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

SA 211
Saturday, June 22, 2013, 8:30 AM - 10:00 AM
Learning Units [As published]
Facts on the Ground: Testing the
Performance of Fort Carson's Green
Buildings

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

This presentation is protected by U.S.
and international copyright laws.
Reproduction, distribution, display and
use of the presentation without written
permission of the speaker is prohibited.

This program is registered with AIA CES for continuing
professional education. As such, it does not include
content that may be deemed or construed to constitute
approval, sponsorship or endorsement by the AIA of any
method, product, service, enterprise or organization. The
statements expressed by speakers, panelists, and other
participants reflect their own views and do not necessarily
reflect the views or positions of The AIA or of AIA
components, or those of their respective officers,
directors, members, employees, or other organizations,
groups or individuals associated with them. Questions
related to specific products, publications, and services
may be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.
This program is registered with AIA CES for continuing
professional education. As such, it does not include
content that may be deemed or construed to constitute
approval, sponsorship or endorsement by the AIA of any
method, product, service, enterprise or organization. The
statements expressed by speakers, panelists, and other
participants reflect their own views and do not necessarily
reflect the views or positions of The AIA or of AIA
components, or those of their respective officers,
directors, members, employees, or other organizations,
groups or individuals associated with them. Questions
related to specific products, publications, and services
may be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

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

Learning Objectives
1. Incorporate more effective energy saving strategies and
technologies into design
2. Design with better understanding of occupant behavior
3. Apply lessons from GSA/Ft. Carson green building
research to their own building projects
4. Engage in similar research or fact-finding efforts, even if
on a small, informal scale

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

Facts on the Ground: Testing the
Performance of Fort Carson's
Green Buildings
Ken Sandler
Sustainability & Green Building Advisor
GSA Office of Federal High-Performance
Green Buildings

Outline for Today’s Session
• Provide background
– Demonstration project goals
– Ft. Carson sustainable building program
• Discuss demonstration project research
– Building systems
– Occupant behavior
• Open up the discussion
– How have you evaluated building performance (or
would like to)?

GSA’s Office of Federal High-
Performance Green Buildings
• Established by Energy Independence &
Security Act of 2007 (EISA), set up 2010
• Facilitates greening of the Federal building
portfolio, through:
– Applied research and demonstrations
– Developing standards, guidance and tools
– Disseminating information

A Green Building Conveyer Belt
Demo projects
Interagency
Sustainability
Working Group
Green Building Certification
System Review





Demo Projects:
A Congressional Mandate

1st Demo Project: EPA Denver HQ
A variety of projects on LEED Gold
Federal building
Energy & occupant behavior
Dual flush toilets
Underfloor air and acoustics
Data center energy efficiency
Critical questions, including:
How to motivate occupants to
reduce energy use?
Do dual flush toilets really
save water?
How to make green buildings
live up to their potential?

Goal of Demo Projects
• Look at actual performance
– Not just design, models or estimates
• Examine how occupants interact with
buildings
• Identify and test solutions
• Make research replicable and scalable
• Disseminate across Federal government and
beyond: www.gsa.gov/buildingresearch

2nd Demo Project: Fort Carson
– Great marriage of convergent missions:
• Army Net Zero Initiative
• GSA and DOE/National Lab research goals
– Today’s panel
• Practitioners and researchers, on site and in the field
– Key questions:
• Project goals and approaches
• Research findings
• How practitioners can use these findings
• Future research needed

Fort Carson:
On the Road to Net Zero
Matthew B. Ellis, P.E.
Fort Carson Restationing
Resident Engineer
Fort Carson, Colorado
Omaha District

LEED Success to Date
Building Types # Buildings LEED LEVEL
Silver Gold Plat
Admin (COF, HQ, etc.) 28 15 12 1
TEMFs 14 1 13
Barracks 9 4 5
Other 5 3 2
TOTAL PROJECTS 56 23 32 1

LEED® Facts
Wilderness Road
Brigade & Battalion HQ
Fort Carson, Colorado
LEED for New Construction
PLATINUM 52*
Sustainable Sites 11/14
Water Efficiency 4/5
Energy & Atmosphere 15/17
Materials & Resources 6/13
Indoor Environmental Quality 11/15
Innovation & Design 5/5
*Out of a possible 69 points
Energy-efficient lighting, heating & cooling systems, on-site
solar array expected to yield 73% energy use reduction
Water-saving technologies used in building projected to
save 42% over baseline annual water consumption.
Energy-saving system with lighting control designed to
reduce energy consumption by about 22%.
A 2.7 acre on-site solar array supplies approx. 62% of the
138,000 sq ft building's electrical power needs.

