Presentation Outline: - Energy Efficiency Requirements for Part 3 Buildings in BC - Enforcement & Compliance - ASHRAE 90.1 Overview & Lessons Learned - NECB 2011 Similarities & Differences

1. Adop%on
and
Compliance
with
Energy
Codes:
ASHRAE
90.1
and
NECB
Lessons
Learned
from
Bri.sh
Columbia
! Graham
Finch,
MASc,
P.Eng
Principal,
Building
Science
Research
Engineer
RDH
Building
Engineering
Ltd.
Vancouver,
BC
RCIC
2013
Edmonton
–
May
1,
2013

2. Presenta%on
Outline
! Energy
Efficiency
Requirements
for
Part
3
Buildings
in
BC
! Enforcement
&
Compliance
! ASHRAE
90.1
Overview
&
Lessons
Learned
! NECB
2011
Similari.es
&
Differences

3. Overview
of
Energy
Efficiency
Requirements
in
BC
! In
the
Past:
! City
of
Vancouver
(VBBL
2007),
ASHRAE
90.1-­‐2007
• ASHRAE
in
code
for
more
than
a
decade
• Enforcement
boosted
in
past
few
years
(checklists)
! Rest
of
BC
(BCBC
2006),
ASHRAE
90.1-­‐2004
• ASHRAE
added
in
2008
• Enforcement
up
to
the
authority
having
jurisdic.on
(AHJ)
! Window
Performance
–
BC
Energy
Efficiency
Act
(2009)
! LEED
–
ASHRAE
90.1-­‐2007
PRM
or
MNECB
1997
! Upcoming:
! City
of
Vancouver
(VBBL
2013),
ASHRAE
90.1-­‐2010
or
NECB
2011
! Rest
of
BC
(BCBC
2012+),
ASHRAE
90.1-­‐2010
or
NECB
2011
! Window
Performance
–
BC
Energy
Efficiency
Act
&
Within
Code

4. Enforcement
&
Compliance
! City
of
Vancouver
released
new
building
permit
&
occupancy
documenta.on
process
to
improve
compliance
with
ASHRAE
90.1
! Checklists
signed
off
by
each
registered
professional
(mechanical,
electrical,
enclosure/architect)
and
coordina.ng
professional
! Effec.ve
R-­‐values
on
drawings/
“Insula.on
schedules”
! Energy
model
outputs

5. ASHRAE
90.1
Overview
! ASHRAE
90.1
“Energy
Standard
for
Buildings
Except
Low-­‐Rise
Residen.al
Buildings”
! Compliance
involves
mee.ng
energy
efficiency
requirements
in
all
sec.ons:
! 5
–
Building
Envelope
(Enclosure)
! 6
–
Hea.ng,
Ven.la.ng,
and
Air
Condi.oning
! 7
–
Service
Water
Hea.ng
! 8
–
Power
! 9
–
Ligh.ng
! 10
–
Other
Equipment

6. ASHRAE
90.1
Overview
! Alternate
compliance
op.ons
within
each
sec.on
! Prescrip.ve
! Trade-­‐offs
! Energy
Simula.on
! Involves
several
disciplines
with
professional
engineers
coordina.ng
their
efforts
plus
one
coordina.ng
professional
taking
overall
responsibility
! Chosen
compliance
path
has
implica.ons
for
building
design

7. ASHRAE
90.1
Building
Enclosure
Compliance
! Mandatory
Provisions
(Sec.on
5.4)
! Insula.on
• Protec.on,
Ra.ng,
Labeling,
Installa.on
! Fenestra.on
&
Doors
• NFRC
cer.fica.on,
air.ghtness,
labels
! Air
Leakage
• “con.nuous
air
barrier”,
prescrip.ve
sealing,
Ves.bules,
weather
seals
! Prescrip.ve
Compliance
Path
(Sec.on
5.5)
! All
components
must
meet
prescrip.ve
tables,
maximum
40%
glazing
area
! Building
Envelope
Trade-­‐off
Compliance
Path
(Sec.on
5.6)
! Trade-­‐off
enclosure
components
using
ASHRAE
ENVStd
somware
! Energy
Cost
Budget
(ECB)
Path
(Sec.on
11)
! Whole
building
energy
cost
simula.on
&
tradeoffs
($
not
kWh)

