Daylighting Presentation By Marseille Oct 9 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Daylighting Presentation By Marseille Oct 9 2009

on

  • 1,885 views

Daylighting presentation by Tom Marseille.

Daylighting presentation by Tom Marseille.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,885
Views on SlideShare
1,885
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
112
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Daylighting Presentation By Marseille Oct 9 2009 Daylighting Presentation By Marseille Oct 9 2009 Document Transcript

  • Energy and HVAC System Implications of Daylighting Design Tom Marseille, P.E. Managing Principal 1
  • What do Mechanical Engineers Care About? • Our primary objectives are (or should be): – Delivering occupant comfort – Helping provide a healthy environment – Providing ever more energy efficient buildings (becoming a mandate) – Providing maintainable/reliable systems – Hold down mechanical first cost(!) 2
  • What do Mechanical Engineers Care About? • Our primary objectives are (or should be): – Delivering occupant comfort – Helping provide a healthy environment – Providing ever more energy efficient buildings – Providing maintainable/reliable systems – Hold down mechanical first cost(!) 3 View slide
  • Comfort First 4 View slide
  • Comfort First • Thermal comfort is affected by: – air temperature (what your thermostat says) – mean radiant temperature - The average temperature of all the surfaces to which a person is exposed, exchanging infrared radiation. • Radiating surfaces (e.g., hot or cold windows) can reduce occupant comfort • How occupants interact with glazing impacts comfort 5
  • Comfort Radiant temperature influence: far from window Air temperature 73°F Blinds Room objects 73°F 95° F Sunlight Small angle Mean radiant temperature 77°F Resultant temperature 75°F 6
  • Comfort Radiant temperature influence: close to window Air temperature 73°F Blinds 95° F Room objects 73°F Large angle Sunlight Mean radiant temperature 84°F Resultant temperature 79°F 7
  • Comfort Radiant temperature: sunshine through window Air temperature 73°F Room objects 73°F Sunlight Mean radiant temperature 90°F Resultant temperature 82°F 8
  • Comfort Radiant temperature: externally shaded window Sunlight Air temperature 73°F Room objects 73°F Shade Mean radiant temperature 73°F Resultant temperature 73°F 9
  • Perceived Temperature vs. Air Temperature 90 85 80 Temperature (°F) 75 70 65 60 55 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 Date: Mon 02/Aug Dry resultant temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_conf1.aps) Mean radiant temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_conf1.aps) Air temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_conf1.aps) 10
  • Perceived Temperature vs. Air Temperature 90 85 80 Temperature (°F) 75 70 65 60 55 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 Date: Mon 02/Aug Dry resultant temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_off1.aps) Mean radiant temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_off1.aps) Air temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_off1.aps) 11
  • Glazing – just another load to be managed? Different solar loads by exposure • South exposure – moderate solar load in winter for heating – low solar load in summer if shaded • East and West exposure – high morning and evening solar load – shading less effective • Not all building exposures need the same treatment 12
  • Glazing – just another load to be managed? Treatment of different exposures • Façades should be treated according to which direction they face • For example, for cold winters, hot summers in northern hemisphere: – reduced windows on north side – windows with overhangs/shading on south side – deciduous shading on west end to reduce late afternoon overheating in summer 13
