MINUTES - tc76.org Minutes 2000.doc · Web viewamerican society of heating, refrigerating. and...

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, REFRIGERATING

AND AIR-CONDITIONING ENGINEERS, INC.1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, GA 30329 404-636-8400

TC/TG/TRG MINUTES COVER SHEET

(Minutes of all meetings are to be distributed to all persons listed below within 60 days following the meeting.)

TC/TG/TRG NO. TC9.6

TC/TG/TRG TITLE: Systems Energy Utilization DATE OF MEETING: 27 June 2000 LOCATION: Minneapolis, MN

Members Present Appt Members Absent Appt Ex-Officio Members and Additional

AttendanceIsh Sud 99-01 Marianne Brodatch 99-03 Zack ObertMike MacDonald 96-00 Yew Wong 99-03 S. KatipamulaKristin Heinemeier 99-03 Prasanna Kadaba 96-00 Charlie CulpHashem Akbari 99-03 Rich Mazucchi 99-03 Ken GillespieWilliam Mixon 97-01 Cedric Trueman 99-01 Moncef KrartiAgami Reddy 99-03 Taghi Alereza 99-03 Preorat PopovicRichard Pearson 97-01 Adam Hinge 99-03Michael Martin 96-00 Ron Jarnagin 96-00Robert Sonderegger 99-03Lawrence Spielvogel 99-03Wayne Webster 96-00

Edward Fitts (CM) 99Patricia Rose (CM) 99

Jeff Haberl (CM) 99 Eino Kainlauri (CM) 99Mark Case (CM) 99- Richard Kooy (CM) 99George Reeves (CM) 99 Syed Ali (CM) 99-Robert Chase (CM) 99 David Claridge (CM)John Cowan (CM) Robert Fuller (CM) 99-Harold Heiss (CM) 99James Willson (CM) 99Lazlo Emho (CM)JohnCastelvecchi (CM)

TC 9.6, February 2000 Dallas Minutes 1 Printed on: 5/7/2023

DISTRIBUTION:

ALL MEMBERS OF TC/TG/TRGTAC CHAIMAN: Dennis L. O’NealTAC SECTION HEAD: James S. BuckleyALL COMMITTEE LIASONS AS SHOWN ON TC/TG/TRG ROSTERS:Program: Charles E. HenckManager Of Technical Services: Martin J. Weiland Research: Harvey BrickmanManager Of Research: William W. SeatonStandards: Richard A. EvansManager Of Standards: Claire B. RamspeckJournal: David F. LewisSpecial Publications : Ramon PonsRefrigeration: Hugh F. CrowtherTEGA: David M. RoyalEducation: Donald G. ColliverEnv Health Committee: Paul T. Ninomura

ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Visitors listed above

ASHRAE TC ACTIVITIES SHEET

DATE: 21 December 99

TC NO. TC9.6 TC TITLE: Systems Energy UtilizationCHAIR: I. Sud VICE CHAIR: Cedric S. Trueman

TC Meeting ScheduleLocation, past 12 mo. Date Location, next 12 mo. Date

Seattle 6/22/99 Minneapolis 6/27/00Dallas 2/8/00 Atlanta 1/30/01

TC SubcommitteesSubcommittee Chair

Monitoring and Energy Performance M. MacDonaldEnergy Management R. Mazzucchi Research C. TruemanMembership R. FullerStandards H. HeissProgram M. CaseHandbook K. Heinemeier


MINUTES

ASHRAE TC 9.6, Systems Energy UtilizationTuesday, June 27, 2000

Minneapolis, MN

1. TC Chair Ish Sud called the meeting to order at 1:01 pm.

2. Chair read out: Old Scope of TC, and New Scope of TC (as approved during Dallas meeting in February 2000).

3. Roll call determined that there was a quorum of members present (9/17). Voting members present: Sud, MacDonald, Reddy, Akbari, Heinemeier, Martin, Mixon, Sonderegger, Spielvogel. Members absent: Rose, Mazucchi, Kadaba, Trueman, Alereza, Hinge, Jarnagin and Pearson. International members absent: Brodatch and Wong (not part of quorum count).

The new Committee Roster, effective July 1, is included as Attachment A.4. Agenda sheet distributed which is included as Attachment B.5. Approval of Dallas Minutes emailed by secretary. M/S by Spielvogel / Akbari. Unanimous

voice vote

6. Members and guests introduced themselves. See the sign-in sheet, included as Attachment C.

7. Chair’s Report - given by TC Chair Ish Sud:a) Two changes in the SC chairs were announced:

- Research: Bill Mixon will be the new Chair, since Akbari was unwilling to continue- Energy Management: Mazucchi may not attend ASHRAE meeting regularly from now on. Chair to check this issue. Dick Pearson is incoming chair.

b) RTARs due by August 1, and can be submitted only once a year. Work statements due anytime (4 times/year)

c) Handbook committee is going to recommend that a CD copy of the Handbook be considered the norm. Paper copy will be provided only on special request. Paper copy to be updated every four years, while the electronic version to be updated yearly.

d) The 12 figure limit for ASHRAE technical papers will be strictly enforced. In the past, you could pay a fee for more figures. This practice will be discontinued.

e) SPO 3.2- Building Energy and the Environment Ad Hoc Committee is looking for volunteers. Mike MacDonald already a member and gave a short description of its intent and scope.

f) TC 9.6’s concern over the proliferation of seminars as against technical symposiums where papers are written, was expressed. This was as a followup of a letter by Spielvogel.

g) Due date for symposium paper packages for the Atlanta meeting is August 4, 2000.h) TAC is trying to get input on ASHRAE’s current electronic policy. If you have any

comments, please send them on a piece of paper to the TC Secretary (A. Reddy)

8. Webmaster Report.The Webmaster’s report is included as Attachment D.SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS

9. Membership Sub-Committee (Bob Fuller, Chair)

(a) Fuller was absent, so TC Chair summarized the various ongoing activities:


The new Roster is in. There are a few mistakes: Trueman is the incoming TC Chair, with Hinge the Vice-Chair. Dick Pearson replaces Mazucchhi, and Mixon replaces Akbari.The correct version is as follows:

Chair: Cedric Trueman Vice-Chair: Adam Hinge Secretary: Agami Reddy Chair of Membership SC: Robert Fuller Chair of Handbook SC: Adam Hinge Chair of Research SC: Bill Mixon Chair of Program SC: Mark Case Chair of Standards SC: Harold Heiss Chair of Performance Monitoring SC: Mike MacDonald Chair of Energy Management SC: Dick Pearson

(b) Two TC members: Patricia Rose and Robert Chase have been absent during several meetings. Whether they still would like to remain members of TC 9.6 needs to be checked.

