, Arlington Heights, IL 60004.

Control Data Corporation, P.0. Box 7090,

Sunnyvale, CA 94086.

Donald T. Morton, P.0. Box 11129, Santa

Rosa, CA 95406.

California State Polytechnic Univ. , San

Luis Obispo, CA 93407

.

National Energy Software Center,

Bldg. 221, Argonne, IL 60439.

National Energy Software Center,

Bldg. 221, Argonne, IL 60439.

Cosmic, University of Georgia, Athens,

GA 30602.

Svendrup & Parrel, 311 Plus Park Blvd.,

Nashville, TN 37217.

B-l
ECUBE American Gas Association, 1515 Wilson Blvd.

,

Arlington, VA 22209.

United Computing Systems, Inc., 2525 Washington,

Kansas City, MO 64108.

ENCORE National Res. Co., Div of Montreal Rd.

,

Bldg. M24, Ottawa, Ontario, CAN K1A0K6.

ENERGY ANALYST American Energy Service, 0425 S.W. Iowa,

Portland, OR 97201.

ENERGY PROGRAM Energy Management Service, 0425 S.W. Iowa,

Portland, OR 97201.

EQUINOX Keith Harrington, Arga Ass., 1056 Chapel St.

New Haven, Conn. 06510

ESA Ross F. Meriwether & Associates, 1600 N.E.

Loop 410, San Antonio, TX 98209.

SDL 106 St & Jasper 201, Edmonton, Alta,

CAN, T8A3

SDL, 770 Brookfield Rd. , Ottawa, Ontario,

CAN, RUI655

SDL, 111 Avenue Rd. , Toronto, Ontario,

CAN, M4A1H8.

ESP-1 APEC, 44 Ludlow St., Dayton, OH 45402.

F-CHART University of Wisconsin, Solar Energy

Laboratory, 1500 Johnson Dr., Madison,

WI 53706.

FREHEAT Dept, of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado

State Univ. , Ft. Collins, CO 80523.

GAIN Holguin & Associates, 2820 Stanton,

El Paso, TX 79902.

H-33 & H-34 Sunshine Power Co., 1018 Lancer Dr.,

San Jose, CA 95129.

HEAP National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C. 20234.

HEAT LOSS Sunsearch Inc., 669 Boston Post Rd., New

Haven, CT 06511.

B-2
HOME ENERGY ANALYSIS New Mexico Energy Institute, 117 Richmond Drive,

N.E., Albuquerque, NM 87106.

HVAC Hewlett Packard, 1041 Kingsmill Parkway,

Columbus, OH 43229.

MAD-I

I

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Box Y,

Bldg. 9102-1, Oak Ridge, TN 37830.

NECAP Cosmic, University of Georgia, Athens,

GA 30303.

NBSWHF National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C. 20234.

OPT TWO Johnson Controls, Inc., 507 E. Michigan St.,

Milwaukee, WI 53201.

PASOLE LASL, Los Alamos, NM 87545 (505) 667-2629.

PASSIVE Gerard & Associates, 1312 Post, Spokane,

WA 99203.

PDP Louis M. Weitzman, 20 St. Charles St.,

Boston, MA 02118.

PEGFLOAT Princeton Energy Group, 729 Alexander Rd.,

Princeton, NJ 08450.

PROJECT CONSERVE 1 Applied Urbanetics, Inc., 1701 K St., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20006.

REAP Richard Arnold, Carrier Corp., Syracuse, NY 13201

RSVP NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield,

VA 22161.

SCOTCH Robert S. McClintock, Box 430734, Miami,

FL 33143.

SCOUT Boeing Computer Services, P.0. Box 24346,

Seattle, WA 98124.

SIMSHAC Colorado State Univ., Dept, of Mechanical

Engineering, Ft. Collins, CO 80523.

SINDA Cosmic, University of Georgia, Athens,

GA 30303.

SMEAP State of California, ERCDC, 1111 Howe Ave.,

Sacramento, CA 95825.

B-3
SOLCOST Solar Environmental Engineering, P.0.

Box 1914, Ft. Collins, CO 80523.

TEANET Total Environmental Action, Church hill,

Harrisville, NH 03450.

TEMPMASTER Long Associates, 2080 W. Cornell, Englewood, CO 80110.

TLF Teghi Alereza, Hittman Assoc., Suite 200

555 University Ave., Sacramento, CA 95825

TRACE MCAUTO , 370 Lexington Ave., NY, NY 10016.