  • Glazing Transmitted Radiation North East Architect's View of the Sun - Radiation 200.0 ANNUAL SUMMARY: Btu/SF Hr. 180.0 160.0 Hour DEC JAN-NOV FEB-OCT MAR-SEP APR-AUG MAY-JUL JUNE 140.0 113 °AZI 120.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80.0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40.0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20.0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 6 0 0 0 0 68.7 121.8 134.2 0 7 0 0.0 72.7 149.5 183.2 194.9 195.7 JUNE 8 76.7 99.0 145.4 179.4 194.9 199.8 199.0 APR-AUG 9 76.4 89.5 120.7 148.9 163.7 169.8 170.3 TIME FEB-OCT 10 37.7 45.3 65.5 87.6 106.0 116.6 119.6 DEC 11 20.5 22.3 26.3 34.4 49.4 60.9 65.3 34 °LAT 113 °AZI 12 21.4 23.2 27.2 31.7 36.2 39.3 40.5 13 20.5 22.3 26.3 30.7 35.3 38.5 39.7 14 17.8 19.6 23.6 28.0 32.7 36.0 37.3 15 13.3 15.1 19.1 23.6 28.5 32.0 33.4 16 6.4 8.4 12.8 17.6 22.7 26.4 28.0 17 0 0.0 3.7 9.4 15.1 19.3 21.0 18 0 0 0 0 4.1 9.3 11.4 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 291 345 543 741 940 1065 1095 14
  • Shading options/relative cooling load 35000 No Shade 30000 35 btu/sq ft 25000 25 btu/sq ft 20000 1:1 ratio horizontal overhang Load (Btu/h) 15000 Vegetated fins 10000 5000 0 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 Date: Thu 08/Jul Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to2.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_2to1.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to1.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_noshade.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_fins_surr.aps) 15
  • Glazing Percentage – / south / relative cooling load 40000 45 btu/sq ft 35000 40 btu/sq ft 30000 33 btu/sq ft 25000 Load (Btu/h) 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 Date: Tue 05/Oct Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade_gp40.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade_gp30.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade.aps) 16
  • Building Codes Are Not Fans Of Excessive Glazing 17
  • Glazing Selected Glazing Performances Visi Trans Shading Manufacturer Product U-Value % Coefficient Standard Clear IG 79 0.81 0.52 Viracon VE 1-85 76 0.64 0.31 PPG Solarban 60 69 0.44 0.30 Interpane Super E 69 0.46 0.29 Cardinal Low E2 171 70 0.46 0.30 Viracon VE 1-2M 70 0.44 0.29 PPG Solarban 70XL 64 0.32 0.28 Heat Mirror HMTC88 63 0.55 0.30 Heat Mirror HMSC75 61 0.41 0.34 18
  • Benefits of Solar Load Reduction • Improved comfort for occupants at perimeter • Reduced HVAC equipment sizes • Reduced energy usage 19
  • Energy INDUSTRY 25% TRANSPORTATION 27% BUILDINGS 48% Source: Energy Information Administration Statistics (Architecture 2030) 20
  • Why Do We Care? Source: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment 21
  • 22
  • BUILDING STOCK IN BILLION SF www.architecture2030.org 23
  • WHY BUILDING? 24
  • WHY BUILDING? 25
  • WHY BUILDING? 26
  • WHY BUILDING? 27
  • WHY BUILDING? 28
  • WHY BUILDING? 29
  • ENERGY REGULATION – INDICATOR AND DRIVER ASHRAE Standards • 90.1 2010 requires 30% more efficiency than 90.1 2004 • ASHRAE 189.1 – 30% more efficient than current 90.1 • ASHRAE goal – market viable Net Zero Energy (NZE) buildings by 2030 AIA • 2030 challenge – achieve carbon neutral (NZE) buildings by 2030 USGBC Cascadia Chapter •“Living Building Challenge” - NZE buildings today! State of Washington • Legislation SB 5854 – incremental reductions, to 70% reduction by 2031 30
  • The Energy “Pie” Chart – Office Buildings Office Building VENT FANS DOMEST HOT WTR 5% 3% PUMPS & AUX 5% LIGHTS HEAT REJECT 26% 0% SPACE COOLING 5% MISC EQUIP 10% SPACE HEATING 46% 31
  • Residential Lighting Energy Use Lighting Lighting Power Number of Number of (assuming 15 Number of room Room type Room type Operation (hr/ Typical Townhouse W CFD = 60 W type in one bed in a two in a three Room Type day/ room) Lighting Incandescent) unit bed unit bed unit 1 light over sink, one Bathroom 1.8 in bath/shower 45 1 2 2 Powder Room 1.8 2 lights 30 1 1 1 2 light central fixture, assume one light on Bedroom 1.1 bedstand 30 1 2 3 Closet 1.1 No lighting 0 0 0 0 Dining Room 2.5 3 overhead lights 45 1 1 1 Garage 1.5 2 4' flourecsent 60 0 0 1 Hall 1.5 7 lights in a 2 bed unit 15 5 7 8 Kitchen 3 Use 8 lights 120 1 1 1 5 overhead lights 1 Living Room 2.5 wall wash 90 1 1 1 2 light central fixture, assume one light on Office 1.7 desk 45 1 1 1 Outdoor 2.1 3 lights 45 1 1 1 Utility Room 2 2 light central fixture 30 1 1 1 Lighting Density (W/SF) 0.56 0.41 0.36 Daily lighting load (W-hr) 1009.5 1099.5 1134 Annual lighting load (kWh) 368 401 414 Operation Hours from Navigant Consulting 2002 sample of 161 NW homes Annual Exterior Lighting Load (kWh) 34.5 34.5 67.3 32