(c) Charles Culp and Laszlo Emho are interested in becoming TC members. They should contact Bob Fuller in this regard.

(d) There was some discussion on criteria to become and remain a TC member. It was pointed out that in many TC’s, the chair contacts members who have missed two consecutive meetings to enquire about their interest in continuing as members. The Chair then notifies ASHRAE and drops anyone who misses three meetings. No definite action plan was reached.

10. Research Sub-Committee (Cedric Trueman, Chair)

Trueman was unable to attend the ASHRAE meeting, and so Bill Mixon was Interim Chair. No minutes were prepared. Verbal discussion follows:

a) The SC met at 5:00 pm on June 26, 2000. Nine attendees.

b) The issue of progress and research of RP 1004 involving a methodology to evaluate energy and demand savings from short-term tests on thermal cool storage systems was raised. TC 6.9 is the cognizant TC for this research while TC 9.6 is only a supporting TC. Spielvogel wanted to know what the intent of the research was and whether it will go into the Handbook. Ken Gillespie, the Chair of the PMSC gave a summary of the project and the research results. McDonald wanted to know whether the results would be part of the GPC 14P M&V guideline, while Spielvogel voiced the opinion that the TC has an obligation to inform professionals about the research results as soon as possible by including it into the Handbook. Gillespie stated that more case studies are needed before the material can be included in a handbook or in GPC 14P.

c) A proposed research topic involving in-situ testing of air-handlers has been in the offing for several years. A WS has already been prepared and submitted to the RAS but was rejected. Gillespie volunteered to revise the WS and respond to the RAS comments. (Gillespie send these on 10/13/00 to Mixon which are attached as Appendix E). This will first be voted by the Research SC before asking for the whole TC to vote.

d) MacDonald announced that he had an RTAR on evaluation of Building Rating Systems. He explained its objective and scope. Spielvogel pointed out that Standard 90.1 should not be a target of comparison since it was not intended for this purpose. Haberl stated that discussion about RTARs should be in the S/C and not in the Main Committee. This was echoed by Akbari.

Mixon also had two others RTRAs, and read out their scope.


Akbari moved to accept priorities of the Chair of Research S/C and urged the S/C Chair to develop RTARs based on that list and to go through the proper procedure and submit these to the RAC by August 1st as required. This was seconded by Spielvogel.

Chair moved that the Research S/C Chair will write both RTARs and email to all voting members and ask them for a vote by July 20th. After some discussion, this motion was passed: 9/1 (Spielvogel) with the Chair abstaining.

Mixon’s email describing the voting results along with the complete RTARs is appended as Attachment FMotion to accept minutes M/S: MacDonald/Akbari, unanimous voice vote.

11. Program Sub-Committee (Mark Case, Chair)

The Program Chair’s report included as Attachment G.

1. Seminar: Co-Sponsor with GPC 14PPublic Review of Guideline 14P – Overview, Compliance, Examples.Chair: George ReevesReeves stated that the GPC 14P guideline was out for public review on April 8th 2000, and was closed on June 6th. Reeves reported that about 65 people attended the seminar, and that he had received 30 comments, testimony of the keen interest in this topic. Steve Kromer, who was one of the scheduled speakers, was absent without notification. 2. Seminar: Energy Savings Performance Contracting – Playing With the FedsChair: Richard Mazzucchi. Since Mazucchi did not attend, Case substituted for him. Case reported that about 35 people attended the meeting and that reviews were generally favorable. However, some felt that the information was not new.

List and abstracts are included in Appendix G. 3. Pearson who had submitted a request for a forum: What Should ASHRAE Include in a Professional Development Course on Energy Management, was not scheduled. He will try again for the Atlanta meeting. 4. Also planned for Atlanta, a forum by Spielvogel. Spielvogel said that on Friday last they had a

seminar/training of technical people where background on Standard 90.1 was provided. He wanted the TC permission to arrange a forum on this issue.

Also, Spielvogel stated that he had arranged deregulated electricity contracts in 8000 buildings. These have by and large a flat rate without any ECM work. Such information should get out to all ASHRAE members. So suggested forum title: What do we need to know about deregulated energy. After some discussion, it was decided to change the title of the forum to: Experiences with buying deregulated energy.

5) Future symposiums/seminars

- Willson calibrated simulation seminar. Already has 2 papers. Would like TC 9.6 to co-sponsor, TC 4.7 is the main sponsor. Likely to take place in Cincinatti.

- Spielvogel- one seminar

Sonderegger moved to accept SC report was seconded by Akbari. CARRIED unanimously on a voice vote.

15. Handbook Sub-Committee (Adam Hinge, Chair)

Hinge had to leave the ASHRAE meeting early and so the TC Chair read out the minutes. The SCC met on June 25, 2000 at 5:00 pm. Minutes of the SC meeting are included as Attachment H.


a) There was discussion during the SC as to who was the audience for this chapter. It was felt that one needed to emphasize the value of ongoing energy management thrust.

b) Spielvogel reminded the TC that he had volunteered to be in charge of the tables of the CBEC data. Several people had called him with queries (via ASHRAE HQ), and so he felt that the tables were being used a lot.

Motion to accept SC report. M/S Martin/Mixon. CARRIED unanimously on a voice vote.

16. Standards Sub-Committee (Harold Heiss, Chair)

The SC met on June 26, 200 at 2:00 pm. Seven attendees (Heiss, Gillespie, Culp, Sud, Akbari, MacDonald and Mixon). The agenda included review of the draft scope changes and revision of Standard 100.

Spielvogel commented that TC 9.6 should comment on Standard 62 and establish liason.

It was stated that 90.2 does not have enough members, and are looking for more. ALso, they are looking for someone to fund the software.

Martin is the chair for Standard 100. TCLS, SPLS and Standards Committee have approved that the standard be revised.

Spielvogel gave an update on 90.1. The Board of Directors have made dramatic changes on how high profile standards will be handles henceforth. A 5-member board committee has been set up to oversee this. There have been 127 addendums to the standard. Also there has been tentative approval in the International Energy Conservation Code to reference document. A meeting in October is likely to approve this issue.

Spielvogel moved that TC 9.6 establish a formal liason with SSPC 62.1 and SPC 62.2. Seconded by Webster, unanimous voice vote.

M/S Martin/Mixon to accept report of SC chair. Unanimous voice vote.

17. Monitoring and Energy Performance Sub-Committee (Mike MacDonald, Chair)

The SC met on June 26, 2000 at 5:00 pm. Minutes of the SC meeting were distributed at the meeting and are included as Attachment I.MacDonald read out report. The Chair suggested that the first RTAR should come out of the SC, and that MacDonald should forward it to Mixon, Chair of the Research SC.

M/S Martin/Webster to accept report of SC chair. Unanimous voice vote.

