AIA 2013: Facts on the Ground: Testing the Performance of Ft. Carson's Green Buildings

SA 211

Saturday, June 22, 2013, 8:30 AM - 10:00 AM

Learning Units [As published]

Facts on the Ground: Testing the Performance of Fort Carson's Green Buildings

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/195803

This presentation is protected by U.S.

and international copyright laws.

Reproduction, distribution, display and

use of the presentation without written

permission of the speaker is prohibited.

This program is registered with AIA CES for continuing

professional education. As such, it does not include

content that may be deemed or construed to constitute

approval, sponsorship or endorsement by the AIA of any

method, product, service, enterprise or organization. The

statements expressed by speakers, panelists, and other

participants reflect their own views and do not necessarily

reflect the views or positions of The AIA or of AIA

components, or those of their respective officers,

directors, members, employees, or other organizations,

groups or individuals associated with them. Questions

related to specific products, publications, and services

may be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

This program is registered with AIA CES for continuing

professional education. As such, it does not include

content that may be deemed or construed to constitute

approval, sponsorship or endorsement by the AIA of any

method, product, service, enterprise or organization. The

statements expressed by speakers, panelists, and other

participants reflect their own views and do not necessarily

reflect the views or positions of The AIA or of AIA

components, or those of their respective officers,

directors, members, employees, or other organizations,

groups or individuals associated with them. Questions

related to specific products, publications, and services

may be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

Course Description

How many green buildings today are performing as designed? Real leadership in green building means not just gaining the plaque and writing the press release, but following up to ensure that buildings are achieving their full potential. The US Army, General Services Administration (GSA), Department of Energy (DOE) and two of DOE’s National Labs are collaborating on a demonstration project at Fort Carson, Colorado to test the performance of several of Ft. Carson’s many LEED buildings – and how well occupant behavior and understanding are coordinated with these buildings’ green systems and features. The project will include an intervention to test approaches to improve building performance through occupant behavior, and recommendations on best practices at optimal lifecycle costs for achieving major energy savings in the building types examined. This session will discuss the findings of this research and its implications for architects who seek to design buildings that live up to their green labels. It will challenge architects to practice green design that effectively incorporates feedback on building performance and occupant satisfaction, understanding and interaction with their buildings. In addition to presenting and discussing findings from this research, and how the Army and GSA plan to use it, the session will include an interactive component inviting audience members to discuss their own perspectives and experiences with green building performance and how to improve it. Attendees will come away with a better understanding of the challenges to effective green building performance and best practices -- technological, organizational and behavioral -- to overcome those challenges.

Learning Objectives 1. Incorporate more effective energy saving strategies and

technologies into design

2. Design with better understanding of occupant behavior

3. Apply lessons from GSA/Ft. Carson green building

research to their own building projects

4. Engage in similar research or fact-finding efforts, even if

on a small, informal scale

Interaction/Activity

• We will open up audience discussion on your experiences with evaluating green building performance, following speakers’ presentations.

Facts on the Ground: Testing the

Performance of Fort Carson's

Green Buildings Ken Sandler

Sustainability & Green Building Advisor

GSA Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings

Outline for Today’s Session

• Provide background

– Demonstration project goals

– Ft. Carson sustainable building program

• Discuss demonstration project research

– Building systems

– Occupant behavior

• Open up the discussion

– How have you evaluated building performance (or would like to)?

GSA’s Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings

• Established by Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007 (EISA), set up 2010

• Facilitates greening of the Federal building portfolio, through:

– Applied research and demonstrations

– Developing standards, guidance and tools

– Disseminating information

A Green Building Conveyer Belt

Demo projects

Interagency Sustainability Working Group

Green Building Certification System Review

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/102575

Demo Projects: A Congressional Mandate

http://www.fmi.gov/

1st Demo Project: EPA Denver HQ

A variety of projects on LEED Gold Federal building

Energy & occupant behavior Dual flush toilets Underfloor air and acoustics Data center energy efficiency

Critical questions, including: How to motivate occupants to reduce energy use? Do dual flush toilets really save water? How to make green buildings live up to their potential?