Building Energy Performance
CONTRACT TITLE
BUILDING COST
(excluding
design & site work)
% BETTER
THAN ASHRAE
ENERGY ENHANCEMENT S
MI Batt Headquarters –
SCIF
$202/SF 89.0%
330kV Photovoltaic (PV) covered
parking, solar domestic water heating,
LED site lighting, day-lighting, Low U &
SHGC glazing , added insulation
Wilderness Road BBHQ $180/SF 67.0%
480kW PV array, advanced lighting
control system & LED exterior lighting
Brigade Complex (FY10)
HQ
$209/SF 52.3%
25kW PV, Advanced lighting, control
system
Wilderness Road COFs $199/SF 47.0%
Building envelope, lighting controls,
energy efficient fixtures
Wilderness Road TEMFs $252/SF 39.6%
In-floor radiant heat, advanced lighting
control system

Air Barrier Testing Results
# Projects Building Types Wall Type Air Barrier Type
Test Result
CFM/Sqft
8 DFACs & COFs Comm. Stud Cavity Sheet Film .08-.12
6 TEMFs Comm. Interior Wall
Sheet Rock
Int./Precast .15-.25
2 Commissary & HQ Comm. Stud Cavity Liquid Applied .11-.13
1 BBHQ Precast Concrete w/TPO 0.04
1 MI BNHQ Comm. Stud Cavity Sheet Film & SPF 0.13
1 MI COF Comm. Stud Cavity SPF 0.14
1 Band Training Facility Precast Sheet Film 0.06
1 UMF COF Pre Fab Metal Bld SPF 0.23

4th Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB)
Energy Sustainability Net Zero Initiative
Vision: Plan, design, construct, and operate a NetZero Energy community to
encompass the entire Butts Airfield plateau.
Butts Plateau Area Development Strategy: holistic, integrated approach to
energy production and shared efficiency among several buildings
Obj. 1: All new vertical construction to be NetZero Ready (or NetZero).
Obj. 2: Provide a Central Energy Production Plant and Distribution System as
well as other appropriate renewable generation (energy components by facility).
Obj. 3: Maximize energy efficiency of existing buildings.
Obj. 4: Develop a sustainable community culture.
Expand possible solutions and remove traditional constraints; evaluate
solutions that deviate from traditional USACE standards of design

Central Boiler-Chiller Plant +
Central Energy Plant

5.2.2. Submission Requirements - excerpts:
The Government encourages the Offeror to propose design features which optimize
and emphasize energy use reduction. Proposed systems must conform to the
requirements stated in this RFP. All proposed energy related systems that are expected
to exceed 1% of the CCL in cost, must be accompanied by a LCCA. A proposed system’s
LCCA should be included in the proposal and must show that that system is life cycle
cost effective over a 40 year period.
…percentage for Building Energy Efficiency should be >40%, excluding the use of
renewable energy sources and/or systems
Should Offeror receive award, the proposed percentages shall become a contract
requirement.
Building Energy Efficiency Statement: EXCLUDING all proposed renewable energy
sources, this project will achieve an energy consumption at least ____% less than the
consumption of a baseline building meeting the minimum requirements of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2007.
Renewable Energy Statement: This project will include renewable energy systems
that produce an amount of energy that will offset _____% of the annual energy
consumption of a baseline building…
4th CAB Contract Energy Requirements

5.2.3. Evaluation Criteria - excerpts:
It is the Government's goal to reduce energy consumption to
the greatest extent possible without the use of renewable
energy sources.
Therefore increased preference will be given to proposals that
exhibit significant energy reduction (well beyond 40%) through
the use of passive design strategies, prior to the inclusion of
renewable energy
Higher proposed building energy efficiency is more preferred
and will be rated more favorably than higher renewable energy
percentages.
4th CAB Energy Evaluation Criteria

5.9. Energy Conservation
Building Envelope and systems
Shall meet ASHRAE 90.1.
Shall achieve energy consumption of at least 40% better than
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA.
Purchasing of Energy Star products.
Solar Hot Water Products. Provide at least 30% unless not supported by LCCA.
Process Water Conservation. Employ cost effective water conservation
measures.
Renewable Energy Features. Goal. Implement on site renewable energy
generation when supported by LCCA and are compatible with CEP/DEP system to
provide eventual overall energy leveling and sharing throughout the plateau.
4th CAB Energy Conservation
Requirements