MCAUTO , Box 516, St. Louis, MO 63166.

MCAUTO, 100 Pine St., San Francisco,

CA 94101.

MCAUTO, 3855 Lakewood Blvd. , Long Beach,

CA 94101.

TRANE Co., 3600 Pammel Creek Rd.,

La Crosse, WI 54601.

Local TRANE Co. Sales Representative.

Boeing Computer Services, 505 2nd St.,

S.W., Calgary, Alta, Canada T2R0X.

TR8-35 NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield,

VA 22161.

T-33 & T-34 Sunshine Power Co., 1018 Lancer Drive,

San Jose, CA 95129.

TRNSYS University of Wisconsin, Solar Energy

Laboratory, 1500 Johnson Drive, Madison,

WI 53706.

TSD & GLASIM G. K. Associates, 157 Stanton Ave.,

Auburndale, MA 02166.

TWO ZONE National Energy Software Center,

Bldg. 221, Argonne, IL 60439.

UDC New Mexico Energy Institute, Univ. of

New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87103.

UWENSOL Dept, of Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of

Washington, Seattle, WA 98125.

In addition to the above list of distributors for calculation procedures,

78 in-house energy analysis calculation procedures were received.

B-4
APPENDIX C

Summary of Various Procedures

NAME OF PROCEDURE NO. OF NAME OF PROCEDURE NO. OF

Annual Energy Analysis

USERS

Active and/or Passive Solar

USERS

APEC (ESP-1, HCCIII) 35 PASSIVE 1 ASHRAE (BIN METHOD) 2 PDP 1 ASHRAE (MANUAL DD) 7 PEGFLOAT 1 AXCESS 8 RSVP 1 BLAST 6 SIMSHAC 1 CALERDA 2 SOLCOST 1 DOE-1 5 TEANET 14

DOE

1 TRNSYS 1 ECUBE 7 TR8 - 35 1 ECP 1 TSD & GLASIM 1 EP 2

ENCORE - CANADA 1 T-33 & T-34

ENERGY ANALYST 1 ENERGY PROGRAM 4 Other

ESA (R.F. MERIWETHER) 7

HOME ENERGY ANALYSIS 1 CALIFORNIA TITLE 24

NECAP 1 COMPLIANCE 2

OPT TWO 1 UDC PROCEDURE (CH.53) 1 PROJECT CONSERVE 1 1 REAP 1 SCOUT 1 SINDA 1 SMEAP 1 TRACE 32

TWO ZONE 1 UWENSOL 1

Building Heating/Cooling Load

BLESS 1 GAIN 1 HEAT LOSS 1 HVAC 1 NBSLD 3

SCOTCH 1 TEMPMASTER 1

Active and/or Passive Solar

DIRECT GAIN 1 F-CHART 3

FREHEAT 1 H-33 & H-34 1 PASOLE 1

C-l
i-

.

"

. :

'

1
APPENDIX D

Program Capabilities

ANNUAL ENERGY ANALYSIS

PUBLISHED

PROPRIETARY

NON-PROPRIETARY

HAND-HELD

CALCULATOR

COMPUTER

DEGREE-DAY

BIN

METHOD

DYNAMIC

SIMULATION

RESIDENTIAL

mmJ <

zUiQ

onUJoz

ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS

APEC (ESP-1, HCC III) X X X X X X

ASHRAE (BIN METHOD) X X X X

ASHRAE (MANUAL DO) X X X X X X

AXCESS X X X X X X X 1

1 BLAST X X X X X X X

CALERDA X X X X X X X

DOE - 1 X X X X X X

DOE - 2 X X X X X X

ECUBE X X X X X X X

ECP X X X X X X

ENCORE - CANADA X X X X X

ENERGY ANALYST X X X X X X X

j ENERGY PROGRAM X X X X X X

ESA (R.F. MERIWETHER) X X X X X X X

HOME ENERGY ANALYSIS X X X X X

NECAP X X X X X X

OPT TWO X X X X X

PROJECT CONSERVE 1 X X X X X

REAP X X X X

SCOUT X X X X X

SINDA X X X X X

SMEAP

X X X X X

TRACE X X X X X X X

TWO ZONE X X X X X

'JWENSOL X X X X X

D-l
BUILDING HEATING/COOLING

LOAD

PUBLISHED

PROPRIETARY

Ok ' «.