18. Energy Management Sub-Committee (Rich Mazzucchi, Chair)

SInce Mazzucchi did not attend the ASHRAE meeting, Akbari was interim Chair.

No formal agenda was prepared. Ten attendees. There was an open discussion

a) The focus of the discussion was that the quality, quantity and interest was waning. We need to rethink of who the audience was, and how to improve and keep track of this interest items.

b) Akbari solicited one-sentence opinion from all present related to:

- Key metrics to identify energy saving opportunities

- How to combine technical and management issues

- Set of critical and convincing example

M/S Spielvogel/MacDonald to accept report of SC. Unanimous voice vote.


See Attachment J for old and new scope of TC 9.6.

OTHER BUSINESS19. Old Business

a) GPC 14P Update (George Reeves) - Reeves reported that public review data closed on June 6th, and that there were only 5 commentators. Over 50% of the comments were requests. There was nothing of a controversial nature. Identified within the Committee certain items which need to be worked upon, depending on result, there may or may not be a second public review.

b) Jarnagin reported that the special pub “Energy Auditing Process” will be in print in August/Sept.

c) Case reported that there was no progress on “Current ASHRAE Position on Energy”. He would appreciate comments/suggestions from the TC, preferably aggressive ones. A draft statement should be completed by the Atlanta meeting. When such a document is ready, he will circulate it to all.

20. New Business(a)Gillespie pointed out that ASHRAE already had a guide on Field Monitored Projects. He

enquired whether the TC revisit this document. It was decided that the Monitoring and Energy Performance S/C will look into this. MacDonald to take up this action item.

(b) Akbari reiterated the opinion that quality and quantity of the present TC has deteriorated. He urged the members to think of how to change this trend, and attract new blood and be more active.

(c) Gillespie stated that the ongoing research being performed by the California Energy Commission and PG&E will feed into the interest of the TC.

(d) Spielvogel felt that the TC is not balanced since there are no building owners present. He was of the opinion that the TC should inform them how the TC’s program and activities would be beneficial to them. AKbari added that DOE, EPA and such organizations should be more involved. The Chair suggested that all such comments should be forwarded to the Secretary.

21. Chair announced that this is his last meeting as TC Chair and that Trueman would be the incoming chair.Meeting adjourned at 4:01 pm. M/S Akbari/Webster.


Attachment A: TC 9.6 Committee Roster (Effective July 2000)

Voting Members (19) Committee Position OrganizationCedric Trueman (00) [02] Chair Trueman Eng. ServicesAdam Hinge (99)[03] VC/Handbook SC Chair Sustainable Energy Part.Rich Mazzucchi (99) [03] Energy Mgmt SC Chair RPM CorpAgami Reddy (99) [03] Secretary Drexel UniversityHasem Akbari (00)[03] Research SC Chair LBNLMark Case (00)[04] Program SC Chair ETC Group IncMarianne Brodatch (99)[03] International Member Moscow Arch. InstituteYew Wong (99) [03] International Member Nanyang Tech UnivHarold Heiss (00) [04] Standards SC Chair American Electric PowerTaghi Alereza (99)[03] Member ADM AssociatesRobert Chase (00)[04] Member Army Research LabKenneth Gillespie (00)[04] Member Pacific Gas & ElectricWilliam Mixon (97)[01] Member Tech Support ServicesRichard Pearson (97)[01] Member Pearson EngineeringGeorge Reeves (00)[04] Member George Reeves Assoc.Patricia Rose (00)[04] Member US DOERobert Sonderegger(99)[03] Member SRC Systems IncLawrence Spielvogel (99)[03] Member Lawrence Spielvogel Inc

Non-Voting Members (18) Committee Position OrganizationMichael MacDonald (00) Monitor & Energy Perf.

Chair /WbMstr/CMOak Ridge National Lab

Robert Fuller (99) Membership SC Chair/CM RH Fuller & AssocSyed Ali (99) CM Common-Weath EdisonDavid Claridge (99) CM Texas A&M UnivJohn Cowan (99) CM Cowan Quality BldgsEdward Fitts (99) CM St Louis County Govt.Jeff Haberl (90) CM Texas A&M UnivKristin Heinemeier (00) CM Honeywell IncMark Hydeman (00) CM Taylor EngineeringRonald Jarnagin (00) CM Battelle- PNLPrasanna Kadaba (00) CM GA Inst of tech.Eino Kainlauri (99) CM -Richard Kooy (95) CM Chicago Bridge & Iron Mingsheng Liu CM Univ of NebraskaMichael Martin (96)[00] CM California Energy CommIsh Sud (00) CM Sud AssociatesWayne Webster (00) CM RetiredJames Willson (99) CM Fenwal Inc


Attachment B: Agenda

Call to Order......................................................................................... Ish Sud

Roll Call...............................................................................................Agami Reddy

Introductions and Welcome..................................................................Ish Sud

Approval of Dallas Minutes..................................................................Agami Reddy

Chairman’s Report...............................................................................Ish Sud

Webmaster’s Report............................................................................Mike MacDonald

Subcommittee Reports

Membership.........................................................................................Bob Fuller

Research..............................................................................................Cedric Trueman

Program...............................................................................................Mark Case

Handbook.............................................................................................Adam Hinge

Standards.............................................................................................Harold Heiss

Monitoring and Energy Performance...................................................Mike MacDonald

Energy Management............................................................................Rich Mazzucchi

Old Business-GPC 14P Update ..........................................................G. Reeves/K. Gillespie


Attachment C: List of Attendees

(June 27, 2000, Minneapolis, MN)

Names Email Phone NumbersIsh Sud [email protected] 919-493-5277Mark Case [email protected] 801-278-1927John Cowan [email protected] 416-322-6423Robert Sonderegger [email protected] 510-236-2674Srinivas Katipamula [email protected] 713-853-5340Charlie Culp [email protected] 979-458-2654Wayne Webster [email protected] 613-824-8364Hashem Akbari [email protected] 510-486-4287Ken Gillespie [email protected] 925-866-5329Bill Mixon [email protected] 865-376-6683Agami Reddy [email protected] 215-895-1502Harold Heiss [email protected] 614-883-7752Kristin Heinemeier [email protected] 612-830-3567Jim Willson [email protected] 317-506-1156Lazlo Emho [email protected] 361-266-0740George Reeves [email protected] 973-663-2797Preorat Popovic [email protected] 301-403-4410Larry Spielvogel [email protected] 610-687-5900John Castelvecchi [email protected] 804-273-4311Dick Pearson [email protected] 608-274-3339Jeff Haberl [email protected] 409-845-6065Mike MacDonald [email protected] 865-574-5187Moncef Krarti [email protected] 303-492-3387R. Michael Martin [email protected] Obert [email protected] 608-827-6880


mailto:[email protected]













