A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Energy Design Guides for 

Army Barracks 

Preprint 

M. Deru 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

A. Zhivov and D. Herron 

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

To be presented at the 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on 

Energy Efficiency in Buildings 

Pacific Grove, California 

August 17–22, 2008 

Conference Paper 

NREL/CP-550-43292 

August 2008 

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a 

contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US 

Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Energy Design Guides for Army Barracks1

Michael Deru National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Alexander Zhivov and Dale Herron, 

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

ABSTRACT 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires federal facilities to be built to achieve 30% 

energy savings over the 2004 International Energy Code or American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2004, as appropriate. 

The Engineer Research and Development Center of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are developing target energy budgets and 

design guides with a prescriptive path to achieve 30% energy savings over a baseline built to the 

minimum requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. This project covers 

eight building types in 15 U.S. climate zones. The building types include barracks, 

administrative buildings, a maintenance facility, a dining facility, a child development center, 

and an Army reserve center. All the design guides will be completed by the end of 2008. This 

paper focuses on the design guide for one type of barracks called unaccompanied enlisted 

personal housing (UEPH). The UEPH buildings are similar to apartment buildings with double 

occupancy units. For each building type, a baseline was established following typical Army 

construction and ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Appendix G modeling rules. 

Improvements in energy performance were achieved for the envelope using the NREL 

optimization platform for commercial buildings and previous ASHRAE design guides. Credit 

was also taken for tightening the building envelope by using proposed envelope leakage rates 

from ASHRAE and the Army. Two HVAC systems, including a dedicated outdoor air system, 

were considered. The final results achieved 29% site energy savings in two climates and greater 

than 30% site energy savings in all other climates. 

Results of this study were implemented in the Army’s standard RFP process for new 

UEPH barracks construction in late 2007. New UEPH design/construction begun in 2008 and 

beyond will require the contractor to design and construct a UEPH facility that meets the target 

energy budget developed in this study using either a custom design or the design guide’s 

prescriptive path developed as part of this study. 

Introduction 

Section 109 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) states that for new federal 

facilities “the buildings be designed to achieve energy consumption levels that are at least 30 

percent below the levels established in the version of the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard or the International Energy 

 1 This work has been authored by employees of the Midwest Research Institute under Contract No. DE-AC36-

99GO10337 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by 

accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paidup, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, 

for United States Government purposes. 

1 
Conservation Code, as appropriate” (U.S. Congress 2005). The energy efficient designs must be 

life cycle cost effective; however, “cost effective” is not defined in the law and left up to each 

federal agency to define. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued additional guidance in 

the Federal Register (NARA 2006), which states that savings calculations should not include the 

plug loads and implies that the savings shall be determined through energy cost savings. The 

U.S. Army decided it would use site energy for the HVAC, lighting, and hot water loads to 

determine the energy savings. 

The U.S. Army constructs buildings across the country and wanted to streamline the 

process of meeting the energy savings requirements. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) worked with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to develop baseline 

and target energy budgets and design guides with one prescriptive path for achieving 30% or 

more energy savings. ASHRAE is providing expert review of the design guides. The project 

covers eight building types over all U.S. climate zones: basic training barracks, unaccompanied 

enlisted personal housing (UEPH), battalion headquarters, tactical equipment maintenance 

facilities, dining facilities, child development centers, Army reserve centers, and company 

operations. This paper focuses on the UEPH design guide; however, the process for developing 

all the design guides is similar. 

The model for these design guides was adapted from the Advanced Energy Design 

Guides (AEDGs) from ASHRAE (2008). Each AEDG was developed for a specific building 

type and provides recommendation tables for each of the eight major climate zones and a “howto” section on implementing the recommendations. The AEDGs do not provide baseline and 

target energy budgets, which are used by the Army in its requests for proposals. 

Approach 

All energy simulations for the UEPH were carried out with EnergyPlus version 2.0 (DOE 

2008). NREL is part of the EnergyPlus development team and has developed additional 

programs that work with EnergyPlus. These programs work together to create input files, 

manage the numerous simulations, provide optimization, and post process the results. The 

optimization engine, called Opt-E-Plus, is used to help optimize building designs based on 

energy performance, energy cost performance, or life cycle cost performance. 