4th CAB: High Performance
Energy & Sustainability Policy
Engineering and Construction Bulletin, 2011-1:
National energy security & sustainability concerns continue to drive
construction programs to build higher performance buildings than ever
before.
Potential energy enhancements:
•Optimize building orientation
•Tight envelope
•Highly insulated
•Triple glazing and avoid thermal bridging
•Lighting considerations: Low wattage fixtures, vacancy/daylighting sensors,
increased glazing, and lighting controls
•High efficient equipment, fixtures and appliances
•Optimize zoning
•On-site renewable energy elements
•Low flow, dual flush plumbing fixtures
•Measurement and verification systems

Critical Teaming
CU- Boulder case study of FCN Design Building
Management:
– Early construction team involvement during design process
– Designer as partner vs. a “sub-contractor”
– Construction team understanding iterative design process
– Meeting management
– Both formal and informal partnering between Builder,
Designer and Owner

Energy Efficiency Systems and LEED
Building Energy Performance:
Ft. Carson Case Study
Shanti Pless, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Bob Hendron, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Matt Leach, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Jennifer Scheib, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Evaluation Questions:
• How far can a deep retrofit go?
• LEED Silver to net zero
• How well is the lighting and daylighting
performing?
• What is the optimal life cycle cost thermal
envelope?

LEED Retrofit Optimization
1950s Barracks to Net Zero Office?

Methods
• Measure existing load profiles
• Generate baseline energy model
• Apply retrofit measures
– From standard lighting to deep retrofit envelope
and HVAC and PV
• Determine optimal life cycle cost
• And can we streamline this process?

Initializing Geometry Using Floor Plan

Specifying Interior Geometry Using
Floor Plan/Fire Map

Adding Exterior Detail Using Match Photo

Completed Geometry with Photo
Locations and Orientations

Textured Geometry with
Geographic Context

Summary of Modeling Progress
• Used Match Photo capabilities to accurately
capture exterior geometry (including elevation)
• Used building floor plans as a reference for
geometry creation and to specify interior layout
• Exported SketchUp geometry (with textures
mapped from photos) to Google Earth
• Used SketchUp geometry as a template for the
creation of OpenStudio spaces, the basic building
blocks for thermal zones

Benefits of Match Photo Approach
• Simplified data collection for building
geometry (external and internal)
– Oriented photos contain a wealth of knowledge
that would otherwise be difficult and time
consuming to collect
• Photos captures data not represented in
building floor plan
– Vertical dimensions, including elevation

Candidate Measures for Deep Retrofit Analysis
• Envelope:
– Add interior insulation on exterior walls (spray foam)
– Modify/replace existing windows
• Install modular glazing systems inside existing windows (no replacement required)
• Replace existing windows with electrochromic windows
– Increase roof insulation and install cool roof membrane
• Lighting:
– Replace fluorescent lighting with LED lighting
– Add vacancy sensors to enclosed offices, common areas, and corridors
– Daylight open offices adjacent to building perimeter
– Control lighting at the building level during unoccupied ho
• Plug Loads:
– Install controllable power strips in office workstations
– Replace computer equipment with high efficiency equivalents
• HVAC:
– Replace existing HVAC system with ground source heat pumps and DOAS
– Investigate first cost savings associated with appropriate sized equipment
• Renewables:
– Install simple, passive, 25-year warranty PV

Energy Simulation Optimization
Net Site Energy Percent Savings [%]
50.045.040.035.030.025.020.015.010.05.00.0
175
170
165
160
155
150
145
140
• Optimize on both total life cycle cost (similar to NPV) and energy use
• As energy use decreases, solve mathematically for the package of
efficiency and renewable regeneration measures that results in the lowest
total life cycle cost (highest NPV) at each energy use.
• Find the package of efficiency and renewable generation measures that
achieves net zero energy most cost effectively.

Building 1219 with PV and Net Zero
Retrofits?

