Premium Ventilation Proof of Concept Field TestReid Hart, PEAssociate Director, Technical Research
NPCC Regional Technical Forum October 13th, 2009
2
Premium Ventilation Package SpecificationsAnalysisField Test Results
3
Beyond tune-ups & EER:Premium Ventilation Package
Specifications:Start with a Premium Economizer
• Integrated with high or differential changeover
Upgrade the Economizer module with • DCV capable economizer control module• CO2 Sensor; Min air setting improved
Add variable speed fan motor control• Full (or near full) speed in heating or cooling• Low (40%) speed in idle mode
Field testing currently underway in Oregon
4
AcknowlegementsPrimary funding: Bonneville Power Administration
• Jack Callahan• Mira Vowles
With Support by: Eugene Water & Electric Board
• Will Price• Chris Wolgamott
Energy Trust of Oregon• Phil Degens• Nick O’Neil
NPCC Regional Technical Forum RTUG
5
Single Phase Fan Speed Control forNew Units or Retrofit
Retrofit VSD OptionsTwo manufacturers now available ~ $250
Both use temperature control strategyField testing discoveries:Functioned wellIncompatible with “start-capacitor” motors
6
Better Acceptance Testing Needed
Current acceptance testing is basically a sign-offCalifornia title 24 formsEWEB Premium Economizer checklist
Improved forms will require field found values to be enteredDesigned to walk the contractor through the checkout and setup process
Draft forms included in the reportNeed field testing during pilotNeed streamlining
Solid state controllers require a voltage generator during setup to properly adjust DCV setpointsMatching sensor range and output to the controller is non-trivial
7
Significant Ventilation
ImprovementsFan is in auto positionDuring January, little daytime operationCO2 concentration almost triple desired
After retrofit, highest CO2 concentration within target limits.Single return air sensor worked for multiple rooms:Computer labBilliard room
AC-1 Pre-Retrofit Poor Ventilation
300
600900
1,2001,500
1,8002,1002,400
2,700
12:00 PM1:00 PM
2:00 PM3:00 PM
4:00 PM5:00 PM
6:00 PM
Wed, Jan 14, 2009
PPM
Car
bon
Diox
ide
Prox
y fo
r Air
Qua
lity
Fan
on
Fan On CO2 outside CO2 RA
CO2 Space Far - Adj CO2 Space Near CO2 Target
Near & Far sensors in same space (Far adjusted)
Note: Fan is off most of the day because heat from occupants met heating load
AC-1 Multiple Room CO2 Measurement Divergance
300
500
700
900
1,100
1,300
9:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
Wed, May 27, 2009
PPM
Car
bon
Diox
ide
Prox
y fo
r Ind
oor A
ir Q
ualit
y
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Fan
Amps
Fan Amps CO2 Return Air CO2 Computer Rm adj
CO2 Billiard Rm CO2 outside CO2 Target
8
Single CO2 Sensor Does It
• Easiest placement of the sensor is in the return air
Concerns:• Studies suggest putting
sensor in the breathing zone (California T24 code required)
• When multiple rooms are served by one unit, an imbalance in ventilation quality may occur with uneven occupancy
• With VSD, less air throw at the diffuser may reduce ventilation effectiveness.
Even with one room heavily occupied, return air sensing can meet requirements with a slight ventilation setpoint adjustment (900 ppm)
AC-1 Multiple Room CO2 Measurement Divergance
300
500
700
900
1,100
1:00 PM2:00 PM
3:00 PM4:00 PM
Mon, Jun 15, 2009
PPM
Car
bon
Diox
ide
Prox
y fo
r Ind
oor A
ir Q
ualit
y
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Fan
Amps
Fan Amps CO2 Return Air CO2 Computer Rm - Adj
CO2 Billiard Rm CO2 outside CO2 Target
9
Premium Ventilation:Significant RTU Savings
Premium economizer savings, plusFan savings when not heating or coolingReduced ventilation when not occupied
Estimated HVAC savings: 25% - 45%Compare savings in Sacramento, CA:SEER 13 to 15: 0.22 kWh/sfPremium Ventilation: 2.0 kWh/sf
Limited field testing:One unit with adequate data shows double the savingsWaiting for post heating data to analyze others
10
Premium Ventilation Package Regional HVAC Savings
Hart, et al. ACEEE, 2008
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Phoenix AZ
Sa c'to CA
Eugene OR
Boise ID
Burl'ton VT
Chica go IL
M em phis TN
Houston TX
HVA
C k
Wh
per
1000
squa
re fe
et
Ba se Tota l HVAC
Tota l ECM Sa vings
Rem a ining Fa n & Aux
Rem a ining Cooling
Rem a ining Hea ting
Eva pora tive Pre-cool
Fa n VSD Idle
Dem a nd Ventila tion
Integra ted Econom izer
Ventila tion Wa rm up
Strip Hea t lockout
Optim um Sta rt
11
Modeling Methods ReviewedFour IPMVP “B” methods based on equipment electric measurement (vs. whole building)
• Inverse model or change-point analysis• Hourly OAT average vs energy use• Daily OAT average vs energy use (NBI Proposed)• Multi-variable linear regression
12
Inverse or Change Point ModelSupported by ASHRAE Research
• Works with full data set rather than averages• 3-point model made the most sense without post heating data