8. ASHRAE
90.1
Building
Enclosure
Compliance
! Compliance
pathway
is
heavily
influenced
by
building
enclosure
design
:
! Window
to
wall
ra.o
• Maximum
40%
for
Prescrip.ve
Op.on
• No
limit
for
BE
Trade-­‐off
op.on
or
ECB
! Minimum
assembly
and
component
R-­‐values
• Prescrip.ve
Op.on
-­‐
difficult
to
comply
with
thermal
bridging
• BE
Trade-­‐off
Op.on
–
detailed
area
weighted
U-­‐value
calcula.ons
input
into
ENVStd
somware
• Energy
Cost
Budget
(ECB)
-­‐
detailed
area
weighted
U-­‐value
calcula.ons
input
into
energy
model
! Changes
to
design
during
tendering
and
construc.on
can
erode
final
compliance
–
need
for
“factor
of
safety”

9. Prescrip%ve
Building
Envelope
Op%on
! All
building
envelope
assemblies
(including
details)
must
meet
Table
5.5
thermal
requirements
(by
climate
zone)
! Opaque
Walls/Roof:
Assembly
Maximum
U-­‐value
(Minimum
effec.ve
R-­‐value)
or
Insula%on
Minimum
R-­‐value
(nominal
insula.on)
! Windows/Doors/Skylights:
Maximum
U-­‐value
and
SHGC
restric.ons
! Maximum
of
40%
window
to
wall
ra.o
! Maximum
of
5%
skylight
to
roof
ra.o
! Basic
area
take-­‐offs
only
necessary
to
verify
window-­‐wall
ra.o
(and
skylight
to
roof
ra.o)
! Can
be
difficult
to
comply
with
for
many
common
building
designs

10. Prescrip%ve
Building
Envelope
R-­‐value
Tables
! Two
alternate
ways
to
meet
prescrip.ve
requirements
! Assembly
Maximum
U-­‐value
(Minimum
R-­‐value)
• Accounts
for
all
materials
in
assembly
including
air-­‐films
• Easiest
method
to
comply
with
and
greatest
flexibility
in
design
! Insula.on
Minimum
R-­‐value
• Prescrip.ve
rated
R-­‐value
of
installed
insula.on
(nominal
minimum)
• Many
assemblies
prescrip.vely
require
con.nuous
insula.on
(ci)

11. Con%nuous
Insula%on
(ci)
! Only
screws/nails
are
considered
“fasteners”
(or
adhesives)
! Where
any
con.nuous
or
discon.nuous
framing
(girts,
studs,
clips,
brick
.es,
shelf
angles,
slab
edges)
penetrate
through
the
insula.on
–
it
is
not
considered
c.i.
! Note:
Con.nuous
insula.on
is
not
necessarily
a
mandatory
requirement
for
prescrip.ve
compliance
(high
enough
R-­‐
values
can
be
achieved
without
true
ci)

12. Nominal
vs
Effec%ve
R-­‐values
! Nominal
R-­‐values
=
Rated
R-­‐values
of
insula.on
which
do
not
include
impacts
of
how
they
are
installed
! For
example
R-­‐20
baq
insula.on
or
R-­‐10
foam
insula.on
! Effec.ve
R-­‐values
or
Real
R-­‐values
=
Calculated
R-­‐values
of
assemblies/
details
which
include
impacts
of
installa.on
and
thermal
bridges
! For
example
nominal
R-­‐20
baqs
within
steel
studs
becoming
~R-­‐9
effec.ve,
or
in
wood
studs
~R-­‐15

13. Thermal
Bridging
! Thermal
bridging
occurs
when
a
more
conduc.ve
material
(e.g.
aluminum,
steel,
concrete,
wood
etc.)
provides
a
path
for
heat
to
flow
such
that
it
bypasses
a
less
conduc.ve
material
(insula.on)
! The
bypassing
“bridging”
of
the
less
conduc.ve
material
significantly
reduces
its
effec.veness
as
an
insulator
! Examples:
! Wood
framing
(studs,
plates)
in
insulated
wall
! Steel
framing
in
insulated
wall
! Conduc.ve
cladding
aqachments
through
insula.on
(metal
girts,
clips,
anchors,
screws
etc)
! Concrete
slab
edge
(balcony,
exposed
slab
edge)
through
a
wall
! Window
frames
and
windows
themselves

14. Why
Thermal
Bridging
is
Important
! Effec.ve
R-­‐values
account
for
thermal
bridges
and
represent
actual
heat
flow
through
enclosure
assemblies
and
details
! Heat
flow
finds
the
path
of
least
resistance
! Dispropor.onate
amount
of
heat
flow
occurs
through
thermal
bridges
! Omen
adding
more/thicker
insula.on
can’t
help
! Required
for
almost
all
energy
and
building
code
calcula.ons
! Energy
code
compliance
has
historically
focused
on
assembly
R-­‐values
–
however
more
importance
is
being
placed
on
details
and
interfaces
&
whole
building
impacts
of
thermal
bridges