Goal of Demo Projects

• Look at actual performance

– Not just design, models or estimates

• Examine how occupants interact with buildings

• Identify and test solutions

• Make research replicable and scalable

• Disseminate across Federal government and beyond: www.gsa.gov/buildingresearch

http://www.gsa.gov/buildingresearch

2nd Demo Project: Fort Carson

– Great marriage of convergent missions: • Army Net Zero Initiative

• GSA and DOE/National Lab research goals

– Today’s panel • Practitioners and researchers, on site and in the field

– Key questions: • Project goals and approaches

• Research findings

• How practitioners can use these findings

• Future research needed

Fort Carson:

On the Road to Net Zero

Matthew B. Ellis, P.E.

Fort Carson Restationing Resident Engineer

Fort Carson, Colorado

Omaha District

LEED Success to Date

Building Types # Buildings LEED LEVEL

Silver Gold Plat

Admin (COF, HQ, etc.) 28 15 12 1

TEMFs 14 1 13

Barracks 9 4 5

Other 5 3 2

TOTAL PROJECTS 56 23 32 1

LEED® Facts

Wilderness Road Brigade & Battalion HQ

Fort Carson, Colorado

LEED for New Construction PLATINUM 52* Sustainable Sites 11/14

Water Efficiency 4/5

Energy & Atmosphere 15/17

Materials & Resources 6/13

Indoor Environmental Quality 11/15

Innovation & Design 5/5

*Out of a possible 69 points

Energy-efficient lighting, heating & cooling systems, on-site

solar array expected to yield 73% energy use reduction

Water-saving technologies used in building projected to

save 42% over baseline annual water consumption.

Energy-saving system with lighting control designed to

reduce energy consumption by about 22%.

A 2.7 acre on-site solar array supplies approx. 62% of the

138,000 sq ft building's electrical power needs.

Building Energy Performance

CONTRACT TITLE BUILDING COST

(excluding

design & site work)

% BETTER

THAN ASHRAE ENERGY ENHANCEMENT S

MI Batt Headquarters –

SCIF $202/SF 89.0%

330kV Photovoltaic (PV) covered

parking, solar domestic water heating,

LED site lighting, day-lighting, Low U &

SHGC glazing , added insulation

Wilderness Road BBHQ $180/SF 67.0% 480kW PV array, advanced lighting

control system & LED exterior lighting

Brigade Complex (FY10)

HQ $209/SF 52.3%

25kW PV, Advanced lighting, control

system

Wilderness Road COFs $199/SF 47.0% Building envelope, lighting controls,

energy efficient fixtures

Wilderness Road TEMFs $252/SF 39.6% In-floor radiant heat, advanced lighting

control system

Air Barrier Testing

Air Barrier Testing Results

# Projects Building Types Wall Type Air Barrier Type Test Result

CFM/Sqft

8 DFACs & COFs Comm. Stud Cavity Sheet Film .08-.12

6 TEMFs Comm. Interior Wall

Sheet Rock

Int./Precast .15-.25

2 Commissary & HQ Comm. Stud Cavity Liquid Applied .11-.13

1 BBHQ Precast Concrete w/TPO 0.04

1 MI BNHQ Comm. Stud Cavity Sheet Film & SPF 0.13

1 MI COF Comm. Stud Cavity SPF 0.14

1 Band Training Facility Precast Sheet Film 0.06

1 UMF COF Pre Fab Metal Bld SPF 0.23

4th Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) Energy Sustainability Net Zero Initiative

Vision: Plan, design, construct, and operate a NetZero Energy community to encompass the entire Butts Airfield plateau.

Butts Plateau Area Development Strategy: holistic, integrated approach to energy production and shared efficiency among several buildings

Obj. 1: All new vertical construction to be NetZero Ready (or NetZero).

Obj. 2: Provide a Central Energy Production Plant and Distribution System as well as other appropriate renewable generation (energy components by facility).

Obj. 3: Maximize energy efficiency of existing buildings.

Obj. 4: Develop a sustainable community culture.