Attachment D:

Webmaster ReportTC 9.6, ASHRAE 2000 Annual Meeting

Minneapolis, June 27, 2000

1. Link to ASHRAE home page has been set up.

2. There has not been much traffic to the page

3. Email contact info has been added

4. Presentation computer files have been added for Dallas Seminar

39

5. All seminar leaders are encouraged to obtain computer files of

presentations and send them to webmaster for inclusion on the site

6. Files were requested from the Air Force presenters from Sunday

7. Respective chairs who wish info to be available on the site should

please forward info to the webmaster

8. Copies of the program chair report are important to have

9. The research portion of the site remains blank

10. The issue of outside links appears to be moot, since the site is

rarely visited


Attachment E: Response to RAS and WS prepared by Gillespie

Summary of Response to Comments to Work Statement 1092-WS “Development of Procedures to Determine In-situ Performance of HVAC Air-side Systems”

October 13, 2000

1. We have accepted RAS suggested removing Task 3 from the work statement. Task 2 has been “beefed up” to allow for Task 3 to be bid at a later date.

2. We agree with RAS that total system performance is important. The scope of the project has been expanded to include the entire system (i.e., the primary source of energy use) not just the “air-side”. The title of the work statement has been modified and more detail has been provided in 3. Objective and Scope.

3. Many of us have spent most our carriers measuring the performance of building and utility energy using systems. We well understand the complexity of conducting such an activity. But this doesn’t stop us; it just forces us to sharpen our pencil and get with it. It is our contention that equipment and system models developed without proper field evaluation will never transition to widespread use by HVAC practitioners and will remain just within the academic and research communities. This does not serve the objectives of ASHRAE, which advocates the dissemination of knowledge to the professional community, in this case the field and maintenance people, not just the design engineer. It is for this reason we feel we cannot modify this requirement except to be more explicit with our requirements, 3. Task 2 and 5. Additional Information for Bidders have been strengthened as a result, and to estimate a sufficient budget as to reasonably accomplish the task.

4. We do not agree with RAS that the work statement should specify the type and number of models to use. This in effect would be doing the Consultants job for them. The requirement of two climate types and three system types will force the bidder to be selective in the model of choice. We have also enhanced 5. Additional Information for Bidders to include the requirement that the bidder to be very specific as which models and analysis procedure they intend to use and their reason for doing so.


October 2000

TC 9.6 Work Statement

Title: Development of Procedures To Determine In-situ Performance of Commonly Used HVAC Systems

0. Synopsis

Recent studies have demonstrated that HVAC system models, originally developed for design purposes, are equally appropriate for detecting and assessing the impact of O&M measures and for identifying energy retrofit savings when monitored data are available. However the effectiveness of these models as fault detectors and savings meters is based on the ability to calibrate them satisfactorily against monitored data. Efforts to reconcile monitored energy use data from large commercial buildings against engineering models/computer packages have essentially led to the development of two diametrically opposing methodologies: (i) an involved approach using detailed computer packages (Bou-Saada and Haberl 1995; Haberl et al. 1993), and (ii) a quicker approach using simplified HVAC and equipment models (Knebel 1983; Brandemuehl 1993; Katipamula and Claridge, 1993).

The primary objective of this research work is to develop a step-by-step procedure that will allow building professionals to ascertain the annual cooling and heating energy use of buildings with multiple HVAC systems from short-term field measurements. This will be accomplished by using engineering models developed from ASHRAE research (drawing either from the HVAC toolkit by Brandemuehl, 1993 or from the algorithms of RP865 developed by Yuill et al., 1997) and proposing ways by which multiple HVAC systems in a single building can be combined so that they could be treated as either 1 or 2 “lumped” or aggregated HVAC units.

The procedure is to be documented and validated with monitored data from six actual buildings with three different types of HVAC systems and in two geographic locations. The procedure shall also recommend what parameters to measure and where to place sensors and instrumentation in HVAC systems. The procedure shall specify the length and season during which the short-term data needs to be taken, and how to perform a systematic calibration of the models or algorithms used (as was done in the completed ASRAE RP-827 project for chillers, fans and pumps, Phelan et al.,1996 and 1997 a and b). The research shall also entail validating the entire approach with monitored, year-long data gathered specifically in the framework of this study or from previously gathered data (provided this is allowed by the PMSC).

1. Background

A variety of energy analysis procedures have been used extensively during the past three decades as effective heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) design and analysis tools. Conceptually, these can be divided into three categories:

(i) manual methods ( degree-day methods, equivalent full load hours and the basic bin method),(ii) comprehensive computer programs, such as DOE-2 (LBL 1989) and BLAST (BLAST 1993)

that perform hourly load calculations, and (iii) a hybrid method known as the modified bin method (Knebel, 1983).

Originally, the modified bin method used climatic bin data to simulate the annual or seasonal system energy performance, which by its very nature did not provide hourly time series behavior of the system performance. Some of the simplifications, for example, involved assuming steady-


state building envelope heat gains and simplified macroscopic modeling of building energy flows and HVAC systems. Subsequently, the same modeling approach was used in conjunction with hour-by-hour chronological climatic and building schedule data to simulate the hourly performance of HVAC systems. The above building energy tools, though developed primarily for design purposes, can be applied equally well to the analysis of monitored data (Rabl, 1988; Katipamula and Claridge, 1993; Reddy et al.1995; Liu and Claridge, 1995; Deng et al., 1997). This approach is referred to as the simplified systems approach in this work statement.

The simplified systems approach has been found to be appropriate for:

(i) enhancing the basic understanding of how HVAC systems perform when subjected to different operating and control conditions,

(ii) reconciling monitored energy use with engineering models for retrofit energy savings determination, and

(iii) detecting and assessing the impact of operating changes on energy use and comfort.

However the effectiveness of this approach is predicated on being able to combine several HVAC units of the same type into one “lumped” or aggregated HVAC unit, and then calibrate it satisfactorily against the monitored data. If the building has HVAC units of different types (such as CV and VAV), then one may need to represent it by two such lumped HVAC units.

Calibrating computer models to actual metered data is not a new practice. As early as 1970, recommendations were made to calibrate models based on measured data (Ayres and Stamper 1995). Some researchers and engineers have attempted to compile "how to" manuals and methods in order to simplify this task. Further, in almost all cases the end result falls short of a useful toolkit of procedures (Diamond and Hunn 1981; Hsieh 1988; Kaplan et al. 1990; Hinchey 1991; Hunn et al. 1992; Kaplan et al. 1992; Haberl et al. 1993; Clarke et al. 1993; McLain et al. 1993; Bou Saada and Haberl 1995; Haberl et al. 1995; Manke et al., 1996). Most of these calibrations rely on the comprehensive simulation packages which model building energy flows and HVAC system performance in a more detailed manner than do the simplified systems approach. If the building has multiple HVAC units, models for each unit needs to be formulated, which is tedious for field methods.