15. ASHRAE/NECB/NBC
Climate
Zone
Divisions
• >7000 HDD
• 6000 to 6999 HDD
• 5000 to 5999 HDD
• 4000 to 4999 HDD
• 3000 to 3999 HDD
• < 3000 HDD

16. Wall,
Roof
&
Window
Requirements
for
Alberta
(Part
3)
Climate
Zone
Wall
–
Above
Grade:
Minimum
R-­‐value
(IP)
Roof
–
Flat
or
Sloped:
Minimum
R-­‐value
(IP)
Window:
Max.
U-­‐
value
(IP)
8
31.0
40.0
0.28
7B
27.0
35.0
0.39
7A
27.0
35.0
0.39
6
23.0
31.0
0.39
ASHRAE
90.1-­‐2010
–
Residen%al
Building
NECB
2011
Climate
Zone
Wall
(Mass,
Wood,
Steel):
Min
R-­‐value
Roof
(A]c,
Cathedral/
Flat):
Min
R-­‐
value
Window
(Alum,
PVC/FG):Max.
U-­‐value
8
19.2,
27.8,
27.0
47.6,
20.8
0.45,
0.35
7B
14.1,
19.6,
23.8
37.0,
20.8
0.45,
0.35
7A
14.1,
19.6,
23.8
37.0,
20.8
0.45,
0.35
6
12.5,
19.6,
15.6
37,0,
20.8
0.55,
0.35
*7A/7B
combined
in
ASHRAE
90.1

17. Wall,
Roof
&
Window
Requirements
for
Alberta
(Part
9)
For
Comparison
to
NBC
2010
(2012
Update)
Sec.on
9.36
Climate
Zone
Wall
-­‐
Above
Grade:
Minimum
R-­‐value
(IP)
Roof
–
Flat/
Cathedral:
Minimum
R-­‐
value
(IP)
Roof
–
A]c:
Minimum
R-­‐value
(IP)
Window:
Max.
U-­‐
value
(IP)
/
Min.
ER
8
21.9
28.5
59.2
0.25
/
29
7B
21.9
28.5
59.2
0.25
/
29
7A
17.5
28.5
59.2
0.28
/
25
6
17.5
26.5
49.2
0.28
/
25
Without
a
HRV
Climate
Zone
Wall
-­‐
Above
Grade:
Minimum
R-­‐value
(IP)
Roof
–
Flat/
Cathedral:
Minimum
R-­‐
value
(IP)
Roof
–
A]c:
Minimum
R-­‐value
(IP)
Window:
Max.
U-­‐
value
(IP)
/
Min.
ER
8
17.5
28.5
59.2
0.25
/
29
7B
17.5
28.5
59.2
0.25
/
29
7A
16.9
28.5
49.2
0.28
/
25
6
16.9
26.5
49.2
0.28
/
25
With
a
HRV

18. Excerpt
from
90.1-­‐2010
Table
5.5-­‐7
(Edmonton,
AB)
Building
Enclosure
Component
Climate
Zone
7
–
Residen%al
Buildings
Minimum
Assembly
R-­‐value
c2
⋅°F⋅
h/Btu
Minimum
Insula%on
R-­‐value
c2
⋅°F⋅
h/Btu
Roof
–
Insula.on
Above
Deck
R-­‐20.8
R-­‐20
c.i.
Roof
–
Avc
R-­‐37.0
R-­‐38
Above
Grade
Wall
–
Wood-­‐Frame
R-­‐19.6
R-­‐13
+
7.5
c.i.
Above
Grade
Wall
–
Steel
Frame
R-­‐23.8
R-­‐13
+
15.6
c.i.
Above
Grade
Wall
–
Mass
R-­‐14.1
R-­‐15.2
c.i.
Below
Grade
Wall
–
Concrete
R-­‐10.9
R-­‐10.0
c.i.
Windows
Maximum
Window
U-­‐value
Btu/h·∙m2·∙°F
Non
Metal
Frame
(Vinyl,
Fibreglass
and
Wood)
U-­‐0.35
(no
SHGC
requirement)
Metal
Framed
Windows
(Aluminum,
Window
Wall)
U-­‐0.45
(no
SHGC
requirement)
Metal
frames
(Curtainwall
&
Storefront)
U-­‐0.40
(no
SHGC
requirement)
*
c.i.
=
con)nuous
insula)on