Expand possible solutions and remove traditional constraints; evaluate solutions that deviate from traditional USACE standards of design

Central Boiler-Chiller Plant + Central Energy Plant

5.2.2. Submission Requirements - excerpts: The Government encourages the Offeror to propose design features which optimize and emphasize energy use reduction. Proposed systems must conform to the requirements stated in this RFP. All proposed energy related systems that are expected to exceed 1% of the CCL in cost, must be accompanied by a LCCA. A proposed system’s LCCA should be included in the proposal and must show that that system is life cycle cost effective over a 40 year period. …percentage for Building Energy Efficiency should be >40%, excluding the use of renewable energy sources and/or systems Should Offeror receive award, the proposed percentages shall become a contract requirement. Building Energy Efficiency Statement: EXCLUDING all proposed renewable energy sources, this project will achieve an energy consumption at least ____% less than the consumption of a baseline building meeting the minimum requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007. Renewable Energy Statement: This project will include renewable energy systems that produce an amount of energy that will offset _____% of the annual energy consumption of a baseline building…

4th CAB Contract Energy Requirements

5.2.3. Evaluation Criteria - excerpts: It is the Government's goal to reduce energy consumption to the greatest extent possible without the use of renewable energy sources. Therefore increased preference will be given to proposals that exhibit significant energy reduction (well beyond 40%) through the use of passive design strategies, prior to the inclusion of renewable energy Higher proposed building energy efficiency is more preferred and will be rated more favorably than higher renewable energy percentages.

4th CAB Energy Evaluation Criteria

5.9. Energy Conservation Building Envelope and systems

Shall meet ASHRAE 90.1. Shall achieve energy consumption of at least 40% better than ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA.

Purchasing of Energy Star products. Solar Hot Water Products. Provide at least 30% unless not supported by LCCA. Process Water Conservation. Employ cost effective water conservation measures. Renewable Energy Features. Goal. Implement on site renewable energy generation when supported by LCCA and are compatible with CEP/DEP system to provide eventual overall energy leveling and sharing throughout the plateau.

4th CAB Energy Conservation Requirements

4th CAB: High Performance

Energy & Sustainability Policy Engineering and Construction Bulletin, 2011-1: National energy security & sustainability concerns continue to drive construction programs to build higher performance buildings than ever before. Potential energy enhancements:

•Optimize building orientation •Tight envelope •Highly insulated •Triple glazing and avoid thermal bridging •Lighting considerations: Low wattage fixtures, vacancy/daylighting sensors, increased glazing, and lighting controls •High efficient equipment, fixtures and appliances •Optimize zoning •On-site renewable energy elements •Low flow, dual flush plumbing fixtures •Measurement and verification systems

Critical Teaming

CU- Boulder case study of FCN Design Building Management: – Early construction team involvement during design process

– Designer as partner vs. a “sub-contractor”

– Construction team understanding iterative design process

– Meeting management

– Both formal and informal partnering between Builder, Designer and Owner

Results & Lessons Learned

On Our Way…

Energy Efficiency Systems and LEED Building Energy Performance: Ft. Carson Case Study

Shanti Pless, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Bob Hendron, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Matt Leach, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Jennifer Scheib, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Evaluation Questions:

• How far can a deep retrofit go?

• LEED Silver to net zero

• How well is the lighting and daylighting performing?

• What is the optimal life cycle cost thermal envelope?

LEED Retrofit Optimization 1950s Barracks to Net Zero Office?

Methods

• Measure existing load profiles

• Generate baseline energy model

• Apply retrofit measures

– From standard lighting to deep retrofit envelope and HVAC and PV

• Determine optimal life cycle cost

• And can we streamline this process?

Energy Dashboard

Do the Lights turn off?