2. Justification of Need

With the increased use of building energy simulation for evaluating the effectiveness of energy conservation retrofits, calibration of the simulation program to measured data has been recognized as an important factor in substantiating how well the model represents data from a real building. The calibration of a simulation to measured monthly utility data has been the preferred method for many years. However, most of the previous methods have relied on very simple comparisons including bar charts, monthly percent difference time-series graphs, and monthly x-y scatter plots.

More recently, work on calibrated models using hourly measured data has been reported. Unfortunately, at hourly levels of calibration, many of the traditional statistical and graphical calibration techniques become overwhelmed with too many data points which make it difficult to determine the central tendency of the black cloud of data points and hence the progress of the calibration.

The problem is most complex when detailed building simulation programs are used for calibration. On the other hand the simplified systems approach requires fewer parameters to tune and the parameters are more easily interpreted in terms of aggregate physical behavior of the HVAC system and building thereby being able to provide intuitive insights into practical energy conserving improvements.


The application of simplified system models to reduce energy use in existing buildings has reached a certain level of maturity and the resulting literature has grown considerably. But no general procedure exists that can be readily implemented by energy professionals. It is desirable then to distill this information, documenting known algorithms that can be calibrated to measured data from an existing building. Collating such distilled knowledge requires the collection of all known literature on calibration procedures, cataloging the methods into an appropriate classification, and developing calibration assessment procedures that can be used by energy professionals.

This project will benefit ASHRAE membership as well as those professionals involved in building commissioning and energy conservation. Specifically, it will:

(1) Widen the acceptance and applicability of calibrated simplified systems simulations in the analysis of actual performance of HVAC building mechanical systems;

(2) Provide material for HVAC building energy analysis book publishers as an aid for developing more effective texts and training programs;

(3) Serve as a resource for the future development of HVAC system fault detection procedures;

(4) Impart better understanding of why and how calibrated building energy software programs can be used to improve HVAC performance and indoor air quality;

(5) Provide the necessary step-by-step instructions for building energy professionals to perform the calibration to energy use data of buildings whose performance they are charged to track; and

(6) Provide a well-documented procedure to develop lumped and simplified models using short-term data should help energy professionals verify savings without having to install long-term metering.

3. Objectives and Scope

The objective of this research is to develop a procedure that will allow building energy professionals to determine the in-situ long-term performance of their HVAC systems from short-term field measurements. The following tasks are envisioned:

Task 1) Consultant shall prepare an annotated bibliographic review listing the various publications which have dealt with simplified HVAC system models, including a description of the specific types of buildings and HVAC systems as well as the models and analysis approaches used.

Task 2) Conduct cases studies. This involves the following sub-tasks:

(a) Consultant shall identify at least 10 buildings, including office and retail store occupancy with different HVAC system types (specifically, constant volume single duct, constant volume dual duct and variable air volume single duct reheat systems which could be either chilled water based or roof-top units) that are located in two geographic climates - a humid climate and a temperate or dry climate. Consultant shall provide for each building a description of occupancy type, age and size, construction type, and major energy end uses in the building. Consultant in concert with the ASHRAE PMSC shall select six buildings for the case studies (the three system types in two geographic climates).

(b) Consultant shall recommend experimental design approach including the protocol for determining how the HVAC systems will be lumped together, what types of in-situ measurements are to be performed, the operating conditions under which such in-situ measurements are to be obtained, instrumentation requirements and data collection hardware and the methods for


verifying measured data. One year, or at least 9 months, of monitored data for some of the major channels (such as whole-building cooling and heating thermal energy use, internal load and air-handler unit electricity use, etc...) must be available in order to subsequently validate the calibration process and the in-situ/short-term measurement testing. Note that appropriate existing data gathered from previous projects can be used if approved by the PMSC.

(c) Consultant shall perform short-term in-situ testing during at least two to three different seasons of the year so as to demonstrate the differences in the HVAC model calibration and the resulting differences in annual predictive results of such models.

(d) Consultant shall document how the collected short-term data was used to systematically calibrate the appropriate simplified HVAC systems model using the analysis procedure identified in their proposal.

(e) Consultant shall compare the differences in the HVAC system model calibration results and their associated performance predictions of annual energy use (cooling and heating energy use) when short-term data from different seasons is used.

(f) Consultant shall prepare a Case Study Report documenting all subtasks for each of the six sites.

Task 3) Consult shall prepare a technical paper, and a research note, and/or an ASHRAE Journal Article as requested by the project monitoring subcommittee.

4. Deliverables

The following deliverables will be required:

(1) Consultant shall submit to the PMS within the first 3 months a report describing the annotated bibliography and an audit plan which including the buildings chosen, the type of data available, the type of instrumentation to be installed and the simplified HVAC system algorithms to be used for model calibration.

(2) Upon a satisfactory review by the PMS, Consultant shall proceed with Task 2 and prepare a draft document of the procedure. This should be completed within 6 months from the start of the project.

(3) At the end of 18 months, Consultant shall prepare a Case Study Report fully describing the results from the six case studies. The report shall describe for each case how the short-term HVAC performance was measured with details of the instrumentation and in-situ tests performed and how long-term energy use was predicted, including the success of the HVAC system model calibration, and the predictive accuracy of such models. Sufficient detail shall be provided, including the necessary step-by-step instructions, for building energy professionals to perform similar calibrations of simplified system models to energy use data of existing buildings.

Unless otherwise specified, the Case Study Report shall be furnished in the following manner: · Six bound copies· One unbound copy, printed on one side only, suitable for reproduction.· Two copies on 3-1/2 " PC-formatted diskette(s); one in ASCII format and one in the word

processing format used to produce the report.

Data used or measured during the course of the project shall be provided to ASHRAE on 3-1/2” PC-formatted diskette(s).


(5) Consultant shall prepare one or more ASHRAE technical paper(s) that reports the results of the project to be presented at an ASHRAE meeting. The papers shall conform to Section 5 of the Society's "Author's Manual for Technical and Symposium Papers".

Along with the above deliverables, the Consultant shall also meet the following milestones:

(6) Quarterly progress and financial reports shall be made to the Society through its Manager of Research.

(7) The Principal Investigator shall report in person to PMSC, (and full TC if deemed appropriate) at the annual and winter ASHRAE meetings, and satisfactorily answer such questions regarding the research as may arise during those meetings.

5. Additional Information for Bidders

The successful bidders should:

1. Demonstrate their knowledge of HVAC system calibration procedures as well as practical field experience, and should have a proven and well-documented track record in this area, in terms of publications, articles and dated official reports.