The first step in this type of whole building energy simulation project is to define the 

baseline building models, which in this case meet the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-

2004 following the Appendix G guidelines (ASHRAE 2004a). We followed Appendix G with 

three exceptions, which were approved by DOE. The first is to use site energy without plug 

loads as our metric for savings. This exception is a combination of the EPAct 2005 guidance 

from DOE to not include plug loads and a decision by the Army to use site energy. The second 

exception is to use the nonresidential tables for all buildings including barracks. A three story 

barracks falls under the residential requirements of Standard 90.1-2004; however, the Army 

builds some barracks four or more stories, which is included in the nonresidential portion of the 

standard. Finally, Standard 90.1-2004 does not contain building air leakage and infiltration 

levels. We define a baseline air leakage rate and an energy efficient leakage rate and include this 

in our energy efficiency strategies. 

Building Description 

The UEPH barracks are similar to apartment buildings. The model used for this study 

contained 78 double occupancy units for a total capacity of 156 personnel. Each apartment unit 

2 
has two bedrooms with a storage area, a bathroom, and a kitchen as shown in Figure 1. The first 

floor has 24 units, a laundry room, a common area, a large mechanical room, and a storage area. 

The second and third floors have 27 units and a laundry room. Each floor is 18,403 ft2

 and the 

building is 55,209 ft2. A rendering of the baseline computer model is shown in Figure 2. 

Figure 1 Section of the first floor plan for the UEPH barracks 

Locations 

Fifteen locations were selected to represent 15 climate zones in the United States (Briggs 

et al. 2003). We selected Colorado Springs for climate zone 5B instead of Boise, Idaho, to more 

closely align with the installations at Fort Carson. The 15 climate zones and the cities used to 

represent the climate zones are shown in Table 2. 

Energy Modeling 

The energy simulations were completed using EnergyPlus version 2.0 (DOE 2008). All 

simulations were completed with the NREL analysis platform that manages EnergyPlus 

simulations. The modeling assumptions used in the baseline and energy efficient models are 

shown in Table 1. 

The approach to modeling the energy efficiency improvements was to add one 

improvement at a time starting with the envelope then infiltration and HVAC. The approach to 

modeling each of these areas is presented in the following sections. 

3 
Figure 2 Rendering of the baseline energy simulation model 

Table 1 Model Assumptions 

Building 

Component Baseline Building Model Efficient Building Model 

Area 55,209 ft2 (5,088 m2) Same as baseline 

Floors 3 Same as baseline 

Aspect ratio 2.0 Same as baseline 

Orientation Long axis running east and west Same as baseline 

Window to wall 

ratio 19% on north and south facades Same as baseline 

Window type Standard 90.1-2004 See Table 2 

Wall construction Steel frame Same as baseline 

Wall insulation Standard 90.1-2004 See Table 2 

Roof construction 

Sloped roof and attic with insulation at the 

roof level 

Sloped metal roof and attic with insulation at 

the ceiling level 

Roof insulation 

Standard 90.1-2004 equal to the 

“insulation entirely above deck” See Table 2 

Roof albedo 0.08 0.3 

Infiltration 0.40 cfm/ft2 @ 0.3 in w.g. 0.25 cfm/ft2 @ 0.3 in w.g. 

Lighting Rooms - 1.0 W/ft2 (10.8 W/m2) 

Corridors: 0.6 W/ft2

 (6.5 W/m2) 

Same as baseline 

Plug loads 1.7 W/ft2 plus refrigerator and range Same as baseline 

Temp set points 70oF heating; 75oF cooling, no set back Same as baseline 

HVAC PSZ with DX-AC (3.0 COP) and gas 

furnace (0.8 Et) Sys. 1: PSZ with DX-AC (3.5 COP) and gas 

furnace (0.9 Et) 

Sys. 3: DOAS with DX dehumidification 

(3.5 COP), gas heating coil (0.9 Et), ERV 

(70% effectiveness), 4-pipe FCUs for zone 

temperature control. 

DHW Natural gas boiler (0.8 Et) Natural gas boiler (0.9 Et) 

4 
Envelope 

As stated in the Approach section, the Army decided to use the nonresidential portion of 

Standard 90.1 for all its building types, even though the building used for this study falls under 

the residential requirements. The nonresidential envelope insulation levels are slightly lower 

than the residential insulation levels. Simulations were completed comparing the residential 

IECC-2004 requirements and Standard 90.1-2004 nonresidential energy requirements for this 

building. Annual energy use in the nonresidential Standard 90.1-2004 compliant building ranged 

from 2% lower in San Francisco to 15% higher in Duluth with an average difference over 14 

locations of 7% more energy required in the Standard 90.1-2004 compliant building than in the 

IECC-2004 compliant building. 