• 5-point model expected to be more accurate once post heating data available• Full year pre and post data recommended
13
Hourly Average by OAT BinHourly provides better overlap of pre and post data than daily
• Does not separate occupied vs. unoccupied; • Will be separated in analysis after post-heating data is in• Sufficient post heating data to establish conservative estimate of post
heating model (unlike daily average)
• This unit shown has more than triple projected savings
• Additional savings from ◦ correcting
improper unoccupied heat setting &
◦ achieving unintentional night flush effect
HP-4 Averaged Hourly Use per Bin Temperature
y = -88.306x + 4588R2 = 0.7448
y = 270.11x - 13037R2 = 0.9083
y = 54.736x - 2788.4R2 = 0.7572
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Outside Temp, F (rooftop); Balance Point 47F
Aver
age
Wat
t Hou
rs
Heat Pre
Cool Pre
Heat Post
Cool Post
Post Heat Trend
Linear (Heat Pre)
Linear (Cool Pre)
Linear (Cool Post)
Post Heat Trend (imputed): Lacking post heating data; Post heating taken as same slope as pre with intercept offset as observed near balance point from post data
y = -88.306x + 3993
14
Daily Energy Signature
Heating separated from coolingNot enough post heating data
R2 look good, as they often will for highly averaged dataShows significant Savings
Current NBI Suggested Regional Approach – RTF/BPA buy in
HP-4 Daily Energy Signature
y = -1610.2x + 92541R2 = 0.5107
y = 2785.7x - 106048R2 = 0.4159
y = 1162x - 57944R2 = 0.8263
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Average Daily Outside Temperature, degF
Wat
t-Hou
rs p
er D
ay
Heat Pre
Cool Pre
Heat Post
Cool Post
Linear (Heat Pre)
Linear (Cool Pre)
Linear (Cool Post)
Balance point selected at 44F to maximize pre R2. Data for post heating not yet available.
15
Multi-Variable Regression
Select VariablesBoth hourly and multi-day OAT
Co-determination shows importanceECM & Occup“Heating” indicator captures change point
Coefficients move as expectedInteractive variables move R2 from 0.19 to 0.45MV regressions are difficult to visualize
1.1E-13710.6%91.57Interactive impact of Occupied*OATOcc*OAT
6.0E-810.2%-133.83Interactive impact of Heat*OATHeat*OAT
3.2E-193.3%-50.73Interactive impact of ECM*OATECM*OAT
3.1E-550.3%-1618.97Interactive impact of ECM*OccupiedECM*Occ
1.1E-030.2%-929.74Interactive impact of ECM*HeatECM*Heat
2.9E-850.8%6182.69510.59
A categorical variable 0 when outside air is above an assumed balance point and 1 when below. The balance point can be taken from a review of binned baseline results, although that is not strictly independent. The seasonal winter average temperature is a good proxy and is strictly independent
Heating
6.4E-070.1%28.4920.53The outside air temperature for the hour
OAT (Avg Hr)
1.6E-421.8%74.0175.35
The moving average of the outside temperature for the previous 5 days to give the impact of season on the building similar to the daily average approach
OAT Seasonal
1.5E-1077.9%-3569.57576.77
A categorical variable: 0 for unoccupied periods and 1 for occupied periods based on a general schedule
Occupied
1.9E-165.1%2434.48-807.16A categorical variable 0 for the pre condition and 1 for the post condition after retrofit
ECM
6.7E-39-4371.17-3678.79Intercept
interactiveseparate
Interactive P-value
Codeter-mination
with Watt-hours
CoefficientsExplanationIndependent Variable
1.1E-13710.6%91.57Interactive impact of Occupied*OATOcc*OAT
6.0E-810.2%-133.83Interactive impact of Heat*OATHeat*OAT
3.2E-193.3%-50.73Interactive impact of ECM*OATECM*OAT
3.1E-550.3%-1618.97Interactive impact of ECM*OccupiedECM*Occ
1.1E-030.2%-929.74Interactive impact of ECM*HeatECM*Heat
2.9E-850.8%6182.69510.59
A categorical variable 0 when outside air is above an assumed balance point and 1 when below. The balance point can be taken from a review of binned baseline results, although that is not strictly independent. The seasonal winter average temperature is a good proxy and is strictly independent
Heating
6.4E-070.1%28.4920.53The outside air temperature for the hour
OAT (Avg Hr)
1.6E-421.8%74.0175.35
The moving average of the outside temperature for the previous 5 days to give the impact of season on the building similar to the daily average approach
OAT Seasonal
1.5E-1077.9%-3569.57576.77
A categorical variable: 0 for unoccupied periods and 1 for occupied periods based on a general schedule
Occupied
1.9E-165.1%2434.48-807.16A categorical variable 0 for the pre condition and 1 for the post condition after retrofit
ECM
6.7E-39-4371.17-3678.79Intercept
interactiveseparate
Interactive P-value
Codeter-mination
with Watt-hours
CoefficientsExplanationIndependent Variable
16
The Importance of Occupancy
Average hourly data (HOD or hour of day) for pre and post period show distinct occupied & unoccupied energy usesRequires modal (heat vs. cooling) analysis – more data points collectedWhat else is surprising?