Initializing Geometry Using Floor Plan

Specifying Interior Geometry Using Floor Plan/Fire Map

Adding Exterior Detail Using Match Photo

Completed Geometry with Photo Locations and Orientations

Textured Geometry with Geographic Context

Summary of Modeling Progress

• Used Match Photo capabilities to accurately capture exterior geometry (including elevation)

• Used building floor plans as a reference for geometry creation and to specify interior layout

• Exported SketchUp geometry (with textures mapped from photos) to Google Earth

• Used SketchUp geometry as a template for the creation of OpenStudio spaces, the basic building blocks for thermal zones

Benefits of Match Photo Approach

• Simplified data collection for building geometry (external and internal)

– Oriented photos contain a wealth of knowledge that would otherwise be difficult and time consuming to collect

• Photos captures data not represented in building floor plan

– Vertical dimensions, including elevation

Candidate Measures for Deep Retrofit Analysis

• Envelope: – Add interior insulation on exterior walls (spray foam) – Modify/replace existing windows

• Install modular glazing systems inside existing windows (no replacement required) • Replace existing windows with electrochromic windows

– Increase roof insulation and install cool roof membrane

• Lighting: – Replace fluorescent lighting with LED lighting – Add vacancy sensors to enclosed offices, common areas, and corridors – Daylight open offices adjacent to building perimeter – Control lighting at the building level during unoccupied ho

• Plug Loads: – Install controllable power strips in office workstations – Replace computer equipment with high efficiency equivalents

• HVAC: – Replace existing HVAC system with ground source heat pumps and DOAS – Investigate first cost savings associated with appropriate sized equipment

• Renewables: – Install simple, passive, 25-year warranty PV

Energy Simulation Optimization

Net Site Energy Percent Savings [%]50.045.040.035.030.025.020.015.010.05.00.0

To

tal L

ife

Cycle

Co

st

(TL

CC

) In

ten

sity [

$/f

t^2

]

175

170

165

160

155

150

145

140

• Optimize on both total life cycle cost (similar to NPV) and energy use

• As energy use decreases, solve mathematically for the package of efficiency and renewable regeneration measures that results in the lowest total life cycle cost (highest NPV) at each energy use.

• Find the package of efficiency and renewable generation measures that achieves net zero energy most cost effectively.

Building 1219 with PV and Net Zero Retrofits?

Baseline Point

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)

Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/ft2·yr)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Baseline: Building 1219, modeled to be minimally compliant with 90.1-2007 (73 kBtu/ft2·yr)

Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

First Iteration

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

First Iteration

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

+ Replace existing windows with electrochromic windows

+ Increase roof insulation and add cool roof membrane

+ Replace workstation computer equipment with high efficiency equivalents

+ Install PV on 75% of the roof area

+ Reduce support equipment plug load density by 25%

+ Add window inserts

+ Replace HVAC with GSHP and DOAS

+ Increase interior wall insulation

+ Lighting and office plug load controls (including common area vacancy sensors)

+ Reduce LPD

First Iteration

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Iteration 1 Selection Point: + Install vacancy sensors in common areas

Baseline Point

Fourth Iteration

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Iteration 1 Selection Point: + Install vacancy sensors in common areas

Baseline Point

Iteration 3 Selection Point: + Install controllable plug strips in offices

Iteration 2 Selection Point: + Reduce LPD to 0.6 W/ft2 (47% reduction)

Iteration 4 Selection Point: + Reduce LPD to 0.4 W/ft2 (65% reduction)

Optimization Curve

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


Simulation Data

Optimization Curve

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Cost Minimum Package

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


Simulation Data

Optimization Curve

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Cost Minimum Package (Baseline +): + Reduce LPD to 0.4 W/ft2 (65% reduction) + Install vacancy sensors in enclosed offices + Daylight open offices + Install controllable plug strips in offices

Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

30% Savings Packages

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


Simulation Data

Optimization Curve

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Cost Effective 30% Savings Packages (Baseline +): + Reduce LPD to 0.4 W/ft2 (65% reduction) + Install vacancy sensors in enclosed offices + Daylight open offices + Install controllable plug strips in offices + Increase exterior wall insulation by R-5.7 + Add window inserts

Cost Effective 30% Savings Range

Net Zero Energy Ready Package

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


Simulation Data

Optimization Curve

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Net Zero Ready Efficiency Package (Cost Min +): + Install vacancy sensors in common areas + Increase exterior wall insulation by R-5.7 + Reduce support equipment plug load density by 25% + Replace HVAC with GSHP and DOAS

Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Cost Neutral Line

Net Zero Energy Package

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


Simulation Data

Optimization Curve

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5 Net Zero Energy Package (NZE-Ready +): + Install PV on 75% of the roof area

Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Max Tech Package

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


Simulation Data

Optimization Curve

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Max Tech Package (NZE +): + Replace workstation computer equipment with high efficiency equivalents + Increase exterior wall insulation by R-8.7 + Increase roof insulation by R-10 and add cool roof membrane + Add high SHGC window inserts

Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Ft Carson Building 1219 Optimization

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


Simulation Data

Optimization Curve

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5



Net Zero Energy Package (NZE-Ready +): + Install PV on 75% of the roof area


Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Ft Carson Building 1219 Optimization

-250255075

Incr

em

en

tal L

ife

Cyc

le C

ost

(m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

)


Simulation Data

Optimization Curve

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5



Net Zero Energy Package (NZE-Ready +): + Install PV on 75% of the roof area


Net Zero Energy

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

Existing LEED Retrofit Package

Optimization Summary

Model EUI/Net EUI (kBtu/ft2·yr)

Net Energy Savings (%)

Incremental TLCC (millions of $)

Baseline 73.0 NA NA

Cost Min 69.9 4% -0.3

NZE Ready 27.7 62% -0.1

NZE 27.7/-5.7 108% 1.1

Max Tech 20.7/-12.7 117% 1.6

• Baseline energy use of 73.0 kBtu/ft2·yr is indicative of a typical, minimally code compliant low rise office building

• Net Zero Energy Ready Efficiency Package results in 62% energy savings at a negative incremental TLCC

• Max Tech Efficiency Package results in an annual energy use intensity (not including PV) of 20.7 kBtu/ft2·yr, which is comparable to that for the RSF (not counting the data center)

Final Model with PV and Shading

64

Image: PIX 17904 and Jennifer Scheib, NREL

Daylighting Concepts

Successful Daylighting in Action

Successful LEED Daylighting

Daylighting Controls…

What is wrong here?

Daylighting and Lighting Review

• Up to 50% Lighting Energy Savings being realized

– High daylight with diffusing apertures

• Clerestories and skylights

– Good alignment of status and occupancy across all facility types

• Up to 90% Lighting Energy Savings potential savings

Common Issues

• Lights ON when daylighting sufficient

• If there a shades/blinds, they are usually deployed

– And lights are on

• Burned out bulbs should not be a daylighting control strategy

Daylighting Recommendations

• Engage occupants: set up control system to cater to them

• Provide a consistent source of daylight in all

spaces, even if the contribution is small

– Glare free daylighting

• Set up electric lighting and controls to provide layers of light

• Make the default mode the lowest light level

and then allow occupants to choose more light 75

Envelope Evaluation across Building Types

76

Dining Facility (DFAC)

Tactical Equipment

Maintenance

Facility (TEMF)

Image credit: Rois Langner, NREL

Barracks

Company Operations

Facility (COF)

Brigade HQ

End-Use Breakdowns

77

Dining Facility (DFAC)

Tactical Equipment

Maintenance

Facility (TEMF)

Image credit: Rois Langner, NREL

Barracks

Company Operations

Facility (COF)

Brigade HQ Heating

2%

Cooling 13%

Lighting 15%

Misc Equipmt

68%

Hot Water

2%

Heating 64%

Cooling 6%

Lighting 7%

Misc Equipmt

23%

Hot Water

0%

Heating 39%

Cooling 3%

Lighting 12%

Misc Equipmt

26%

Hot Water 20%

Heating 60%

Cooling 1%

Lighting 12%

Misc Equipmt

27%

Hot Water

0%

Heating 29%

Cooling 6%

Lighting 4%

Misc Equipmt

57%

Hot Water

4%

Envelope Options Considered

Wall Efficiency Level Wall Assembly Wall Insulation R-value

Leakage rate cfm/ft2 @ 0.3 in w.g.