  • The Energy “Pie” Chart - Residential Typical 2 Bedroom Townhouse - Seattle Lights Domestic Hot Water Misc Equip (Plug) Vent Fans Mech Aux Space Heating Assuming efficient CF lighting, it can be a small piece of the pie 33
  • Component Interaction – Office Building 34
  • Energy Impact of Window Height Base Building: Office Building….Four Story….Floor-to-floor height = (12 ft) Base Building Window Height = 3 m (10 ft) (10’ Windows) Peak Cooling Load = 76 Tons Annual Energy Cost = 100 units 5’ Windows Window Height = 1.5 m (5 ft) Peak Cooling Load = 61 Tons Annual Energy Cost = 81 units 7’ Windows & Window Height = 2.4 m (7 ft) overhangs With external overhangs (5 ft) Peak Cooling Load = 51 Tons Annual Energy Cost = 80 units 35
  • Energy Impacts of Glass Performance High Window Height = 3.0 m (10 ft) Performance U=0.31 SC=.37 VLT=55 Glass Peak Cooling Load = 72 Tons Annual Energy Cost = $ 91 units Standard Window Height = 1.5 m (5 ft) Base Building Glass U=0.46 SC=0.42 VLT=60 Window Height = 3.0 m (10 ft) Peak Cooling Load = 61 Tons Floor-to-floor height = 3.7 m (12 ft) Annual Energy Cost = $ 81 units U=0.46 SC=0.42 VLT=60 Low-E Window Height = 2.4 m (7 ft) Peak Cooling Load = 76 Tons Glass With external overhangs (5 ft) Annual Energy Cost = $ 100 units U=0.35 SC=.70 VLT=74 Peak Cooling Load = 60 Tons Annual Energy Cost = $ 84 units 36
  • Energy Impacts of Daylighting 10’ Windows Window Height = 3.0 m (10 ft) U=0.31 SC=.37 VLT=55 Peak Cooling Load = 66 Tons (72 Tons) Annual Energy Cost = 88 units 5’ Windows Window Height = 1.5 m (5 ft) Base Building U=0.46 SC=0.42 VLT=60 Window Height = 3.0m (10 ft) Peak Cooling Load = 54 Tons (61 Tons) Floor-to-floor height = 3.7m (12 ft) Annual Energy Cost = 80 units Daylighting Control: Dimming 7’ Windows Window Height = 2.4 m (7 ft) Illuminance Level: 37 fc With external overhangs (5 ft) U=0.35 SC=.70 VLT=74 Peak Cooling Load: Peak Cooling Load = 53 Tons (60 Tons) “with daylighting (without daylighting)” Annual Energy Cost = 83 units 37
  • Daylighting – incorporation into sustainable design process ITERATIVE PROCESS Thermal Analysis to determine glare shading shading needed as well as glass percentage impact Shading Analysis to determine glare issue (direct solar) Daylighting Analysis to determine glare (contrast ratio) daylighting cooling Daylighting Analysis to determine lighting usage reductions Lighting schedules - modeling input Energy Analysis - lighting energy and other end use savings lighting Ventilation 38
  • Terry Avenue Case Study 39
  • NATURAL VENTILATION AND DAYLIGHTING This is not new!!! General Motors Building, Detroit Terminal Sales Building, Seattle General Motors Building, Detroit, 1921, Albert Kahn, Inc., Architects This plan places each worker within 20 feet of an operable window. 40
  • Terry Avenue Case Study NATURAL VENTILATION STRATEGY • Operable windows and automated dampers in occupied spaces • Building form chosen to facilitate cross ventilation and day-lighting • Narrow floor plate (approximately 35’ deep) 41
  • Terry Avenue Case Study MECHANICAL DESIGN • Operable windows in all spaces • Trickle vents for minimum ventilation • Automated dampers above windows • CO2 sensors • Night purge control strategy • Occupant education about NV • High efficiency hydronic heating • Convection heaters at perimeter • Minimal ductwork • No mechanical cooling 42
  • Terry Avenue Case Study SOLAR SHADING ANALYSIS The building was analyzed at different times of day throughout the year. This helped shading: • Type • Location • Orientation 43
  • Terry Avenue Case Study SOLAR SHADING SELECTION • High performance glazing • External adjustable aluminum blinds in courtyard and portions of exterior • Steel and glass sunshades 44
  • Terry Avenue Case Study DAYLIGHTING • Balance benefits of day-lighting with solar gain mitigation • High performance thermal envelope • Windows/louvers sizes and locations 45
  • Thermal Analysis ANALYSIS Build Model: • Walls • Climate data • 3-D geometry • Windows/openings • Shading • Internal loads • Aperture schedules • Occupant schedules 46
  • Thermal Analysis ANALYSIS Finesse the Model: 180 167 162 155 • Fine tune the loads 155 158 160 155 140 • Substitute glazing 120 100 • Increase/decrease amount of 80 glazing 60 40 29 30 36 43 • Substitute wall constructions 37 44 20 7 0 7 8 8 8 • New shading options 8 f on f C on e E C • Increase/decrease amount of fe N e E of ffe N e . C t l in cc Co e . ct se A l in Ac ine Ba se operable windows Ba el s Ba Run iterations until satisfied with the results of the model 47