19. Common
Difficul%es
in
Mee%ng
Prescrip%ve
Compliance
! Window-­‐wall
ra.os
>40%
! Curtain-­‐wall
or
window-­‐wall
spandrel
panels
! Balconies
&
exposed
slab
edge
projec.ons
! Mass
concrete
walls
with
interior
insula.on
! Roof
parapet,
overhang
details,
canopies
! Insula.on
placed
between
steel
studs
or
z-­‐girts
! Best
suited
for
simple
buildings

20. Common
Difficul%es
in
Mee%ng
Prescrip%ve
Compliance
! Structural
Stud
Framing
in
Taller
Mul.-­‐Unit
Residen.al
Buildings

21. Common
Difficul%es
in
Mee%ng
Prescrip%ve
Compliance
! Spandrel
Panels
ver.cals

22. Solu%ons
for
Mee%ng
Prescrip%ve
Compliance
! Cladding
Aqachment
through
Exterior
Insula.on
–
Minimize
Thermal
Bridging

23. Alternate
Cladding
Support
Comparison

24. Solu%ons
for
Mee%ng
Prescrip%ve
Compliance
! Cast-­‐in-­‐Place
Concrete
Balcony
&
Slab
Edge
Thermal
Breaks

25. Building
Envelope
Trade-­‐off
Op%on
! Allows
for
greater
flexibility
in
architectural
design
! Common
path
for
Mul.-­‐Unit
Residen.al
Buildings
where
more
complex
enclosure
designs
are
u.lized
! Necessary
where
window-­‐wall
ra.os
exceed
40%
and
enclosure
assemblies/details
may
not
meet
minimum
prescrip.ve
requirements
! Requires
determina.on
of
effec.ve
thermal
performance
of
all
enclosure
assemblies,
details,
and
components
! Trade-­‐offs
made
between
any
enclosure
component
(i.e.
between
walls
and
windows,
or
walls
and
roofs
etc.)

26. Building
Envelope
Trade-­‐off
Op%on
! Compliance
is
assessed
by
calcula.on
of
Envelope
Performance
Factor
(EPF)
calculated
using
ASHRAE
EnvStd
somware
! EPF
approximates
the
total
hea.ng
and
cooling
energy
associated
with
a
single
square
foot
of
surface.
A
lower
EPF
is
beqer
than
a
high
EPF
! Overall
U-­‐value
of
building
enclosure
driving
factor
in
EPF
plus
day-­‐
ligh.ng
and
solar-­‐heat
gain
through
windows
! Proposed
building
enclosure
is
compared
to
a
minimally
prescrip.vely
compliant
baseline
building
enclosure
! Baseline
building
construc.on
is
iden.cal
except
that
all
building
enclosure
assemblies
meet
maximum
U-­‐value
(minimum
R-­‐value)
requirements
within
each
class
of
construc.on
and
a
40%
window-­‐wall
ra.o
is
assumed

27. Building
Envelope
Trade-­‐off
Op%on
Process
! Step
1:
Iden.fy
Building
“Spaces”
! Step
2:
Define
“Surfaces”
within
each
Space
! Step
3:
Coordinate
Surfaces
&
Assemblies
! Step
4:
Summarize
Windows/Doors
for
each
surface
! Step
5:
Summarize
Data
and
Calculate
Areas
! Step
6:
Enter
Data
and
run
EnvStd
Program

28. Building
Envelope
Trade-­‐off
Op%on
! Wall
and
Roof
Areas
and
U-­‐values
input
into
ENVStd
Somware
by
construc.on
type,
orienta.on
and
occupancy
! Window/door
areas
entered
within
each
of
the
assemblies
! Output
from
ENVStd
shows
Pass/Fail
&
No.
of
EPF
Points

29. Assessing
Reasons
for
Non-­‐Compliance
Component Current
Design
Area UxA %
of
Heat
Loss
Windows
Proposed 10,884
Base Margin 4,898 %
Difference
55.7%
Doors
Roof 981 1,093
1011 492 30 -­‐3%
5.6%
Wall
Skylight EW1
0 8,479
0 1,495 0
17.0%
Wall
Exterior
EW2
Walls
and
Windows 6552 894
5753 147 -­‐799 14%
1.7%
Wall
Floor EW3
873 168
779 26 -­‐95 12%
0.3%
Slab 0 0 0
Curb
Below
and
Grade
slab
Wall edge
details
0 1,585
0 652 0
7.4%
Floor
Daylighting
and
Soffit
Potential Areas
3478 7,466
4140 622 663 -­‐16%
7.1%
Roof
Total and
Deck
Areas
11884 7,474
11683 460 -­‐201 1.7%
5.2%
TOTAL
38,043
8,791
Lower
EPF
is
beqer
FAILS
Overall
Effective
U-­‐Value 0.23
Overall
Effective
R-­‐Value 4.33