HP-4 Pre vs. Post Hourly Energy Use
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour of Day
Ave
rage
Mod
al W
att-
hour
Use
Heat Pre
Cool Pre
Heat Post
Cool Post
17
Comparison of 4 Models
Period resultsAnnualized results2200 to 3600 kWh/ton
Original projections470 to 900 kWh/ton
This particular unit had other savings contributors:Corrected daily heating surge at beginning of unoccupied periodContinuous fan operation provided unwitting night flush effect in post period
ConclusionsBoth signature approaches & change point line up fairly well with monitoredAfter post-heating data is in, will run 2 units with occupied/unoccupied split
Monitored Period
(kWh) TMY Annual Projection (kWh)
Method Pre Post Pre Post SavingsAdjusted Savings**
Actual Monitoring 3,201 711
Day Signature* 3,201 709 17,072 2,434 14,638 86% 12,152 71%
Hour Signature 2,948 761 20,570 4,336 16,234 79% 13,477 66%
ChangePoint (3) 3,166 711 21,492 3,850 17,642 82% 14,645 68%
MV Regression 16,224 7,410 8,814 54% 8,814 54%
*Day signature did not have post heating use calculated
**First 3 models are adjusted since weekends and holidays were not included in base data
18
Programs for the Brave – Next StepsGo Digital ControlsLab-testing based RTU expected value savings Evaluated Field Pilot
19
Its Time to Move from “Solid State” to Stand Alone Direct Digital Controllers
Its time to let the low cost, 35 year old solid-state economizer controllers go.Just too many wires up on the roof.
A combined programmable thermostat with BACnet DDC controller is now here at a reasonable price from multiple manufacturers.
20
DCV Integrated Fan Control (DCV-IFC)
Yes, 62.1 allows fan cycling• General thinking: commercial
fans must be ON during the occupied period
• Section 6.2.6.2 of ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007 allows short-term interruption of ventilation if ventilation levels are maintained on average
• Continuous ventilation requires the fan switch to be “ON” during the occupied modes.
• Studies found close to 40% of thermostats have fan switch in the “Auto” mode resulting in intermittent fan operation and no ventilation control
Advantages of DCV-IFC• Interface with any staged
rooftop unit with an economizer,• With the fan off when not
needed less damper leakage • Greater savings than VSD
power reduction at low speed• Lower cost as no VSDs and
associated wiring or motor upgrades are required.
• Higher reliability, as electronic (solid-state) controls are replaced with digital logic.
• Ventilation monitored and controlled
• Duty cycling would circulate air at least every 30 minutes
21
The Retrofit is Uniform; Savings is Not
HVAC savings are not uniform like lighting
If analyze sensitivity of savings to baseline parameter variation:Multiple load impactsVentilation impactFan operation impact
Need to account for variation to find population savings for program
Impact of Baseline on kWh/sf SavingsHeat Pump Heating
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
LPD/Density EconoChangeover
Glazing VentilationMinimum
Econo Max Combined
Parameter
kWh
/ squ
are
foot
22
Program-wide Savings DistributionThe histogram of probability for different savings results based on the full range of baseline influences and combinations:
There is a VERY WIDE spread of savings results
23
Field Testing for Measure Savings?
Load based lab testing may be the answerIn a few days in the lab:
• Dial in a range of weather conditions• Dial in a range of load conditions• Extrapolate results to different climates
Breaking new ground • Part of a current PIER RTU proposal• Current ASHRAE research request to
develop load based lab method• Next phase for premium ventilation
When the range of results is wide, to field verify program savings, either:• Field test every installation, or• Field test a very large sample in each climate
Probably difficult to justify the cost of either field approach
24
Expected Value Savings Approach
• Lab test to develop range of climate & load results
• Parametric simulation and expected value analysis to find programmatic retrofit savings
• Single expected value savings for contractor delivery
• Simulation finds sensitive parameters• Field test to verify proof of concept
Impact of Baseline on kWh/sf SavingsHeat Pump Heating
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
LPD/Density EconoChangeover
Glazing VentilationMinimum
Econo Max Combined
Parameter
kWh
/ squ
are
foot
25
Next StepsWrap up premium ventilation long term report
• Complete heating savings analysis
Field proof of concept testing of DCV-IFC• Upgrade to Digital Controls• Two flavors of premium ventilation
◦ Variable speed drive during idle◦ DCV based fan cycling
Phase 2: Expected Value Savings Development• Simulation to pin down parameter sensitivities• Limited field testing to verify functionality• Lab testing to cover range of loads and weather• Expected value based projection of programmatic savings
Phase 3: Program Pilots with Evaluation – Next Summer
Reid Hart, PEAssociate Director, Technical Research
Top Related