  • Terry Avenue Case Study TOTAL LEED Energy Savings per System ENERGY POINTS 60.0% SAVINGS 50.0% 10.5% 1 14% 2 Percent Savings from Baseline 40.0% 17.5% 3 30.0% 21% 4 20.0% 24.5% 5 5 PTS! 28% 6 10.0% 31.5% 7 0.0% 35% 8 Vent Fans Space Pumps & Lights Space Domestic Misc Equip Cooling Aux Heating HW 38.5% 9 42% 10 48
  • Terry Avenue - Measured Performance Energy Consumption [kBtu/yr] Webber + Thompson 1 End Use Space Total Building Electricity • Artificial LPD averages 0.38 Office Space 389,876 763,118 W/SF (Code = 1.0) Common Areas 2 40,208 78,701 Elevators 19,718 38,594 • Energy use much lower Natural Gas than LEED Model Boilers 3 379,095 975,712 Total Energy [kBtu/yr] 828,896 1,856,125 Total Energy [kBtu/sf-yr] 40.1 45.9 Total Energy Cost [$/sf-yr] 0.57 0.64 Notes: 53% better than the average office+ according to CBECS data 3 (i.e., 20,700 sf). 1. Weber Thompson Architects occupy levels 2 and 2. Common areas does not include parking garage or exterior lighting. 60% - 70% better than average office according to BOMA data based on ratio of 3. Weber +Thompson portion of natural gas consumption heat load for occupied space to total heat load of building. 4. Energy cost based on the following utility rates from bills: Electric Rate [$/kWh]: $0.0551 Natural Gas Rage [$/Therm]: $1.197 49
  • Case Study – Edith Green Wendell Wyatt Federal Office Building Studies done for different options to determine optimum solution for Glazing percentage Glazing properties Shading Strategy Daylighting Strategy 50
  • Thermal Analysis Thermal Analysis to determine shading needed as well as glass percentage impact South – shading options / relative cooling load 40000 No Shade 35000 30000 35 btu/sq ft 25000 Load (Btu/h) 25 btu/sq ft 1:1 ratio horizontal overhang 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 Date: Tue 05/Oct Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to2.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_2to1.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to1.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_intblinds.aps) 51
  • Thermal Analysis East– shading options / relative cooling load 40000 No Shade 35000 30000 35 btu/sq ft 25000 1:1 ratio horizontal overhang Load (Btu/h) 25 btu/sq ft 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 Date: Mon 16/Aug Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 East (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to2.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 East (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_2to1.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 East (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to1.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 East (egww_noshade.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 East (egww_intblinds.aps) 52
  • Thermal Analysis North – shading options / relative cooling load 20 btu/sq ft No Shade 16000 14000 12000 10000 Load (Btu/h) 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 Date: Wed 16/Jun Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 North (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to2.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 North (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_2to1.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 North (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to1.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 North (egww_noshade.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 North (egww_intblinds.aps) 53
  • Thermal Analysis West – shading options / relative cooling load 35000 No Shade 30000 35 btu/sq ft 25000 25 btu/sq ft 20000 1:1 ratio horizontal overhang Load (Btu/h) 15000 Vegetated fins 10000 5000 0 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 Date: Thu 08/Jul Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to2.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_2to1.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to1.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_noshade.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_fins_surr.aps) 54