30. Impact
of
Window
to
Wall
Ra%o
on
Overall
Performance

31. Value
of
High
Performance
Windows
on
ASHRAE
Compliance
Compliant
Non-­‐Compliant
Improve
Enclosure
R-­‐value
ASHRAE,
Maximum
40%
Glazing
Area
1.
Allows
for
Higher
Window-­‐Wall
Ra%os

32. Energy
Cost
Budget
Op%on
! Whole
building
energy
simula.on
considers
building
envelope
plus
HVAC,
DHW,
ligh.ng
and
power.
! Trade-­‐offs
allowed
between
BE
and
mechanical
systems
! Energy
cost
($)
of
proposed
building
compared
to
baseline
building
(with
minimally
compliant
enclosure
and
baseline
HVAC
system)
! Used
where
building
envelope
performance
cannot
meet
BE
Trade-­‐off
or
prescrip.ve
requirements
! Requires
detailed
building
envelope
R-­‐value
calcula.ons
for
energy
model
input
–
same
level
of
detail
as
required
for
BE
Trade-­‐off
with
overall
R-­‐values
! ECB
energy
model
is
different
the
LEED
PRM
energy
model

33. Trends
with
Energy
Cost
Budget
Op%on
! Energy
Cost
Budget
–
depends
on
$
savings,
not
necessarily
energy
! Bigger
benefit
to
addressing
higher
cost
fuel
(omen
electricity)
rather
than
higher
energy
use
(ie
gas
hea.ng)
! Common
approach
for
compliance
for
buildings
undergoing
LEED
or
other
energy
modeling
! Mechanical
systems
omen
make-­‐up
for
poor
enclosure
choices
–
not
great
from
long-­‐term
or
passive
approach
! Allows
for
most
flexibility
in
design,
higher
window
to
wall
ra.o,
more
thermal
bridging
(to
a
point)

34. Compliance
Documenta%on
! ASHRAE
Mandatory
Provisions
Checklist
! City
of
Vancouver
Submission
Checklist
! “Insula.on
Schedule”
and
Effec.ve
R-­‐values
on
Drawings
! Comparison
of
actual
vs
prescrip.ve
R-­‐
values
! Energy
Modeling
outputs

35. NECB
2011
Similari%es
&
Differences
! Na.onal
Energy
Code
of
Canada
for
Buildings
(NECB)
2011
replaces
MNECB
1997
! Similar
compliance
paths
to
ASHRAE
90.1
–
Prescrip.ve,
Trade-­‐offs,
and
Energy
Modeling
! 3
–
Building
Envelope
! 4
–
Ligh.ng
! 5
–
HVAC
! 6
–
Service
Water
Hea.ng
! 7
–
Electrical
Power
Systems
and
Motors
! 8
–
Building
Energy
Performance
Compliance
Path
! Building
Envelope:
Maximum
window
to
wall
ra.o
from
40%
(HDD
<4000)
down
to
20%
(HDD
>7000)
! Energy
Consump.on
vs
Energy
Cost

36. ASHRAE
90.1-­‐2010
vs
NECB
2011
Climate
Zone
Wall
–
Above
Grade:
Minimum
R-­‐value
(IP)
Roof
–
Flat
or
Sloped:
Minimum
R-­‐value
(IP)
Window:
Max.
U-­‐
value
(IP)
8
31.0
40.0
0.28
7B
27.0
35.0
0.39
7A
27.0
35.0
0.39
6
23.0
31.0
0.39
ASHRAE
90.1-­‐2010
–
Residen%al
Building
NECB
2011
Climate
Zone
Wall
(Mass,
Wood,
Steel):
Min
R-­‐value
Roof
(A]c,
Cathedral/
Flat):
Min
R-­‐
value
Window
(Alum,
PVC/FG):Max.
U-­‐value
8
19.2,
27.8,
27.0
47.6,
20.8
0.45,
0.35
7B
14.1,
19.6,
23.8
37.0,
20.8
0.45,
0.35
7A
14.1,
19.6,
23.8
37.0,
20.8
0.45,
0.35
6
12.5,
19.6,
15.6
37,0,
20.8
0.55,
0.35
*7A/7B
combined
in
ASHRAE
90.1

37. For
More
Informa%on
&
Assistance
! Builder
Insight
Bulle.ns
&
Building
Enclosure
Design
Guides
! www.hpo.bc.ca
! City
of
Vancouver
Checklists
! ASHRAE
90.1
User
Guides
! NECB
2011
Presenta.ons

38. Discussion
! Graham
Finch,
MASc,
P.Eng
gfinch@rdhbe.com
604-­‐873-­‐1181