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 ASHRAE 189.1-2011

Option 0 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Passivhaus

2x4 Steel Framing, 2" EPS 2x4 Steel Framing, 3" EPS

2x4 Steel Framing, 2" Polyiso 2x4 Steel Framing, 4" EPS

2x4 Steel Framing, 4" EPS, Tighter Prefab Wall, Precast Concrete, 8" EPS

2x6 Steel Framing, 8" EPS, Tighter

13+7.5 ci 13+10 ci

13+12.5 ci 13+15 ci 13+15 ci 0+30 ci

19+30 ci

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.05 0.11

Roof Efficiency Level Roof Assembly

Roof Insulation R-value

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 ASHRAE 189.1-2011

Option 0 Option 1 Option 2

Passivhaus

IEAD, 4" Polyiso IEAD, 5" Polyiso IEAD, 6" Polyiso IEAD, 8" Polyiso

IEAD, 10" Polyiso IEAD, 11" Polyiso

20 25 30 40 50 55

Window Efficiency Level Window Assembly

Required Window U-

value

Actual Window U-value

Required Window SHGC

Actual Window

SHGC

ASHRAE 90.1-2007 ASHRAE 189.1-2011

Option 0 Option 1

Passivhaus

Double, LowE, AlumNoBrk Double, LowE, Bronze, AlumWBrk

Double, LowE, AlumWBrk Double,LowE, Vinyl Triple, LowE, Vinyl

0.55 0.45 0.42

-- 0.18

0.47 0.41 0.41 0.30 0.18

0.40 0.35 0.39

-- 0.49

0.38 0.25 0.38 0.36 0.36

Unit Deployment Status

Heating Set Point

(°F)

Cooling Set Point

(°F) Ventilation Rate (cfm)

Home Station Deployed

70 55

75 80

100% 0

Optimal Wall Constructions

Building Type Wall Construction Incremental First Cost

30-Year NPV vs ASHRAE 90.1-

2007

Barracks 2x4 Steel Framing, 4" EPS, Improved Air Barrier

$58,739

$90,115

HQ 2x4 Steel Framing, 2" EPS $0 $0

DFAC 2x4 Steel Framing, 4" EPS $7,671 $529

COF (Conditioned)

COF (Semi-conditioned)

2x6 Steel Framing, 8" EPS, Improved Air Barrier


$60,012

$75,087

$213,917

$127,557

TEMF (Conditioned)

TEMF (Semi-conditioned)



$16,504

$30,713

$30,649

$42,715

Optimal Roof Constructions

Building Type Roof Construction Incremental First Cost


2007

Barracks Insulation Entirely Above Deck, 4" Polyisocyanurate

$0 $0

HQ Insulation Entirely Above Deck, 4" Polyisocyanurate

$0 $0

DFAC Insulation Entirely Above Deck, 4" Polyisocyanurate

$0 $0

COF (Conditioned)

COF (Semi-conditioned)

Insulation Entirely Above Deck, 6" Polyisocyanurate


$18,309

$0

$10,180

$0

TEMF (Conditioned) TEMF (Semi-conditioned)



$0

$0

$0

$0

Optimal Window Constructions

Building Type Window Construction Incremental First Cost


2007

Barracks Triple Pane, Low-E, Vinyl Frame

$20,916

$234

HQ Double Pane, Low-E, Aluminum Frame without

Thermal Break

$0 $0

DFAC Double Pane, Low-E, Bronze Coating, Aluminum Frame

with Thermal Break

$5,160

$4,203

COF Triple Pane, Low-E, Vinyl Frame

$18,309

$1,812

TEMF Double Pane, Low-E, Aluminum Frame without

Thermal Break

$0 $0

Potential Savings for HVAC Set Back when Troops are

Deployed

Building Type Annual Cost Savings Annual Energy Savings

Barracks $12,508 14%

HQ $2,955 4%

DFAC $7,799 4%

COF $25,047 23%

TEMF $5,254 12%

Envelope Conclusions

• Optimal envelope design features are heavily dependent on building usage and geometry, and may change if part of a larger package of improvements