HUJ

D.0QC1©z

HAND-HELD

CALCULATOR

COMPUTER

>-<sLU

cc

(T

UJQBIN

METHOD

DYNAMIC

SIMULATION

RESIDENTIAL

NON-RESIDENTIAL

ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS

BLESS X X X X X

GAIN X X X X X

HEAT LOSS X X X X X

HVAC X X X X X

NBSLD X X X X X X X

SCOTCH X X X X X X X

TEMPMASTER X X X X

ACTIVE AND/OR PASSIVE

SOLAR

DIRECT GAIN X X X X

F - CHART X X X X X X

PREHEAT X X X X X

H33 & H34 X X X X X X

PASOLE X X X X

PASSIVE X X X X X X

POP X X X X X

PEGFLOAT X X X X X

RSVP

X X X X X X

SIMSHAC X X X X X X

SOLCnST X X X X X X

TEANET X X X X X

TRNSYS X X X X X X X

D-2
ACTIVE AND/OR PASSIVE

SOLAR

oUJ

3Z

-J

S3

Cv

PROPRIETARY

NON-PROPRIETARY

HAND-HELD

CALCULATOR

COMPUTER DEGREEDAY

BIN

METHOD

DYNAMIC

SIMULATION

RESIDENTIAL

<

p-ZUJ0

uo

UJ1Z

ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS |

TRS - 35 X X X X X X

TSD & GLASIM X X X X X

T-33 & T-34 x X X X X

OTHER

CALIFORNIA TITLE 24 COKPL X X X X X X X

UDC PROCEDURE X X X X X

Information on this matrix is based on replies to the survey

questionnaire by users of tile particular procedure. Where

questions arose as to what a particular procedure could do,

the questionnaire replies by those with known expertise about

the particular procedure were consulted. This information has

not been validated and may only be assumed to be correct.

D-3

Appendix E

Comparative Analysis of Computer Simulated Energy Calculation and the

TC 4.7 Procedure

Attached in this section are tabular results of parallel calculations between

the ASHRAE TC 4.7 manual energy calculation procedure and seven comprehensive

computer simulation procedures. Parallel calculations were performed by the

developer (or his representative) of each of the seven computer-based energy

analysis programs. The same building and HVAC system data as well as the same weather data, supplied by the National Bureau of Standards, were used in

all of the seven parallel calculations.
TABLE E-l SEVEN PARALLEL CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASHRAE TC 4.7