2. Demonstrate their familiarity with data from HVAC systems, including the ability to obtain such data, and knowledge of all traditional methods used to statistically analyze such data.

3. Provide a detailed list of the buildings and available monitored data from which the six case study buildings will be selected.

4. Provide specific details as to which models/analysis procedure(s) are intended to be used and reason for doing so.

5. Provide a project plan, project timetable, budget detail - including a reasonable breakdown of the costs of performing the work, including instrumentation, travel, analysis, programming, computer supplies, etc., and proposal documentation in support of the project methodology.

Data measured as part of this project must be made available for use by ASHRAE.

6. Level of Effort

Approximate Cost: $125,000, to be completed in 18 calendar months or less. Following is a suggested breakdown of the effort, by task.

Task 1. Preparation of Annotated Bibliography and Research Plan – 10%

Task 2. Instrumentation, Measurement, and Documentation of Case Studies – 85%

Task 3. Preparation of a technical paper, and a research note, and/or ASHRAE Journal Article as requested by the project monitoring subcommittee – 5 %

7. Contributor(s)Agami Reddy, Drexel University, Jeff Haberl Texas A&M University, editing by Robert Sonderegger, SRC Systems, Inc., Srinivas Katipamula, PNNL and Ken Gillespie, PG&E

8. ReferencesAyres, J.M. and Stamper,E. 1995. Historical development of building energy calculations, ASHRAE Transactions Preprint. 101(1).


BLAST. 1993. BLAST users manual. BLAST Support Office, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

Bou Saada, T. and Haberl, J. 1995. "A Weather-daytyping Procedure for Disaggregating Hourly End-use Loads in an Electrically Heated and Cooled Building from Whole-building Hourly Data", Proceedings of the 30th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, July 31, - August 4, 1995, Orlando, Florida.

Brandemuehl, M.J., 1993. “HVAC-2 Toolkit”, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA.

Carrier, 1995. “E20-II HVAC Design and Hourly Analysis Program v3.20”, Carrier Corporation, Syracuse, NY.

Clarke, J.A, Strachan, P.A. and Pernot, C.. 1993. An approach to the calibration of building energy simulation models. ASHRAE Transactions. 99(2): 917-927.

Deng, S., Reddy, T.A. and Claridge, D.E., 1997. Development of an Inverse Method to Estimate Overall Building and Ventilation Parameters of Large Commercial Buildings. 1997 ASME International Solar Energy Conference, March, Washington D.C.

Diamond, S.C. and Hunn, B.D.. 1981. Comparison of DOE-2 computer program simulations to metered data for seven commercial buildings. ASHRAE Transactions. 87(1) : 1222-1231.

Haberl, J., Bronson, D., Hinchey, S. and O'Neal, D. 1993. "Graphical Tools to help Calibrate the DOE-2 Simulation Program to Non-weather Dependent Measured Loads", 1993 ASHRAE Journal, Vol. 35, No.1, pp. 27-32, (January).

Haberl, J., Bronson, D.and O'Neal, D. 1995. "An Evaluation of the Impact of Using Measured Weather Data Versus TMY Weather Data in a DOE-2 Simulation of an Existing Building in Central Texas." ASHRAE Transactions Technical Paper no. 3921,Vol. 101, Pt. 2, (June).

Haberl, J.S., Bronson, J.D. and O'Neal. D.L. 1995. An evaluation of the impact of using measured weather data versus TMY weather data in a DOE-2 simulation of an existing building in central Texas. ESL Report No. ESL-TR-93/09-02. College Station, TX.

Hinchey, S.B. 1991. Influence of thermal zone assumptions on DOE-2 energy use estimations of a commercial building. M.S. Thesis, Energy Systems Report No. ESL-TH-91/09-06, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Hsieh, E.S. 1988. Calibrated computer models of commercial buildings and their role in building design and operation. M.S. Thesis, PU/CEES Report No. 230, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

Hunn, B.D., Banks,J.A. and Reddy, S.N.. 1992. Energy analysis of the Texas Capitol restoration. The DOE-2 User News. 13(4): 2-10.

Kaplan, M.B., Jones, B. and Jansen, J.. 1990a. DOE-2.1C model calibration with monitored end-use data. Proceedings from the ACEEE 1990 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Vol. 10, pp. 10.115-10.125.

Kaplan, M.B., Caner, P. and Vincent, G.W.. 1992. Guidelines for energy simulation of commercial buildings. Proceedings from the ACEEE 1992 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Vol. 1, pp. 1.137-1.147.


Katipamula, S. and Claridge, D.E.. 1993. " Use of Simplified Systems Models to Measure Retrofit Savings", ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, Vol.115, pp.57-68, May.

Knebel, D. E., 1983. Simplified Energy Analysis Using the Modified Bin Method, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.

LBL. 1989. DOE-2 Supplement, Ver 2.1D. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, LBL Report No. LBL-8706 Rev. 5 Supplement. DOE-2 User Coordination Office, LBL, Berkeley, CA.

Liu, M. and Claridge , D.E., 1995. “Application of Calibrated HVAC System Models to Identify Component Malfunctions and to Optimize the Operation and Control Schedules”, Solar Engineering 1995, W.B.Stine, T.Tanaka and D.E.Claridge (Eds.), ASME/JSME/JSES International Solar Energy Conference, Maui, Hawaii, March.

Manke, J., Hittle, D. and Hanckock 1996. “Calibrating Building Energy Analysis Models Using Short Term Test Data”, Proceedings of the 1996 International ASME Solar Energy Conference, p.369, San Antanio, TX.

McLain, H.A., Leigh, S.B., and MacDonald, J.M.. 1993. Analysis of savings due to multiple energy retrofits in a large office building. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL Report No. ORNL/CON-363, Oak Ridge, TN.

Phelan, J., M.J. Brandemuehl, and M. Krarti. 1996. Final Report ASHRAE Project RP-827: Methodology Development to Measure In-Situ Chiller, Fan, and Pump Performance. JCEM Report No. JCEM/TR/96-3, University of Colorado at Boulder.

Phelan, J., M.J. Brandemuehl, and M. Krarti. 1997a. "In-Situ Performance Testing of Fans and Pumps for Energy Analysis." ASHRAE Transactions, V.103, Pt.1. 4040 (RP-827).

Phelan, J., Brandemuehl, M.J. and Krarti, M., 1997b. "In-situ performance testing of chillers for energy analysis", ASHRAE Transactions, 103(1), paper 4040 (RP-827), American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta.

Rabl, A. Parameter Estimation in Buildings: Methods for Dymanic Analysis of Measured Energy Use. ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, vol.110, pp.52-66.