• Adding insulation beyond code-level is not a cost-effective measure in buildings with large internal gains – Improving air-tightness is more important than increasing

insulation levels

• NPVs of window enhancements are highly depend on window orientation, heating/cooling loads, and daylighting controls

• Savings can be very significant for thermal zoning and ventilation set-back when troops are deployed

Kathleen Judd, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Tom Sanquist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

The Role of Behavior in Green Building Energy Performance: Ft. Carson Case Study

PNNL-SA-96458

Why Behavior Matters

• Conservation can be cost effective

• Achieve full efficiency potential of buildings upgrades

Army Net Zero Energy Hierarchy

Evaluation Questions

How do occupants of green buildings perceive their work environment?

How do occupants of green buildings interact with building features?

What behaviors have the greatest potential to save energy?

What approaches are most effective at promoting building energy saving behaviors?

Buildings in Intervention

• 1 LEED EB Silver admin building – 130 civilians

• 1 existing admin building with green features – 160 civilians & soldiers

• 1 LEED Platinum office building / Brigade HQ – 250 soldiers

• 2 LEED Gold Company Operations Facilities (COFs) (admin + storage) – 75 soldiers

COF

Brigade HQ

Admin bldg

Approach to Behavior Change Intervention

88

Energy conservation

Occupant survey, focus groups, observation, and sub-metering data

Computer network scans, bldg floor checks,

occupant survey, interviews

Stakeholders engaged throughout

3-month intervention

Performance objectives defined for key audiences

4% 8% 0% 2% 6% 2%

11% 12%

13% 8% 6%

4%

17% 10% 15%

14% 12% 12%

47% 52% 54% 59%

52% 58%

21% 19% 17% 18% 25% 25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Temperature Views of theoutdoors

Generalmaintenance

Air quality Visual comfort Overall withBuilding

Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

Satisfaction with personal workspace or building features

13% 3% 6% 4% 7% 5% 6% 8% 7% 8% 13%

0% 3%

6% 4% 10% 12% 10% 8% 3%

11% 16% 13% 20%

17% 22% 14% 14% 17% 18% 27%

22% 18%

63% 57% 54% 48% 52% 60% 48% 44%

47% 53% 39%

13% 17% 17% 22% 17% 10%

19% 23% 17% 6%

13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied

How well building features function to create a comfortable work environment

Indoor environment influence on ability to work effectively

4% 4%

33%

44%

15%

Strongly interferes Somewhatinterferes

Neither interferesnor enhances

Somewhat enhances Strongly enhances

0% 2% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6% 4% 0% 4% 4%

15% 10% 29%

43% 48%

38% 43%

37%

47% 40% 42% 41%

33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Aware of FC NZEgoals

Have positiveattitude about FC

NZE goals

Have skills to useenergy saving

techs correctly atwork

Believe reducingenergy use in my

building isimportant

Feel personallyresponsible for

reducing energy inmy building

% o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Awareness and attitudes on energy

NZE=net zero energy

8%

17%

23%

37%

15%

1=Not well informed 2 3 4 5=Very well informed

How well informed are you about using energy saving features in your building?

What behaviors could have the greatest energy saving in the 5 demonstration buildings?

Shut down computers & Evening temp set back

Use of HVAC

alternatives

Evening HVAC set

backs

Computers on at night

Lights off in unoccupied

rooms

Use of natural or task lights

Energy-intensive

appliances in offices

Use desktops vs laptops

Smart power strips

What roles will most influence change?

• Occupants – Control plug loads, lights and heating/cooling in some buildings

• Building energy monitors (BEMs) – Potential to monitor and advocate for energy saving at local level

• Leadership – General Commanders set tone for importance of saving energy

– Unit commanders/Department heads can enforce follow through

• Computer network personnel – Authorize policy around computer updates and nightly shut down

What we asked Bldg Energy Monitors to do

• Participate in Building Energy Monitor training

• Conduct weekly floor checks

• Call in service orders for physical issues with building

• Communicate with occupants about progress, opportunities

Date: Building: Number of Occupants: BEM:

Record estimated percentages and action codes for each floor.