The first steps to determine the optimal envelope improvements were completed using 

the NREL optimization platform, Opt-E-Plus. The program finds the optimal solutions of a large 

set of selected envelope features based on initial capital costs, operational energy costs, and 

maintenance costs over a defined time period. The capital and maintenance cost data are based 

on the information used by ASHRAE for Standard 90.1 development. The utility costs are based 

on typical utility costs for each location, which are probably higher than the rates used by the 

Army; however, the Army rates for each location were not known. Higher energy costs would 

lead to more energy efficient strategies, which was taken into account when reviewing the 

results. The analysis period was set to 30 years. 

Optimization runs for wall and roof insulation levels and window types were carried out 

for five locations for the training barracks and UEPH and nine locations for the battalion 

headquarters (BHQ). Solutions were selected by location that produced high energy savings and 

maintained low capital cost increases. The optimization results for the BHQ in Houston are 

shown Figures 3 and 4. Each dot represents one simulation with a different combination of 

features. The results are shown for the effects on the capital costs as well as the capital, energy, 

and maintenance costs over 30 years. The minimum 30 year cost point provides about a 5% 

energy savings; the optimal point provides more than 8% savings, but at a much higher first cost. 

Figure 4 shows how a group of near optimal solutions was selected that produced the highest 

savings and kept the increase in first costs to less than 1.5%. The final solutions were manually 

selected from these near optimal solutions for each optimized location in a way that kept 

consistency in the insulation and windows across the climate zones. The results for these 

locations were applied to the other locations based on similar heating and cooling degree days 

and the need to keep the results simple and easy to implement. 

All optimization runs were completed with an attic roof construction and generic wall 

constructions using an effective overall R-value. The final recommendations were determined 

from a review of the optimization results. The final recommendations shown in Table 2 were 

selected to have the lowest first cost increase with good performance. A large part of the 

performance improvement comes from changing the construction of the roof from “insulation 

entirely above deck,” as required for the baseline in Standard 90.1-2004 Appendix G, to the 

vented attic with the insulation at the ceiling level. 

5 
Figure 3 Envelope optimization results for Houston showing change in cost 

with energy savings 

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

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

Percent Change in Net Site Energy 

Percent Change in Cost

Capital + Energy Cost Over 30 Years

Initial Capital Cost 

Figure 4 Envelope optimization results for Houston showing optimal solutions 

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

-2.0% -1.5% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

Percent Change in Capital Plus Energy Costs Over 30 Years

Percent Change in Capital Cost

s

All Points

6% <= Site Energy Savings < 7%

Site Energy Savings >= 7% 

Points selected for 

lowest cost optimal 

solutions

6 
Table 2 Recommended Envelope Energy Conservation Measures 

Zone City 

Total 

Wall Ins.

(ft2

·h·F 

/Btu) 

Attic Ins. 

(ft2

·h·F 

/Btu) 

Slab Ins. 

(ft2

·h·F 

/Btu) 

Window 

U-Btu/ 

ft2

·h·F SHGC 

1A Miami, FL 20 40 0 0.45 0.31 

2A Houston, TX 20 40 0 0.45 0.31 

2B Phoenix, AZ 20 40 0 0.45 0.31 

3A Memphis, TN 20 40 0 0.45 0.31 

3B El Paso, TX 20 40 0 0.45 0.31 

3C San Francisco, CA 20 40 0 0.45 0.31 

4A Baltimore, MD 25 50 0 0.42 0.46 

4B Albuquerque, NM 25 50 0 0.42 0.46 

4C Seattle, WA 25 50 0 0.42 0.46 

5A Chicago, IL 25 50 0 0.42 0.46 

5B Colorado Springs, CO 25 50 0 0.42 0.46 

6A Burlington, VT 30 60 0 0.42 0.46 

6B Helena, MT 30 60 0 0.42 0.46 

7A Duluth, MN 30 60 0 0.33 NR 

8A Fairbanks, AK 30 60 10 0.33 NR 

Infiltration 

It is difficult to obtain good data and develop detailed models of infiltration. Every 

building has different leakage characteristics, and the infiltration varies with operation of the 

building and ambient conditions. Most often, we use an average constant infiltration rate in the 

energy model. A proposal to ASHRAE to include building air tightness in Standard 90.1-2004 

includes a maximum building leakage rate of 0.4 cfm/ft2 at 0.3 in w.g. (2.0 L/s·m2 at 75 Pa) as 

determined by a building pressurization test. This air tightness was assumed to be the baseline 

leakage rate. The U.S. Army has proposed in its new construction regulations that the leakage 

rate for its new buildings not exceed 0.25 cfm/ft2

 at 0.3 in w.g. (1.3 L/s·m2 at 75 Pa), which was 

assumed for the energy efficient building models. 