MANUAL PROCEDURE AND COMPUTER SIMULATION PROCEDURES

FOR DUAL-DUCT SYSTEM

Light

Equip

kW/yr/f

t

2

Fan

kW/yr/f

t

2

Cooling

Plant

kW/yr/f

t

2

Heating

Gas

cf /yr/f

t

2

TC 4.7 11.6 3.05 6.68 43.1

E-CUBE 11.6 2.82 5.69 43.8

TC 4.7 11.8 15.1 5.1 22.9

ESAS 11.8 9.8 5.2 22.9

TC 4.7 12.6 8.7 3.3 76.77

BLDSIM 12.6 7.2 4.4 44.25

TC 4.7 11.7 13.7 9.2 62.95

BLAST 11.2 13.9 7.9 53.87

TC 4.7 23.3* 78.76

DOE-2 23.1 82.49

TC 4.7 21.4* 67.0

AXCESS 21.1 90.0

TC 4.7 11.25 8.0 2.62 9.29

TRACE 11.25 11.09 4.14 29.04

* Sum of all the electrical consumption

E-2
TABLE E-4 SEVEN PARALLEL CALCULATIONS FOR ASHRAE TC 4.7 MANUAL

PROCEDURES AND COMPUTER SIMULATION PROCEDURES FOR VAV

AND 4-PIPE FAN COIL HEAT RECLAIM SYSTEMS

Light

Equip

kW/yr/ft2

Fan

kW/yr/ft2

Cooling

Plant

kW/yr/ft2

Heating

Gas

cf/yr/ft2

TC 4.7 11.6 3.0 6.7 21.1

E-CUBE 11.6 2.8 5.7 21.5

TC 4.7 11.8 11.5 9.3 170.2

ESA 11.8 9.2 8.1 140.8

TC 4.7 12.6 1.4 4.3 27.68

BLDSIM 12.6 2.4 2.9 11.22

TC 4.7 11.7 2.4 4.51 12.40

BLAST 11.2 2.6 4.43 10.85

TC 4.7 17.3* 5.1

DOE-2 16.0 9.9

TC 4.7 23.* 4.16

AXCESS 25.1 0

TC 4.7 11.25 4.0 4.45 13.82

TRACE 11.25 2.9 2.65 19.60

* Sum of all the electrical consumption

E-5
I .1 \ , 5' . - *

:• :• . , .. , " ' ' ’ " H , I " 1 ! . * -
Appendix F

Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Name of Respondee Address

Name of

Program

Claimed

Validation

% error

Greg F. Samds Ferendino/Graf ton/Spillis/

Candela

800 Douglas Rd.

Coral Gables, FL 33134

305-444-4691

In House- Manual

Calculations for

Retrofit Systems

1978

+10

Don Deyoe Southern California Gas

Company

810 So. Flower St.

Los Angeles, CA 90017

213-689-3056

ECUBE III

1/15/79

(In-House Program)

5

Huber H. Buehrer Buehrer & Stough

4246 Sylvania Ave.

Toledo, Ohio 43623

419-473-2741

In-House 1976 ±10

Stephen D. Heath Mitchell Webb

Associates, Inc.

1927 Fifth Ave.

Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92101

505-238-1522

ASHRAE 177 Varies bu

2% typica

Frank H. Bridgers Bridgers & Paxton

Consulting Engineers

713 Truman Ct., N.E.

Albuqueruqe, NM 87108

505-285-8577

In-House

Bridgers & Paxton

Energy Analysis

1978

±10

5% thermal

Gregory N. Cunniff Drapes Engineering

202 Eklund Bldg.

Great Falls, MT 59401

406-452-9558

In-House 10-50

John P. Lamb IBM Real Estate Div.

1000 Westchester Ave.

White Plains, NY 10604

914-696-6018

In-House- Uses

modified version

of NBSLD for loads

5-10

Don M. Sutton Oklahoma Gas Co.

Post Office Box 871

Tulsa, OK 74102

583-6161 x918

ECUBE ”7.5"

(In-house)

+5

+5

F-l
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Name of Respondee

R. G. Werden, P.E.

Bruce Birdsall

L. A. Abbatiello

Donald C. Pedreyra

Philip L. Frank

John S. Nelson

Address

Werden Associates

P.0. Box 414

Jenkintown, PA 19046

215-885-2500

The Ohio State Univ.

2003 Millikin Rd.

Columbus, OH 43210

614-422-5558

Oak Ridge National

Laboratory

Box Y, Bldg. 9102-1

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Donald Pedreyra, P.E.

Consulting Engineer

8536 E. Lehigh Ave.

Denver, CO 80237

330-773-1599

Westinghouse Electric

Corp.

2040 Ardmore Blvd.

Pittsburgh, PA 15221

412-256-3168

Affiliated Engrs., Inc.

(Affiliated Flud & Assoc.)

625 N. Segoe Road

Suite C

Madison, Wisconsin 53705

600-238-2616

Name of

program

Claimed

Validation

% error

In-House 2

Procedures to +10

Address Retrofit

Options for 11VAC

System 8/77

MAD II +5-15%

3/79

(In-House

Program)

BEACON 5

Dec. 1978

Load & Energy 1-2

Study

present version

TRNSYS 9.2 +20

Has Many

Substantial

In-House

Enhancements

TRACE 300 +20-100

F-2
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Name of Respondee Address

Name of

Program

Claimed

Validation

% error

Gene A. Donaldson (916)

Union Electric Co.

P.0. Box 149

St. Louis, MO 63166

314-621-3222

(Sta. 2048)

AXCESS V6

ESP-1

V1-L3

Also 001 RESML

Long Form

CBDP

Ventilation

Boiler

+10-+2

+10-+2

Long Form

Heating Pump

+10-+2

Michael Mark American Energy Service

727 Massachusetts Ave.

Cambridge, MA 02139

617-547-1845

Energy Analyst 20

Ronald N. Jensen NASA

Langley Research Ct.

Hampton, VA 23665

804-627-4641

NECHP

Oct. 1976

1-10

Donald L. Fenton New Mexico Solar

Energy Institute

Box 3-Sol, NMSU

Las Cruces, NM 88003

No name:

passive solar

energy program

utilizing hand

calculations

.

* 10

(one house)

Allan J. Thomson Yoneda Assoc. Ltd.