Floor %Thermostat set

back

% Monitors

off

% Overhead Lights

off unoccupied

offices

% Task lights or natural

light used instead of

overhead

1 – office space

1 - common space

Other observed energy-saving practices

Occupant reports (type, location)

Physical problems observed (e.g., lighting

sensors not working, water leaks, etc.).

BEM Floor Check Form

What we asked occupants to do

1. Nighttime temperature set-backs in offices 2. Shut down computers at night

3. Turn off lights when room is unoccupied 4. Use task and natural lighting when sufficient 5. Use window shades, wear layers to manage thermal comfort

Getting people to change behavior Behavior Change

Principles Ft. Carson Intervention Strategies

Social Network & Communications

• Locally-recognized occupant assigned as Bldg Energy Monitor • Bldg Energy Monitor emails and engages occupants • Performance feedback showing that peers are taking action

Multiple Motivations

• Appeal to security, cost-saving, envt’l interests • Promote inter-building competition based on performance

Leadership • Pre-and mid-project briefing to Ft Carson leadership • Letter to occupants showing leadership commitment

Commitment Did not employ

Information and Feedback

• Floor checks and computer shut down results shared

Infrastructure • Policy change permitting computers shut down • Form developed to facilitate floor checks • Train Bldg Energy Monitor to promote conservation behavior

Social Empowerment

• Bldg Energy Monitor solicits occupant ideas

Continuous Change • Bring together Bldg Energy Monitors to discus change

Which behaviors changed?

5% 7% 8%

51%

59%

43%

37%

64%

18%

28%

57% 54%

Military admin Military ops Civilian admin1 Civilian admin2

Percent of Computers Shut Down by Building

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6

Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12


13%

20% 21%

49%

3%

22%

32%

25%

36%

51%

13%

30%

Military admin Military ops2 Military ops Civilian admin1 Civilian admin2 All 5 Bldgs

Percent of Computers Shut Down

Change from week 1 to week 12 Change week 1 to peak week of compliance


14%

14%

20%

23%

26%

28%

52%

72%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Drink something hot or cold manage comfort

Dress in layers to manage comfort

Use blinds to control the temperature in my office

Turn off overhead lights and use natural light ortask light when adequate

Set back thermostat in work area when leaving forday

Turn off lights when leaving a room

Turn off your monitor at night

Turn off your computer at night

I do it more frequently now About the same I do it less frequently now

Which change strategies worked?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Recognition from BEM, supervisor, others

Signs posted in building with energy saving actions

Personal conversations with BEM

Letter from the Ft Carson Leadership

Email messages from BEM comparing yourbuilding to other Ft Carson buildings

Email messages from BEM about actions to saveenergy

Personal conversations with peers

Instruction from immediate supervisor

Extent to which factor influenced your behavior over past 3 months

Not at all influential Slightly influential Somewhat influential Very influential Extremely influential

Impact on energy use (in progress)

Note: No meter readings available for weeks 1 and 2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Week of Intervention

Ratio of Daytime-to-Night Energy Use: Civilian Admin1 Building

Conclusions

• Overall occupant satisfaction

– Control of comfort important

• Make desired behaviors specific and relevant

• Understand context in which green building technologies will be placed

• Establish local energy conservation advocate

Awareness and support for

conservation

Knowledge of actions to take at

building level

Conclusions (cont.)

• Ensure energy advocate is qualified and supported

• Clear and consistent message from leadership is essential

• Behavior change has the potential to save more energy in Fort Carson buildings and beyond

Your Turn

Behavioral Research: A Few Discussion Questions

• What have you done, or would like to do, to evaluate energy and environmental performance in your buildings?

• What types of actions have you seen organizations or individual building occupants take that effectively promoted energy-saving behaviors to other occupants?

• What types of architectural cues can be designed into the building to help maintain occupant awareness of energy conservation?

• Additional Questions?

AIA 2013: Facts on the Ground: Testing the Performance of Ft. Carson's Green Buildings

Engineering

Transcript of AIA 2013: Facts on the Ground: Testing the Performance of Ft. Carson's Green Buildings