Baseline Point
-250255075
IncrementalLifeCycleCost(millionsofdollars)
Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/ft2·yr)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Baseline:
Building 1219, modeled to be minimally
compliant with 90.1-2007
(73 kBtu/ft2·yr) Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0

First Iteration
-250255075
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0

First Iteration
-250255075
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
+ Replace existing windows with electrochromic windows
+ Increase roof insulation and add cool roof membrane
+ Replace workstation computer equipment with high efficiency equivalents
+ Install PV on 75% of the roof area
+ Reduce support equipment plug load density by 25%
+ Add window inserts
+ Replace HVAC with GSHP and DOAS
+ Increase interior wall insulation
+ Lighting and office plug load controls (including common area vacancy sensors)
+ Reduce LPD

First Iteration
-250255075
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Iteration 1 Selection Point:
+ Install vacancy sensors in common areas
Baseline Point

Fourth Iteration
-250255075
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Baseline Point
+ Install controllable plug strips in offices
+ Reduce LPD to 0.6 W/ft2 (47% reduction)

Optimization Curve
-250255075
Simulation Data
Optimization Curve
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0

Cost Minimum Package
-250255075
Simulation Data
Optimization Curve
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Cost Minimum Package (Baseline +):
+ Install vacancy sensors in enclosed offices
+ Daylight open offices
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0

30% Savings Packages
-250255075
Simulation Data
Optimization Curve
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Cost Effective 30% Savings Packages (Baseline +):
+ Increase exterior wall insulation by R-5.7
+ Add window inserts
Cost Effective
30% Savings Range

Net Zero Energy Ready Package
-250255075
Simulation Data
Optimization Curve
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Net Zero Ready Efficiency Package (Cost Min +):
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Cost Neutral Line

Net Zero Energy Package
-250255075
Simulation Data
Optimization Curve
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
(NZE-Ready +):
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0

Max Tech Package
-250255075
Simulation Data
Optimization Curve
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Max Tech Package (NZE +):
+ Increase roof insulation by R-10 and add cool roof membrane
+ Add high SHGC window inserts
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0

Ft Carson Building 1219 Optimization
-250255075
Simulation Data
Optimization Curve
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
(NZE-Ready +):
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0

Ft Carson Building 1219 Optimization
-250255075
Simulation Data
Optimization Curve
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
(NZE-Ready +):
Net Zero
Energy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Existing LEED Retrofit Package

Optimization Summary
Model
EUI/Net EUI
(kBtu/ft2·yr)
Net Energy Savings
(%)
Incremental TLCC
(millions of $)
Baseline 73.0 NA NA
Cost Min 69.9 4% -0.3
NZE Ready 27.7 62% -0.1
NZE 27.7/-5.7 108% 1.1
Max Tech 20.7/-12.7 117% 1.6
• Baseline energy use of 73.0 kBtu/ft2·yr is indicative of a typical, minimally
code compliant low rise office building
• Net Zero Energy Ready Efficiency Package results in 62% energy savings at
a negative incremental TLCC
• Max Tech Efficiency Package results in an annual energy use intensity (not
including PV) of 20.7 kBtu/ft2·yr, which is comparable to that for the RSF
(not counting the data center)

Final Model with PV and Shading

64
Image: PIX 17904 and Jennifer Scheib, NREL
Daylighting Concepts

Successful Daylighting in Action

Daylighting and Lighting Review
• Up to 50% Lighting Energy Savings being
realized
– High daylight with diffusing apertures
• Clerestories and skylights
– Good alignment of status and occupancy across all
facility types
• Up to 90% Lighting Energy Savings potential
savings

Common Issues
• Lights ON when daylighting sufficient
• If there a shades/blinds, they are usually
deployed
– And lights are on
• Burned out bulbs should not
be a daylighting control strategy

Daylighting Recommendations
• Engage occupants: set up control system to
cater to them
• Provide a consistent source of daylight in all
spaces, even if the contribution is small
– Glare free daylighting
• Set up electric lighting and controls to provide
layers of light
• Make the default mode the lowest light level
and then allow occupants to choose more light
75

Envelope Evaluation across Building Types
76
Dining Facility (DFAC)
Tactical Equipment
Maintenance
Facility (TEMF)
Image credit: Rois Langner, NREL
Barracks
Company Operations
Facility (COF)
Brigade HQ

End-Use Breakdowns
77
Dining Facility (DFAC)
Tactical Equipment
Maintenance
Facility (TEMF)
Image credit: Rois Langner, NREL
Barracks
Company Operations
Facility (COF)
Brigade HQ
Heating
2%
Cooling
13%
Lighting
15%
Misc
Equipmt
68%
Hot
Water
2%
Heating
64%
Cooling
6%
Lighting
7%
Misc
Equipmt
23%
Hot
Water
0%
Heating
39%
Cooling
3%
Lighting
12%
Misc
Equipmt
26%
Hot
Water
20%
Heating
60%
Cooling
1%
Lighting
12%
Misc
Equipmt
27%
Hot
Water
0%
Heating
29%
Cooling
6%
Lighting
4%
Misc
Equipmt
57%
Hot
Water
4%