1905 7th Avenue

Regina, Saskatchewan

Canada, S4R1C1

1-306-525-5267

Meriwether

ESA

P.W.C. Version

< 5

J.M. Galbreath Sverdrup & Parcel

311 Plus Park Blvd.

Nashville, TN 37217

615-244-7584

EP

5-10

Robert D. Busch Bickle/CM

2403 San Mateo, N.E.

Suite S-8

Albuquerque, NM 87110

505-265-3751

Home Energy

Analysis

15

F-3
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Name of Respondee Address

Name of

Program

Claimed

Validation

% error

James J. Hirsch Lawrence Berkeley

Laboratory

Univ. of California

Berkeley, CA 94720

415-486-5711

DoE-2

2.0 2/1/79

Under

Study

Michael L. Gaudy GARD, Inc.

7449 N. Natchez

Niles, 111 60648

Scout 3

2-5

Douglas A. Laubach Galson Consulting

Engineers

6601 Kirkville Rd.

E. Syracuse, NY 13057

315-437-7181

20

H. M. Lau Park & Djwa Eng. Co.

1107 Seymour St.

Vancouver BC

Canada V6B3177

604-682-6796

R. Meriwether,

ESA CDN

10-15

Albert W. Black MEDSI

(Mechanical Engineering

Data Service, Inc.

)

2016 Big Bend

St. Louis, MO 63117

314-645-6232

In-House

MEDSI

William L. Glennie Princeton Energy Group

729 Alexander Road

Princeton, NJ 08540

609-452-8235

PEGFL0AT

Sept. 1978

5

J.L. Hughart Okla. Nat. Gas Co.

P.0. Box 871

Tulsa, OK 74102

918-583-6161

E-CUBE III

Refers to Don

Sutton '

s

+5

Patrick J. Hughes Science Applications Inc.

8400 Westpark Dr.

McLean, VA 22102

703-827-4917

TRNSYS 9 .2 but wit

personal

improvement

F-4
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Claimed

Name Validation

Name of Respondee Address Program % error

Bob Wesen Sullivan & Nessen

725 W. McDowell Rd.

Phoenix, AZ 85007 ANNALS ; 5

602-257-8525 In-House

Richard Shipman, Data Systems, Inc.

P.E. 290 Winchester St. AXCESS 6 < 10

Newton, MA 02161 Have used E , 617-744-3454 TRACE

ESP—I , EP, etc.

Robert E. Hamilton Robert Hamilton & Co.

1441 Kapiolani Blvd. ESP-1, 1, 2 5-10

Honolulu, Hawaii 96814

808-946-3650

09-29-78

E. I. Mackie, P.Eng. Reid Crowther & Partners

1033 Davie St.

EE SERIES 5-8

Vancouver BC

V6E-1M7

604-688-2451 «

R. G. Alvlne Raymond G. Alvlne APEC

& Assoc. , Inc. ESP-1

360 Aqulla Court

Omaha, NE 68102

402-346-7006

1978

E. B. Miller Miller & Weaver

2720 3rd Ave. S.

In-House 10

Birmingham, AL 35233

205-252-0246

Dr. Gideon Shavlt Honeywell In-House Function of

1500 W. Dundee Rd. BLDSIM Building

Arlington Heights,. IL 60004 9-78 Systems &

312-294-4000 x 629 Control 2 . 3 /

Paul L. Goodman Vansant & Gusler

Suit 400

6330 Newton Rd.

Norfolk, VA 23502

804-461-6757

TRACE 301 10

1

gI« Carl W. Glaser Engineered Energy APEC ESP-2 +5 ?• Management, Inc.

J.R. Tennlll & Assoc.

1023 Executive Parkway Dr.

St. Louis, M0 63141

314-576-1030

(Version) VIL 2

F-5
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Name of Respondee Address Program

Claimed

Validation

Z error

John F. Germ Geo. S. Campbell

& Assoc. , Inc.

Chattanooga, TN 37403

615-267-9718

TRACE . /

Arthur Abbood Shooshanian

Engineering Assoc.

129 Malden St.

Boston, Mass. 02118

617-426-0110

TRACE

E.P.

10+

5-10

Roger Wadsworth Personius-Wadsworth

P.0. Box 166

Horseheads, NY 14845

607-739-3847

ESP-1

1978

(by others)

5

C. J. Allen

R. J. Mauck

Albert Kahn

Associates , Inc

700 New Center Building

Detroit, Michigan 48202

313-871-8500

MA33

In-House, uses

APEC HCC 111

for the LOADS

portion of its

input

+5

James H. Stewart Paul Sprehe and Assoc.