Several assumptions still have to be made to go from these leakage rates to the simple 

infiltration model in the building simulation. The infiltration at these leakage rates and pressures 

were calculated based on the total wall and flat roof area of the building, then converted to a 

pressure of 5 Pa assuming a flow coefficient of 0.65. We assumed that the average pressure drop 

across the building envelop is 0.02 in w.g. (5 Pa). Wind pressure and temperature differentials 

across the building envelope drive the infiltration and these driving forces vary throughout the 

year; however, we are not modeling these variations in the simulations. We assume that a 

constant air changes per hour will model the average effects over the year and in different 

locations. This is a gross assumption, but one that is necessary without moving to more 

complicated flow network simulations. Table 3 shows the infiltration at these two leakage rates. 

The mechanical ventilation system pressurizes the building by providing outside air equal 

to the building exhaust plus the air leakage at 0.02 in w.g. (5 Pa). Infiltration is often assumed to 

7 
go to zero when buildings are pressurized. This assumption is usually made because there is a 

lack of evidence to about what really happens and how to model it in an energy simulation. We 

have assumed that the average uncontrolled infiltration when the building is pressurized is 

reduced to 10% of the value calculated at 0.02 in w.g. (5 Pa). The difference in the leakage rates 

between the two air tightness levels was accounted for in the outdoor ventilation rates for the 

baseline and energy efficient models. 

Table 3 Infiltration Leakage Rates 

0.4 cfm/ft2 0.25 cfm/ft2

ACH at 0.3 in w.g. (75 Pa) 1.51 0.62 

ACH at 0.02 in w.g. (5 Pa) 0.22 0.09 

Excess ventilation flow at 0.02 in w.g. (cfm) 2,950 1,211 

Excess ventilation flow at 5 Pa (L/s) 1,392 572 

Ventilation 

The ventilation was set to provide 90 cfm of outside air to each apartment unit to make 

up for the bathroom exhaust and control humidity, which is greater than the ventilation 

requirements from ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004 (ASHRAE 2004b). This level of ventilation is 

based on experience with Army barracks. Additional outside air was added to the whole 

building to make up for the leakage rate at 0.02 in w.g. (5 Pa) pressurization as shown in Table 3. 

Hot water 

Hot water use was assumed to be 30 gal/day/occupant at 110oF with a peak draw of 40 

gal/h per unit from a 140oF storage tank. The peak washing machine use per floor is assumed to 

be four loads per hour or 80 gal/h of 120oF hot water, which is approximately 53 gal/h from a 

140oF storage tank. 

Plug Loads 

We assumed that each bedroom has a computer, stereo, television, and other smaller 

electronic devices for a plug load density of 1.7 W/ft2

. Each kitchen contains a refrigerator and 

an electric range. The refrigerator was assumed to be very efficient with an average power 

consumption of 76 W, and the range was assumed to have a peak power of 1,500 W. There are 

14 washing machines in the building (4 on the first floor and 5 on the second and third floors). 

With a 90% occupancy rate for the building, there are 140 occupants. Three loads per occupant 

per week for 420 loads/week or 60 loads/day were assumed. ENERGY STAR® commercial 

washing machines use approximately 20 gallons of water per load and 0.60 kWh of electricity 

per load. The dryers were assumed to use 1.5 kWh of electricity per load. 

HVAC and Hot Water 

The baseline HVAC system uses packaged single zone air conditioning (PSZ-AC) units 

with a natural gas furnace in each zone. A high efficiency version of the baseline and a 

dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) with fan coil units were considered for the energy efficient 

cases. The first system was modeled with an increase in coefficient of performance (COP) to 

3.5, increased gas furnace efficiency to 0.9, and improved fan efficiency. In the second case, the 

DOAS provided the building ventilation air and zone level fan coil units were used to control 