Envelope Options
Considered
Wall Efficiency Level Wall Assembly Wall Insulation R-value
Leakage rate cfm/ft2 @
0.3 in w.g.
ASHRAE 90.1-2007
ASHRAE 189.1-2011
Option 0
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Passivhaus
2x4 Steel Framing, 2" EPS
2x4 Steel Framing, 2" Polyiso
2x4 Steel Framing, 4" EPS, Tighter
Prefab Wall, Precast Concrete, 8" EPS
2x6 Steel Framing, 8" EPS, Tighter
13+7.5 ci
13+10 ci
13+12.5 ci
13+15 ci
13+15 ci
0+30 ci
19+30 ci
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.11
0.05
0.11
Roof Efficiency Level Roof Assembly
Roof Insulation
R-value
ASHRAE 90.1-2007
ASHRAE 189.1-2011
Option 0
Option 1
Option 2
Passivhaus
IEAD, 4" Polyiso
IEAD, 5" Polyiso
IEAD, 6" Polyiso
IEAD, 8" Polyiso
IEAD, 10" Polyiso
IEAD, 11" Polyiso
20
25
30
40
50
55
Window Efficiency Level Window Assembly
Required
Window U-
value
Actual Window
U-value
Required
Window SHGC
Actual
Window
SHGC
ASHRAE 90.1-2007
ASHRAE 189.1-2011
Option 0
Option 1
Passivhaus
Double, LowE, AlumNoBrk
Double, LowE, Bronze, AlumWBrk
Double, LowE, AlumWBrk
Double,LowE, Vinyl
Triple, LowE, Vinyl
0.55
0.45
0.42
--
0.18
0.47
0.41
0.41
0.30
0.18
0.40
0.35
0.39
--
0.49
0.38
0.25
0.38
0.36
0.36
Unit Deployment
Status
Heating
Set Point
(°F)
Cooling
Set Point
(°F)
Ventilation
Rate (cfm)
Home Station
Deployed
70
55
75
80
100%
0

Optimal Wall
Constructions
Building Type Wall Construction Incremental
First Cost
30-Year NPV vs
ASHRAE 90.1-
2007
Barracks 2x4 Steel Framing, 4" EPS,
Improved Air Barrier
$58,739 $90,115
HQ 2x4 Steel Framing, 2" EPS $0 $0
DFAC 2x4 Steel Framing, 4" EPS $7,671 $529
COF
(Conditioned)
COF
(Semi-conditioned)
2x6 Steel Framing, 8" EPS,
$60,012
$75,087
$213,917
$127,557
TEMF
(Conditioned)
TEMF
(Semi-conditioned)
$16,504
$30,713
$30,649
$42,715

Optimal Roof
Constructions
Building Type Roof Construction Incremental
First Cost
30-Year NPV vs
ASHRAE 90.1-
2007
Barracks Insulation Entirely Above Deck,
4" Polyisocyanurate
$0 $0
HQ Insulation Entirely Above Deck,
4" Polyisocyanurate
$0 $0
DFAC Insulation Entirely Above Deck,
4" Polyisocyanurate
$0 $0
COF
(Conditioned)
COF
(Semi-conditioned)
Insulation Entirely Above Deck,
6" Polyisocyanurate
4" Polyisocyanurate
$18,309
$0
$10,180
$0
TEMF
(Conditioned)
TEMF (Semi-
conditioned)
4" Polyisocyanurate
4" Polyisocyanurate
$0
$0
$0
$0

Optimal Window
Constructions
Building Type Window Construction Incremental
First Cost
30-Year NPV vs
ASHRAE 90.1-
2007
Barracks Triple Pane, Low-E, Vinyl
Frame
$20,916 $234
HQ Double Pane, Low-E,
Aluminum Frame without
Thermal Break
$0 $0
DFAC Double Pane, Low-E, Bronze
Coating, Aluminum Frame
with Thermal Break
$5,160 $4,203
COF Triple Pane, Low-E, Vinyl
Frame
$18,309 $1,812
TEMF Double Pane, Low-E,
Aluminum Frame without
Thermal Break
$0 $0