  • Thermal Analysis Glazing Percentage – no shade / south / relative cooling load 40000 45 btu/sq ft 35000 40 btu/sq ft 30000 33 btu/sq ft 25000 Load (Btu/h) 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 Date: Tue 05/Oct Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade_gp40.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade_gp30.aps) Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade.aps) 55
  • Shading Analysis - Quantitative Shading Analysis to determine glare issue (direct solar) Times when shading required for Radiant system Solar Altitudes East South Month 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 Jan - - - 1 9 16 21 23 23 19 14 7- - - Feb - - - 6 15 23 28 31 31 27 22 14 5- - Mar - - 5 15 24 33 38 41 41 37 30 21 12 1- Apr - 5 15 26 36 44 51 54 52 47 39 29 19 9- May 2 12 23 33 43 53 60 63 61 54 45 35 25 14 4 Jun 5 15 25 35 46 55 64 68 66 59 49 39 29 18 8 Jul 3 13 23 33 44 53 61 66 64 58 49 39 28 18 8 Aug - 7 18 28 38 47 55 58 57 51 43 33 23 12 2 Sep - 1 11 21 31 39 44 47 45 40 32 23 13 2- Oct - - 4 14 22 29 33 35 33 28 21 12 3- - Nov - - - 6 14 20 24 25 24 19 13 5- - - Dec - - - 1 9 15 19 21 20 16 11 3- - - Required Shading east south altitude > 45 red Diagonal shading – south and east Diagonal shading 56
  • Shading Analysis – Qualitative View 57
  • Daylighting Analysis Daylighting Analysis to determine glare issue (contrast ratio) Impact of surrounding buildings 58
  • Daylighting Analysis Daylighting Analysis to determine lighting usage – lightign schedules for energy analysis input Artificial sky at ESBL Univ of Oregon and physical model (scaled) used for daylighting studies 59
  • Energy Analysis Energy Analysis lighting energy and other end use savings Comparison of results from 2 methods of determining lighting Following methods may be used to energy savings due to daylighting model savings due to daylighting lighting sch input from external daylight study (physical model) eQUEST daylight sensors used 1. Determine lighting schedule to Lighting Energy model daylighting impact Physical scaled model 4500 4000 Daylighting Analysis tool 3500 3000 2. Model within energy analysis tool MBTU 2500 2000 1500 Typical Lighting schedule for each month, each orientation (workday, 1000 Saturday and Sunday) 500 0 Example schedule no daylighting w ith daylight w ith adj ltg sch savings sensors Office | Lighting Office | Lighting Weekdays South (Apr/Aug) Weekdays 100% 80% 100% 60% 40% 50% 20% 0% 0% 12 AM 3 AM 6 AM 9 AM 12 PM 3 PM 6 PM 9 PM 12 AM 3 AM 6 AM 9 AM 12 PM 3 PM 6 PM 9 PM 60
  • Daylighting Analysis – Software Approach Skylight (no shade) Sunny Sky Studies Sept 1200 (sunny sky) 61
  • Daylighting Analysis Tools Quantitative Daylighting for Classrooms 90 Iteration 1 - option 2 with north roof overhang 80 removed Iteration 2 - interior light shelf + iteration 1 70 Iteration 3 - higher clearstory + iteration 1 60 Iteration 4 - interior light shelf + iteration 3 footcandles 50 Iteration 5 - 1 foot higher than iteration 3 40 Iteration 6 - interior lightshelf + iteration 5 30 Iteration 7- 1 foot higher than iteration 5 20 Iteration 8 - interior lightshelf + iteration 7 10 Iteration 9- north monitor 2.25 6.75 11.25 15.75 20.25 24.75 29.25 33.75 + iteration 3 0 distance from window 62
  • SHADING UW – EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH 63
  • Energy Conservation Measures HANFORD REACH MUSEUM AND VISITOR CENTER HVAC System roof insulation wall insulation glazing exterior shades daylight Sensors CO2 sensors 64
  • Energy Conservation Measures HANFORD REACH MUSEUM AND VISITOR CENTER HVAC system roof insulation wall insulation 20% savings glazing exterior shades daylight sensors 10% savings overall (30% savings in lighting energy, 12% savings in cooling energy) CO2 sensors 65
  • Summary of Energy implications of Daylighting Lighting and its associated cooling energy can constitute up to 30% of a commercial office building's total energy use. Electrical demand savings: Reduced lighting load Reduction in HVAC load (chiller plant power) Electricity reduction during peak load Potential increase in heating load of perimeter spaces 66
  • Energy implications or over all effect of daylighting Daylighting Economics A well-designed daylighting application can reduce energy costs 10 – 30%. Lighting energy can be reduced up to 70 percent during peak natural light periods. 67
  • Thank you! Questions? Tom.marseille@stantec.com 68