5926 N. Main

Suite 511

Oklahoma City, OK 73112

405-840-1901

TRACE 301

-10 -

Thomas C. Chen, Daverman Assoc. , Inc.

200 Monroe Ave., N.W.

Grand Rapids, MI 49506

616-456-3500

BLESS

Load at

design

conditions

+7

S. A. Klein

J. W. Mitchell

Univ. of Wisconsin

Solar Energy Lab.

Madison, WI 53706

608-263-5626

TRNSYS

9.1
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Name of Respondee Address

Name of

Program

Claimed

Validation

% error

Edward Brady Pacific Gas and

Electric Company

77 Beale Street

San Francisco, CA 94106

781-4211

1.3

State

Certified

Program

Larry Palmiter Nat. Ctr. for App. Tech

Box 3838

Butte, MT 59701

406-723-5477

SUNCAT

In-House

RMS-2°F

measured

test cell

temps.

Douglas C. Hittle U.S. Army Construction

Engineering Research

Laboratory, (CERL)

P.0. Box 4005

Champaign, IL 61820

217-352-6511

BLAST

2.0 + 5%

Bob England Yoneda & Associates

1305 7th Ave.

Regina, Saskatchewan

S4R 1C1

306-525-5267

R. F. Meriwether

ESA

DPW CANADA

6%

Monthly

Alfred Greenberg Alfred Greenberg Assoc.

RD Box 235

Port Jervis, NY 12771

212-832-3100

MANUAL +20

Alfred Greenberg Geo-Energy Ltd.

Suite 2555

299 Park Ave.

New York, NY 10017

212-673-1829

ACCESS/

Version VI

±10

Laheri Mehta S&H Information Systems,

Inc.

110 W. 50th St.

New York, NY 10020

212-489-9212

SHISMODIFIED

AXCESS

1979

5-15

Robert Hadden Ross F. Meriwether

& Assoc.

1600 NE Loop 410

San Antonio, TX 78209

512-824-5302

ESA Series

3-9
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Name of Respondee Address

Name of

Program

Claimed

Validation

% error

G. K. Yuill UNIES Ltd.

1666 Dublin Ave.

Winnipeg, Canada

R3H0H1

204-633-6363

BLAST

1.2

10

Kasim

Sihnamohideen

Johnson Controls, Inc.

507 E. Mich. St.

Milwaukee, WI 53201

414-276-9200

OPT TWO

1978

5-10

Philip W. B. Niles Calif. State

Polytechnic Univ.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

805-546-2613

"Direct Gain

Admittance

Model"

. • Validated against data on 100%

solar heat test module (i.e.

floating temp.)

George W. Kimball GK Associates

157 Stanton Ave.

Auburndale, MA 02166

617-965-3291

TSD & GLASIM +3°

Edwin S. Douglas Edison Elec. Inst.

90 Park Ave.

New York, NY 10016

212-573-8773

AXCESS VI "Close"

Philip S. Alongi Walter R. Ratal, Inc.

6659 N. Sidney PI.

Milwaukee, WI 53209

414-352-7850

TRACE 400

±

10

C. B. Winn CSU Ft. Collins Co.

Ft. Collins, CO 80523

303-491-5166

SIMSHAC 1974

±10

C. B. Winn SEEC 2524 E. Vine Dr.

Ft. Collins, CO 80523

303-221-5166

SEEC I 1978

+10

Based on

F CHART

F-8
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Claimed

Name of Respondee Address

Name of

Program

Validation

% error

Bruce T. Maeda Davis Alternative

Technology Assoc.

P.0. Box 503

Davis, CA 95616

916-756-9300

TP SIM

currently InHouse

w/temp

.

monitoring

over short

time periods

Dwayne Murphy The Trane Co.

3600 Pammel

Creek Rd. (17-2)

LaCrosse, WI 54601

608-787-3858

TRACE

VERSION 400

Robert Romancheck PA Power & Light Co.

2 N. 9th St.

Allentown, PA 18101

215-821-4462

In-House

+10-15

Ralph M. Lebens Arcaed

8 Paddington St.

London Wl , U.K.

01-487-2641

PDP

( + heating load

& cost benefit)

Aug. 77

2"F

difference in

max. room air

temp

.

Paul Sullivan Total Environmental

Action Inc.