Reddy, T.A. , Katipamula, S, Kissock, J.K. and Claridge, D.E.. 1995 "The Functional Basis Of Steady-State Thermal Energy Use In Air-Side HVAC Equipment", ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, vol.117, p.21, Feb.

Yuill, G., Haberl, J. and Saman, N. 1997. “Progress report for ASHRAE RP865: Development of Accuracy Tests for Air-Side HVAC Systems”, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (June).


Attachment F: Email from Mixon on RTAR EMail vote

All,The attached rtar1f and rtar2f were approved by TC 9.6 via e-mail vote andwere submitted to Bill Seaton, ASHRAE Research, on July 24, 2000. This beattheir Aug 1, 2000 deadline, but I don't yet have a copy of the ASHRAE2001-2002 Research Plan to see if either made the list. The attached rtar3was not approved, but is transmitted for further consideration at the 2001Winter Meeting in Atlanta.

The vote count was as follows:rtar1f: 10 yes, 0 no, 0 abstainrtar2f: 9 yes, 0 no, 1 abstainrtar3: 8 yes, 2 no, 0 abstain

There were 16 voting members at that time, not counting internationalmembers, so 9 yes votes were needed for approval.

Business for Atlanta will be to develop Work Statements for projectsprioritized in the 2001-2002 Research Plan, to reconsider rtar3, and todevelop RTAR's for new or old ideas. I'll forward a new Research Plan assoon as it is available. Please let me know if you have questions or needmore information.

Sincerely,Bill Mixon


RESEARCH TOPIC ACCEPTANCE REQUEST (RTAR) #1Title: Benchmarking of Building Energy Performance Rating SystemsTC/TG: TC 9.6 Systems Energy Utilization

Research Category: ENERGY CONSERVATION

Research Classification: BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH

TC/TG Priority: 1

Estimated Cost: $ 160,000

Background / State-of-the-Art:

Several building rating systems have emerged in the last few years. Some of these systems have a focus on environmental performance of buildings, while others look at energy efficiency performance. Those systems that rate environmental performance typically also have portions that rate energy efficiency performance. The energy efficiency performance portions of such systems are the subject of this request. Primary examples of these methods are the EPA Energy Star label tool, BREEAM, LEED, and multiple tools at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. These rating systems quantify a rating of energy performance.

Justification of Need / Advancement to State-of-the-Art: ASHRAE's guidelines and standards will likely be compared to these rating systems over time, and one of the systems is proposing to use Standard 90.1 as the rating method. ASHRAE should take a proactive approach to not only evaluating these systems, but also considering the appropriateness of using ASHRAE standards for such ratings and comparing results obtained from using these different methods. Recommendations should be developed on best use of ASHRAE energy standards in this area of efficiency ratings, best methods for rating building energy efficiency performance, and possible future options for standards and guidelines on rating building energy performance.

Objective

The objectives of the proposed work are to review and evaluate between five and ten current building rating systems that include an energy performance component, select a set of approximately 10 buildings with known energy use data, generate energy performance ratings for these buildings using the rating systems, and also evaluate energy performance relative to the requirements of Standard 90.1. Work includes analysis of the ability of the rating systems and Standard 90.1 to provide useful results on the energy performance of the 10 buildings, and development of recommendations on best use of ASHRAE Std 90.1 relative to rating building energy performance, on technical development of energy performance rating systems, and on options for standards and guidelines on rating building energy efficiency performance.


RESEARCH TOPIC ACCEPTANCE REQUEST (RTAR) #2

Title: Design Specifications for Performance Monitoring of New Buildings and their Energy End-Uses

TC/TG: TC9.6 Systems Energy Utilization

Research Category: Energy Conservation

Research Classification: Basic and Applied Research

TC/TG Priority: 2

Estimated Cost: $40,000


Chapter 39, Building Energy Monitoring, of the Applications Handbook provides a detailed discussion of the various reasons and techniques for monitoring the performance of buildings and their energy end-uses.

Justification of Need / Advancement to State-of-the-Art:

While the discussion is articulate, a design professional is not readily able to convert it into a design specification or a building owner is not readily able to convert it into a RFP unless they or their consultant have a well founded understanding of measurement systems as well as uncertainty. Measurement systems are more easily implemented when they are planned for during design. Proper measurement requires that adequate provisions be made for sensors. Without such information contractors are less inclined to provide the proper conditions for measurement.

Objective

The objective is to more readily enable the inclusion of performance monitoring during the design phase, where critical decisions are made regarding measurement requirements and the placement of sensors, by developing a standardized design specification. It should be produced in such a way that the user can easily modify it. Such specifications should be implementable in stand-alone systems or as a part of an energy management and control system. Since performance monitoring can be used for various economic and operational reasons, 3 ranges of annual performance should be considered: +/- 3%, +/- 5%, and +/- 10%. Applications should be developed for whole building, chilled water systems, hydronic heating systems, air handling systems and lighting systems. Each specification should include detailed instrumentation and data management requirements.


RESEARCH TOPIC ACCEPTANCE REQUEST (RTAR) #3

Title: Development of Tools to Mine Building Data for Energy Efficiency Opportunities

TC/TG: TC9.6 Systems Energy Utilization

Research Category: Energy Conservation

Research Classification:

TC/TG Priority: 3

Estimated Cost: $150,000


Research has shown that buildings continue to use significant amounts of energy unnecessarily. Simple spreadsheet tools as well as complex computer simulation tools, which allow the user to interrogate and analyze building data, have been available for some time. But with the advance of technology, greater computer power and data storage is now being made available in the personal computers that run building management systems and energy management and control systems. New database data mining tools are now available to manage and manipulate large quantities of data. Such technology allows for a large number of monitoring and control points to be archived and made available review.

Justification of Need / Advancement to State-of-the-Art:

Recent research activities funded by ASHRAE and the California Energy Commissions PIER program as well as many private efforts have developed new equipment and system models that characterize performance from operational data. These models need to be incorporated into tools that allow building owners and energy consultants to more effectively mine the available building data for energy saving opportunities.

Objective:

The objective of this project is to develop a PC based software program that mines available building data for energy efficiency opportunities. The tool would allow the user, starting at the whole building level, to evaluate at a minimum the following conditions and systems: schedule of operations, chilled water, hydronic heating, air distribution, and lighting.

This project should be conducted in 2 phases under separate contracts. In phase 1, the functional specification for creating the tool is developed. It would include a literature search, identification and selection of appropriate models, and the development of a functional specification for the tool, including documentation requirements and help files. In phase 2, the software program is written, beta tested, and published.