8 
zone loads. The DOAS included a packaged direct expansion coil for cooling and humidity 

control, hot water coil for heating energy, and an energy recovery ventilator (ERV). The ERV 

was modeled with sensible heat recovery only at 75% to 70% effectiveness at 75% to 100% air 

flow. Later simulations included latent heat recovery. Frost control for the ERV was handled 

with the exhaust only method in EnergyPlus, which bypasses the supply air around the ERV to 

avoid frost conditions. The system was operated with an outdoor air temperature (OAT) reset on 

supply air temperature (SAT). The SAT set point schedule was colder with higher OAT and 

warmer with colder OAT. The set point at high OAT was lower in the humid climates for better 

humidity control and higher in the dry climates for more energy savings. The space loads are 

met with 4-pipe fan coil units connected to a central chiller and boiler. The central chiller and 

boiler are assumed to be outside the building boundary and are not improved above minimum 

efficiencies; however, the energy use from these systems is included in the building total energy 

use and energy saving calculations. The central chiller is assumed to have a COP of 5 and the 

central boiler is assumed to have a thermal efficiency of 80%. 

The service water heating system in the baseline building models uses an 80% efficient 

boiler. The energy efficient models use a 90% efficient boiler and gray water heat recovery on 

the shower water with an assumed savings of 20% (FEMP 2005). The only way to make this 

measure economical is to gang six or more showers together per drain heat recovery unit, which 

may not be physically practical. 

Results 

The annual energy use intensity for each climate as simulated by EnergyPlus forms the 

baseline energy budget. The target energy budget is 70% of these baseline values. The site 

energy use intensities with and without plug loads for the baseline and target energy budgets are 

shown in Table 4 for each climate zone. Breakouts of the energy consumption by end use are 

shown in Figure 5. 

The simulated results for the energy efficient designs including the envelope, infiltration, 

grey water heat recovery, and HVAC energy conservation measures are shown in Tables 5 and 6. 

Table 5 shows the savings for each efficiency measure. The improvements to the envelope and 

lighting were simulated together; therefore, there is one number. The DOAS with ERV system 

showed the best performance in all locations except Phoenix and El Paso, where the high 

efficiency PSZ-AC system had the best performance. The total site energy savings exceeded 

30% for all locations except for Phoenix and El Paso, which showed 29% savings. 

9 
Table 4 Energy Budgets by Climate Zone with and without Plug Loads 

Climate 

Zone City 

With Plug Loads Without Plug Loads 

Baseline 

(kBtu/ft2

) 

Target 

(kBtu/ft2) 

Baseline 

(kBtu/ft2) 

Target 

(kBtu/ft2) 

1A Miami, FL 102 72 82 58 

2A Houston, TX 102 72 82 57 

2B Phoenix, AZ 65 46 45 32 

3A Memphis, TN 91 64 71 50 

3B El Paso, TX 63 44 42 30 

3C San Francisco, CA 67 47 47 33 

4A Baltimore, MD 95 67 75 52 

4B Albuquerque, NM 68 48 48 34 

4C Seattle, WA 80 56 60 42 

5A Chicago, IL 97 68 77 54 

5B Colorado Springs, CO 75 52 54 38 

6A Burlington, VT 103 72 83 58 

6B Helena, MT 88 62 68 47 

7A Duluth, MN 111 78 91 64 

8A Fairbanks, AK 143 100 123 86 

Figure 5 Energy use by end use for the baseline buildings 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1A 2A 2B 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 6A 6B 7A 8A

Climate

Annual Total Site Energy (MWh)

Heating

Cooling 

Heat Rejection 

SWH

Pumps 

Fans 

Interior Equipment 

Interior Lighting 

10 
Table 5 Savings by Efficiency Measure without Plug Loads 

Zone City Insulation, 

Windows, 

Infiltration, 

& Lighting 

Grey 

Water HR 

DOAS & 

ERV 

High eff 

PSZ-AC 

1A Miami, FL 24% 1% 26% 8% 

2A Houston, TX 23% 2% 30% 8% 

2B Phoenix, AZ 18% 3% 5% 8% 

3A Memphis, TN 16% 2% 32% 9% 

3B El Paso, TX 17% 4% 5% 8% 

3C San Francisco, CA 19% 4% 19% 8% 

4A Baltimore, MD 17% 2% 35% 9% 

4B Albuquerque, NM 18% 4% 15% 8% 

4C Seattle, WA 19% 3% 31% 8% 

5A Chicago, IL 13% 3% 40% 9% 

5B Colorado Springs, CO 16% 4% 25% 8% 

6A Burlington, VT 12% 3% 42% 9% 

6B Helena, MT 15% 3% 34% 8% 

7A Duluth, MN 13% 3% 43% 9% 

8A Fairbanks, AK 13% 2% 44% 10% 

Table 6 Total Energy Efficient Design Solutions without Plug Loads 

Zone City Baseline 

(kBtu/ft2

) 