Potential Savings for HVAC
Set Back when Troops are
Deployed
Building Type Annual Cost Savings Annual Energy Savings
Barracks $12,508 14%
HQ $2,955 4%
DFAC $7,799 4%
COF $25,047 23%
TEMF $5,254 12%

Envelope Conclusions
• Optimal envelope design features are heavily
dependent on building usage and geometry, and may
change if part of a larger package of improvements
• Adding insulation beyond code-level is not a cost-
effective measure in buildings with large internal gains
– Improving air-tightness is more important than increasing
insulation levels
• NPVs of window enhancements are highly depend on
window orientation, heating/cooling loads, and
daylighting controls
• Savings can be very significant for thermal zoning and
ventilation set-back when troops are deployed

Kathleen Judd, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Tom Sanquist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
The Role of Behavior in Green
Building Energy Performance:
Ft. Carson Case Study
PNNL-SA-96458

Why Behavior Matters
• Conservation can be cost
effective
• Achieve full efficiency
potential of buildings
upgrades
Army Net Zero Energy Hierarchy

Evaluation Questions
How do occupants of green buildings perceive their work
environment?
How do occupants of green buildings interact with
building features?
What behaviors have the greatest potential to save
energy?
What approaches are most effective at promoting building
energy saving behaviors?

Buildings in Intervention
• 1 LEED EB Silver admin
building
– 130 civilians
• 1 existing admin building
with green features
– 160 civilians & soldiers
• 1 LEED Platinum office
building / Brigade HQ
– 250 soldiers
• 2 LEED Gold Company
Operations Facilities (COFs)
(admin + storage)
– 75 soldiers
COF
Brigade HQ
Admin bldg

Approach to Behavior Change Intervention
88
Energy
conservation
Occupant survey, focus
groups, observation,
and sub-metering data
Computer network
scans, bldg floor checks,
occupant survey,
interviews
Stakeholders
engaged throughout
3-month intervention
Performance objectives
defined for key audiences

4% 8%
0% 2% 6% 2%
11%
12%
13% 8%
6%
4%
17% 10%
15%
14% 12%
12%
47% 52% 54%
59%
52%
58%
21% 19% 17% 18%
25% 25%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Temperature Views of the
outdoors
General
maintenance
Air quality Visual comfort Overall with
Building
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
Satisfaction with personal workspace or
building features

13%
3% 6% 4% 7% 5% 6% 8% 7% 8% 13%
0%
3%
6% 4%
10% 12% 10% 8% 3%
11%
16%13% 20%
17% 22%
14% 14% 17% 18% 27%
22%
18%
63% 57% 54% 48% 52%
60% 48% 44%
47%
53% 39%
13% 17% 17% 22% 17%
10%
19% 23% 17%
6%
13%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
How well building features function to
create a comfortable work environment

Indoor environment influence on ability to
work effectively
4% 4%
33%
44%
15%
Strongly interferes Somewhat
interferes
Neither interferes
nor enhances
Somewhat enhances Strongly enhances

0% 2% 0% 2% 2%6% 6% 6% 4% 0%
4% 4%
15% 10%
29%
43%
48%
38% 43%
37%
47%
40% 42% 41%
33%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Aware of FC NZE
goals
Have positive
attitude about FC
NZE goals
Have skills to use
energy saving
techs correctly at
work
Believe reducing
energy use in my
building is
important
Feel personally
responsible for
reducing energy in
my building
%ofRespondents
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Awareness and attitudes on energy
NZE=net zero energy

8%
17%
23%
37%
15%
1=Not well informed 2 3 4 5=Very well informed
How well informed are you about using
energy saving features in your building?

What behaviors could have the greatest energy
saving in the 5 demonstration buildings?
Shut down computers & Evening temp set back
Use of
HVAC
alternatives
Evening
HVAC set
backs
Computers
on at night
Lights off in
unoccupied
rooms
Use of
natural or
task lights
Energy-
intensive
appliances
in offices
Use
desktops
vs laptops
Smart
power
strips

What roles will most influence change?
• Occupants
– Control plug loads, lights and heating/cooling in some buildings
• Building energy monitors (BEMs)
– Potential to monitor and advocate for energy saving at local level
• Leadership
– General Commanders set tone for importance of saving energy
– Unit commanders/Department heads can enforce follow through
• Computer network personnel
– Authorize policy around computer updates and nightly shut down