Church Hill

Harrisville, NH 03450

603-827-3374

TEANET

<1°

test

cell date

Louis A. Trama Hovem-Basso Assoc.

25 W. Long Lake Rd.

Bimeld Hills, MI 48013

313-645-0400

ECUBE 75

G. M. Kaler, Jr. Lennox Industries Inc.

P.0. Box 400450

Dallas, TX 75240

214-783-5405

CALERDA 1.4L 7.5

Dr. Firky L.

Lansing

Jet Propulsion Lab.

4800 Oak Grove Dr.

Pasadena, CA 91103

Mail 79-5

213-354-2936

ECP Sept. 78

+10 max

on-going

activity

F-9
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Name of Re spondee Address

Name of

Program

Claimed

Valiation

% error

E. F. Sowell Cal. State Fullerton

Div. of Engr., E 100

Fullerton, CA 92634

714-773-2261

BLAST

1.2

Richard E. Lampe WTA/CSI

2357 59th Street

St. Louis, MO 63110

HACE

5

Irwin Herbst Meyer Strong & Jones

230 Park Ave.

New York, NY 10017

212-867-2010

In-House

estimate i slightly

Rodney L. Oonk Solaron Corp.

720 S. Colorado Blvd.

Denver, CO 80222

303-759-0101

FChart (whenever

possible)

Glyn Bees ley Herman Blum C.E., Inc.

1015 Elm

Dallas, TX 75202

214-741-7701

TRACE

Roger T. Liellis Martin Marietta

P.0. Box 179

Denver, CO 80209

303-973-3853

FTS-329-3853

MITAS

FTN

< 1

Edward C. Brohl Ames Laboratory

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa 50011

515-294-6844

FCHART

3.0

5-10

R.D. Ulrich Brigham Young Univ.

242 JB Provo, Utah 84602

801-374-1211 x2625

In-House +20

John Morgan AECON, Inc.

217 Suf field Village

Suf field, CT 06078

203-668-0288

In-House Varies

Charles S. Barnaby Berkeley Solar Group

3026 Shattuck Ave.

Berkeley, CA 94705

415-843-7600

NBSGLD

In-House

enhanced NBSLD

NBSLD

F-10
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Name of Respondee Address

Name of

Program

Claimed

Validation

% error

George Lauger George Lauger C.E.

114 East 32nd St.

New York, NY 10016

212-689-9393

ASHRAE 3-5

Zulfikar Cumali CCB/Cumali Assoc.

2930 Lakeshore Ave.

Oakland, CA 94610

415-463-0511

CCB/CALERDA 3-8

Peter Willings H. H. Angus & Assoc. Ltd.

1127 Lescue St.

Don Mills Ontario

Canada

449-5056 (416)

ESA

Canadian

Term requires

more precise

definition

The Haskell Co. Gary L. Wingfield

720 Gilmore St.

Jax, FL 32204

904-358-1601

ESP-1

12/78

10

Mark D. Levine

Dave Goldstein

Lawrence Berkeley Lab.

Berkeley, CA 94720

415-486-5328

TWOZONE

Compared with

average data

+20% or bette:

Edgar C. Jones Ferebee, Walters & Assoc.

5672 International Drive

Charlotte, NC 28211

704-364-8220

ECAL

In-House

2%+

David 0. Northrup Univ. of Texas, School

of Architecture

Austin, TX 70712

512-471-4911

DER0B

1979

5-10

Jack A. Foster Gorman Design Inc.

2176 Whitehaven Rd.

New York, NY

+8

Frank S. Wang The Dow Chemical Co.

Larkin Lab.

Midland, MI 48640

517-636-4478

Version 1 Sept. 1977

01 In-House

FINITE ELEMENT

THERMAL ANALYSIS

1978

Analytic

solution,

field test

10-15%

George Bush Lawrence Livermore Lab.

Box 808, L-46

Livermore, CA 94550

415-422-1463

TRNSYS

F-ll
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Claimed

Name of Respondee Address

Name of

Program

Validation

% error

Ed Hoover Energy Systems Center

Desert Research Inst.

1500 Buchanan Blvd.

Boulder City, NV 89005

702-293-4217

TRNSYS

9-1

In some cases

Joseph Reitblatt Singer

502 Sunnyvale

Wilmington, NC 28401

919-791-8510

Engr. 63

Engr. 64

1-1-79

23

In-House

Stuart Fauna Inst. Energy Conversion

Univ. of Delaware

Wilmington, DE 19808

302-955-7155

TRNSYS

Margaret Stallings Institute of Energy

Conversion

University of Delaware

One Pike Creek Center

Wilmington, DE 19808

Project

Conserve I Sept. 1977

±10

Chaney Texas Electric Service Co.