System 1: High 

Efficiency PSZ-AC 

System 2: DOAS, ERV, 

4-Pipe Fan Coil 

(kBtu/ft2) Savings (kBtu/ft2) Savings 

1A Miami, FL 82 55 34% 40 51% 

2A Houston, TX 82 55 33% 37 55% 

2B Phoenix, AZ 45 32 29% 34 25% 

3A Memphis, TN 71 52 27% 35 50% 

3B El Paso, TX 42 30 29% 31 26% 

3C San Francisco, CA 47 33 31% 27 42% 

4A Baltimore, MD 75 54 28% 34 55% 

4B Albuquerque, NM 48 34 30% 30 37% 

4C Seattle, WA 60 42 30% 28 53% 

5A Chicago, IL 77 58 24% 35 55% 

5B Colorado Springs, CO 54 39 28% 30 44% 

6A Burlington, VT 83 63 24% 36 57% 

6B Helena, MT 68 49 27% 32 53% 

7A Duluth, MN 91 68 25% 37 59% 

8A Fairbanks, AK 123 92 25% 49 60% 

Conclusions 

EPAct 2005 sets energy performance levels to reduce energy use in federal facilities. 

The USACE determined the best way to meet the requirements of the new law for the large 

number of new buildings it anticipates was to develop standard baseline buildings and set target 

energy budgets. USACE also wanted a prescriptive path to meet the energy savings 

requirements. The target energy budgets and the prescriptive recommendations are put in the 

11 
12 

requests for proposals for new buildings. Contractors may either follow the prescriptive path or 

do their own energy calculations to show compliance with the 30% energy savings. 

Design guides for eight building types are being developed for the Army. This paper 

presents the results of developing target energy budgets and an energy design guide for a UEPH 

barracks. The approach used for the other seven building types is similar to that presented in this 

paper, with modifications based on the building systems and improvements based on knowledge 

gained from the previous design guides. The energy savings in two of the climates zones 

reached only 29%; however, energy savings of 50% or greater were shown possible in 10 climate 

zones for the UEPH barracks. The results are strongly dependent on the model assumptions and 

may or may not be realized in actual buildings. 

Results of this study were implemented in the Army’s standard RFP process for new 

UEPH barracks construction in late 2007. New UEPH design/construction begun in 2008 and 

beyond will require the Contractor to design and construct a UEPH facility that meets the target 

energy budget developed in this study using either a custom design or the design guide’s 

prescriptive path developed as part of this study. Results for the other building types will be 

incorporated into the Army’s RFP process in 2008 for 2009 and beyond for new construction. 

References 

ASHRAE (2004a). Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. ANSI/ 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers. 

ASHRAE (2004b). Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2004. 

Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. 

ASHRAE (2008). Advanced Energy Design Guides. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. www.ashrae.org/publications/page/1604 

Briggs, R.S., Lucas, R.G., and Taylor, T. (2003). Climate Classification for Building Energy Codes and 

Standards: Part 2 - Zone Definitions, Maps and Comparisons, Technical and Symposium Papers, 

ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January, 2003. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. 

DOE (2008). EnergyPlus, Building Energy Simulation Software web site. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Energy. www.EnergyPlus.gov. 

FEMP (2005). Heat Recovery from Wastewater Using a Gravity-Film Heat Exchanger. DOE/EE-0247 

Revised, Federal Energy Management Program, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. 

NARA (2006). Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 232. pp.70275-70284. Washington, D.C.: National Archives 

and Records Administration. 

U.S. Congress (2005). Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). Washington, 

D.C. 
F1147-E(09/2007) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

August 2008 

2. REPORT TYPE

Conference Paper 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Energy Design Guides for Army Barracks: Preprint 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

M. Deru, A. Zhivov, and D. Herron 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/CP-550-43292 

5e. TASK NUMBER

WF5N1000 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/CP-550-43292 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

The Engineer Research and Development Center of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory are developing target energy budgets and design guides with a prescriptive path to achieve 30% 

energy savings over a baseline built to the minimum requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. 

This project covers eight building types in 15 U.S. climate zones. The building types include barracks, administrative 

buildings, a maintenance facility, a dining facility, a child development center, and an Army reserve center. This 

paper focuses on the design guide for one type of barracks called unaccompanied enlisted personal housing, which 

are similar to apartment buildings with double occupancy units. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

army, barracks; unaccompanied enlisted personal housing; UEPH 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18