Appendix G: Program Sub-Committee Report: Mark Case

Events Which Happened in Seattle

Sunday 8:00 AM Seminar 4 Uses of Short Term Data Sets For Measurement & Verification of Energy Savings. ( Mazzucchi) Track:

Sunday 10:15AM Seminar 9 Update on GPC 14P (Mazzuchi) Track:

Tuesday 8:00 AM Symposium 16 – Co-sponsor TC 1.2 Use Of Uncertainty Analysis in Design and Performance Evaluations (Alereza) Track: Fundamentals

Events Which Happened in Dallas

1. Seminar: Co-Sponsor TC 9.9 Existing Building Commissioning – Energy Saving Opportunities (Hinge)

Comments: Too many speakers, 150+ people standing room only.

2. Seminar Current Capabilities and Costs of Equipment For Measurement and Verification of Building Energy Savings. (Mazzucchi)

Comments: Well received, 150-200 people, request for more programs on similar topics.

3. Seminar First Look at Standard 90.1-1999 (Ron Jarnagin)

Events Which Happened in Minneapolis

Seminar:Co-Sponsor with GPC 14PPublic Review of Guideline 14P – Overview, Compliance, Examples.Chair: George Reeves Seminar:Energy Savings Performance Contracting – Playing With the FedsChair: Richard Mazzucchi Forum (scheduled but was not held)What Should ASHRAE Include in a Professional Development Course on Energy ManagementChair: Dick Pearson


Attachment H:

TC 9.6 Handbook Subcommittee Meeting MinutesJune 25, 2000; Minneapolis, MN

Notes prepared by Adam Hinge

Adam Hinge convened the meeting at 5:15 pm. Attendees included Adam Hinge, Ish Sud, Dick Pearson, Mike MacDonald, Mingsheng Liu, Hashem Akbari, Jim Willson, and Ken Gillespie.

The meeting began with an introduction, with the information supplied by Henry Manczyk, the Handbook Committee liaison (see attached report).

Mike MacDonald noted that he had signed on several reviewers/revisers for Chapter 39, Building Energy Monitoring, including Mingsheng Liu, Hashem Akbari, George Reeves, John Phelan and Ken Gillespie.

The subcommittee then discussed the issues raised in Adam Hinge’s June 21 memo regarding Chapter 35, Energy Management. In particular, there was substantial discussion regarding who is the audience for the chapter, and what key messages do we need to convey. There was strong agreement that a key message that needed to be added/strengthened is demonstrating the documented value of energy management activity.

The discussion then moved to the outline of the chapter. After a brief review of the different outlines that Adam had sent around with the June 21 memo, all agreed to start with Mike MacDonald’s suggested expanded outline that he had sent by e-mail on June 22 as a straw man.

After substantial discussion about the outline, Adam Hinge agreed to expand the draft outline of the chapter as discussed during the meeting, in consultation with several others, and that this would be circulated for review and discussion prior to the Atlanta meeting in January.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 pm.


Attachment I:

MEETING MINUTESTC 9.6 Performance Monitoring Subcommittee, Chair: Mike MacDonald

Minneapolis, MNJune 26, 2000

The meeting was attended by six members of the TC: Sud, Akbari, Willson, Mixon, Gillespie, and MacDonald (chair). Three visitors also attended: Mingsheng Liu of the Univ of Nebraska, Steve Carlson of CDH Energy (Wisconsin branch), and Charlie Culp of Texas A&M.

Scope: The draft scope for the subcommittee was discussed briefly. Comments on the draft scope should be emailed to the chair. A second draft is appended to these minutes.

Handbook Chapter 39: The Chapter is under revision. Revisors for the chapter currently are:Mike MacDonald, Hashem Akbari, John Phelan, Ken Gillespie, Mark Ternes of ORNL, George Reeves, Mingsheng Liu, Bill Mixon, and Charlie Culp. Anyone interested in being a revisor should contact the chair of this subcommittee. A Microsoft Word version of the chapter, figure 1, and tables will be sent by email to all revisors. Comments are due back by December 31, 2000.

PROGRAM items were not discussed in any manner of substance.

Research Items: Discussion of technical areas of interest led to extended discussion of research needs related to energy simulation modeling, energy monitoring methods, energy rating methods, and buildings commissioning. This discussion was used as the springboard to a productive Research Subcommittee meeting. The chair handed out copies of the most recent ORNL method for ranking energy efficiency performance of any commercial facilities (caveats on restaurants), together with an example building with the data entered on the calculation sheets.

Additional Note Related to New Business at the Full TC Meeting:

Revision of the guidance contained on field monitoring projects for ASHRAE research projects that was originally developed by TC 9.6 was requested and was assigned to this subcommittee to handle.

2 nd DRAFT Performance Monitoring Subcommittee Scope

The performance monitoring subcommittee of TC9.6 evaluates and develops monitoring methods, hardware and software for field monitoring, data management and analysis procedures, energy performance metrics, and requirements for characterization of facilities.

The subcommittee provides guidance to practitioners on these topics. Improvement of energy performance measurement for facilities and energy systems is the goal.

The subcommittee implements this scope by developing and assisting with ASHRAE programs, standards and guidelines, research projects, handbook updates, and information for the TC on energy performance measurement topics. The subcommittee interacts with other organizations to facilitate improved energy performance measurement methods.


Attachment J

TC 9.6: Scope

Old Scope

TC 9.6 is concerned with procedures for accounting for all types of energy usage in structures and quantifying these energy usages as a function of the character and utilization of the structure. This includes:

(1) classification procedures for structures,(2) classification procedures for system performance,(3) energy budget/audits guided by structures/systems classification,(4) energy/economic value aspects of retrofit of existing structures/systems for energy conservation,(5) monitoring legislative codes and ordinances and standards activities pertaining to building/system energy utilization, and(6) protocols for building energy monitoring and reporting.

Proposed Scope

TC 9.6 is concerned with improving the measurement, reporting, understanding and management of all types of energy use and demand of facilities and building systems. This includes:

(1) Determining energy and economic impacts of energy efficiency improvements(2) Analysis and assessment(3) Management approaches(4) Classifying, monitoring and reporting energy use and demand(5) Methods for determining and comparing performance(6) Monitoring legislative codes, ordinances and standards activities

Scope As Approved By TC During Dallas Meeting, Feb. 2000

TC 9.6 is concerned with improving the measurement, reporting, understanding and management of all types of energy use and demand of facilities and building systems. This includes:

(1) Determining energy and economic impacts of energy efficiency improvements(2) Analysis and assessment of energy use and demand(3) Management approaches related to energy use and demand(4) Classifying, monitoring and reporting energy use and demand(5) Methods for determining and comparing performance(6) Monitoring applicable legislative codes, ordinances and standards activities


MINUTES - tc76.org Minutes 2000.doc · Web viewamerican society of heating, refrigerating. and...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES - tc76.org Minutes 2000.doc · Web viewamerican society of heating, refrigerating. and...