What we asked Bldg Energy Monitors to do
• Participate in Building Energy Monitor training
• Conduct weekly floor checks
• Call in service orders for physical issues with building
• Communicate with occupants about progress, opportunities
Date: Building: Number of Occupants: BEM:
Record estimated percentages and action codes for each floor.
Floor %Thermostat set
back
% Monitors
off
% Overhead Lights
off unoccupied
offices
% Task lights or natural
light used instead of
overhead
1 – office space
1 - common space
Other observed energy-saving practices
Occupant reports (type, location)
Physical problems observed (e.g., lighting
sensors not working, water leaks, etc.).
BEM Floor Check Form

What we asked occupants to do
1. Nighttime temperature set-backs in offices 2. Shut down computers at night
3. Turn off lights when room is unoccupied
4. Use task and natural lighting when sufficient
5. Use window shades, wear layers to manage thermal comfort

Getting people to change behavior
Behavior Change
Principles
Ft. Carson Intervention Strategies
Social Network &
Communications
• Locally-recognized occupant assigned as Bldg Energy Monitor
• Bldg Energy Monitor emails and engages occupants
• Performance feedback showing that peers are taking action
Multiple
Motivations
• Appeal to security, cost-saving, envt’l interests
• Promote inter-building competition based on performance
Leadership • Pre-and mid-project briefing to Ft Carson leadership
• Letter to occupants showing leadership commitment
Commitment Did not employ
Information and
Feedback
• Floor checks and computer shut down results shared
Infrastructure • Policy change permitting computers shut down
• Form developed to facilitate floor checks
• Train Bldg Energy Monitor to promote conservation behavior
Social
Empowerment
• Bldg Energy Monitor solicits occupant ideas
Continuous Change • Bring together Bldg Energy Monitors to discus change

Which behaviors changed?
5%
7% 8%
51%
59%
43%
37%
64%
18%
28%
57%
54%
Military admin Military ops Civilian admin1 Civilian admin2
Percent of Computers Shut Down by Building
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6
Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12

13%
20% 21%
49%
3%
22%
32%
25%
36%
51%
13%
30%
Military admin Military ops2 Military ops Civilian admin1 Civilian admin2 All 5 Bldgs
Percent of Computers Shut Down
Change from week 1 to week 12 Change week 1 to peak week of compliance

14%
14%
20%
23%
26%
28%
52%
72%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Drink something hot or cold manage comfort
Dress in layers to manage comfort
Use blinds to control the temperature in my office
Turn off overhead lights and use natural light or
task light when adequate
Set back thermostat in work area when leaving for
day
Turn off lights when leaving a room
Turn off your monitor at night
Turn off your computer at night
I do it more frequently now About the same I do it less frequently now

Which change strategies worked?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Recognition from BEM, supervisor, others
Signs posted in building with energy saving actions
Personal conversations with BEM
Letter from the Ft Carson Leadership
Email messages from BEM comparing your
building to other Ft Carson buildings
Email messages from BEM about actions to save
energy
Personal conversations with peers
Instruction from immediate supervisor
Extent to which factor influenced your behavior over past 3 months
Not at all influential Slightly influential Somewhat influential Very influential Extremely influential

Impact on energy use (in progress)
Note: No meter readings available for weeks 1 and 2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Week of Intervention
Ratio of Daytime-to-Night Energy Use:
Civilian Admin1 Building

Conclusions
• Overall occupant satisfaction
– Control of comfort important
• Make desired behaviors specific and relevant
• Understand context in which green building
technologies will be placed
• Establish local energy conservation advocate
Awareness and
support for
conservation
Knowledge of
actions to take at
building level


Conclusions (cont.)
• Ensure energy advocate is qualified and supported
• Clear and consistent message from leadership is
essential
• Behavior change has the potential to save more
energy in Fort Carson buildings and beyond

Behavioral Research:
A Few Discussion Questions
• What have you done, or would like to do, to evaluate energy
and environmental performance in your buildings?
• What types of actions have you seen organizations or
individual building occupants take that effectively promoted
energy-saving behaviors to other occupants?
• What types of architectural cues can be designed into the
building to help maintain occupant awareness of energy
conservation?
• Additional Questions?

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

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

Similar to AIA 2013: Facts on the Ground: Testing the Performance of Ft. Carson's Green Buildings (20)

More from Shanti Pless

More from Shanti Pless (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

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