Box 97A

Ft. Worth, TX

817-856-1411

AXCESS VI

10/1/78

EE I has

validation

data

Leonard J. Hayward Acco Air Conditioning

6265 San Fernando Rd.

Glendale, CA 91201

1-213-244-6571

TRACE

1978

20

Robert M. Helm Energy Management Service

0435 S.W. Iowa

Portland, OR 97201

503-244-3613

EP

Jan. 79

+10

on from pt. of

matching existing

bldg, consumption

Eugene A. Carter Univ. of Alabama Huntsville

P.0. Box 1247

Huntsville, AL 35805

205-895-6331

Liv & Jordon

Temps & Coulson

Becker & Boyd Jan. 79

Mitchell A. Woodward Bernard Johnson Inc.

5050 Westheimer

Houston, TX 77056

713-622-1400

TRACE

300-400

10

F-12
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedure Validation

Name of Respondee

Virgil E. Carrier

William E. Schultz

Charles H. Patterson

T . Kusuda

Umesh K. Bhargava

R.D. McFarland

Robert B. Kinney

Flemming U. Nielsen

Address

Name of

Program

Energy Management

Consultants

7456 West 5th Ave.

Denver, CO 80226

303-232-0522

Wyle Laboratories

7800 Governors Dr.

Huntsville, AL 35807

205-453-3240

Tenn. Valley Authority

DB-PSC-5C

Chattanooga, TN 37401

615-755-3841

National Bureau of

Standards

Rm. 104 B

Bldg. 226

Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-3501

Mueller Assoc., Inc.

1900 Sulphur Spring Rd.

Baltimore, MD 21227

301-247-566

LASL MS/571

Los Alamos, NM 87545

505-667-2620

Univ. of Arizona

Aerospace and Mech.

Engineering

Tucson, AZ 85721

602-795-8388

D.W. Thomson Consultants

1690 W. Broadway

Vancouver, BC V7C1T7

Canada

604-731-4921

ESP-1

also several

others

SINDA

See note on questionnaire

NBSLD

NBSWHF

ECUBE 75

PASOLE

1978

In-House

TRACE

300

Claimed

Validation

% error

+5

0

1

+10

10-20

room temperature

calculation

validated

13

(Partially

completed)

F-13
Energy Analysis Calculation Procedures Validation

Name of Respondee Address

Claimed

Name of Validation

Program % error

W. Spiegel Walter F. Spiegel, Inc.

Consulting Engineers

321 York Road

Jenkintown, PA 19046

THERML 3-20

1 . THERML-LOAD CALL

2. MERIWETHER-ENERGY

3. TRACE-ENERGY

Energy only TRACE

Richard J. Slichta Xerox Corp. - W304

Xerox Square

Rochester, NY 14644

716-422-3684

5

HCC-111

LEVEL 03

F-14
MBS.1I4A (rev. »- 76 )

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 80-2068

3. ffecifnent's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

REVIEW OF CURRENT CALCULATION PROCEDURES FOR BUILDING

ENERGY ANALYSIS

5. Publication Date July 1980

7. AUTtfOiMS)

742. Ox

Tamami Kusuda

8. Performing Organ. Report No. NBSIR 80-2068

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, state, zip)

Office of Building and Community Systems

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

14, Sponsoring Agency CodeT’

• i :

> o' ±A, ~ 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I | Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

IS. ABSTRACT (A 200*word or leaa factual summary of moat significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or

literature surveyt mention it here,) Existing calculation procedures for building energy analysis, both computer-based and

manual, were surveyed by questionnaires to determine the extent to which they were

used and their technical content. It was found that most of the Nation's building

energy consumption analyses are done by computerized simulation of HVAC system and

equipment performance. This report provides brief descriptions of some energy analysis

procedures which merit further study. It also identifies items not covered in the

existing procedures which need to be developed for the improvement of energy calculation

technology.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries ; alphabetical order; capitalize only the firat letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by a emi colons) Calculation procedures; computer simulation; energy analysis; energy conservation

18. AVAILABILITY [^Unlimited

I | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I I Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

[y~l Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,

VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

60

22. Price

$7.00

USCOMM-DC
E

'