ASHRAE OR-16-C029-2016 Application of ASHRAE 90 1 for Commercial Buildings in Middle East Regions.pdf

《ASHRAE OR-16-C029-2016 Application of ASHRAE 90 1 for Commercial Buildings in Middle East Regions.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASHRAE OR-16-C029-2016 Application of ASHRAE 90 1 for Commercial Buildings in Middle East Regions.pdf（8页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Mir Gayas Ali is a Senior Mechanical Engineer at SSH Design, Kuwait. Walid.M.Chakroun is a Professor at Kuwait University, Kuwait. Wayne Reedy is a Consultant in Monticello, IN. Application of ASHRAE 90.1 for Commercial Buildings in Middle East Regions Mir Gayas Ali Walid M. Chakroun, PhD, PE Wayne

2、Reedy ASHRAE Member Fellow ASHRAE Fellow ASHRAE ABSTRACT ASHRAE 90.1 is one of the most prominent energy standards for buildings except Low-rise residential buildings. It provides minimum design and construction requirements for most types of Residential and Commercial buildings and their systems. I

3、n Table 5.5 1 to 8, ASHRAE 90.1 provides values for building envelope requirements such as wall, roof, and glazing for various climatic zones. Also, In Table 6.8.1 1 to 13 it provides the minimum efficiency requirements for various listed air-conditioning equipments. It is often found that the value

4、s provided in these tables are not pertinent to Middle Eastern regions considering its different geographical locations, climatic conditions, building practices, local regulations and cultures. Certain values of ASHRAE 90.1 standards are often found to be less stringent than the local authority regu

5、lations and standard practices prevailing in the region. The heat transmission through building envelope forms a significant portion of the cooling and heating loads for buildings and therefore a considerable percentage of energy consumption for the air-conditioning systems. Similarly, energy effici

6、ency of equipments also substantially impacts the energy performance of air-conditioning equipments. Optimising the building envelope values and energy efficiencies of equipments can provide remarkable savings in energy and help in improving the energy performance of a building. The objective of thi

7、s conference paper is to analyse and assess, some of the building envelope values such as wall, roof, glazing and energy efficiency in ASHRAE 90.1-2013 and other Middle Eastern regulations, using building energy modelling simulation techniques for different regions. A comparative analysis is made fo

8、r thermal transmittance (U) values of walls, roof, glazing, solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) and energy efficiency, based on the results from building energy modelling simulation, to assess the energy consumption and energy savings potential and obtain optimised values for these parameters relevan

9、t to the Middle Eastern region. Analysis is made using ASHRAE 90.1-2013 values against corresponding values from local regulations such as Ministry of Electricity & Water (MEW) Kuwait, Saudi Building Code (SBC-601), Dubai Municipality Regulations (DM) and Kharamaa, Qatar, to form a wider spectrum of

10、 climatic regions. The optimised values of building envelope components and energy efficiency of systems and equipments can significantly improve and enhance the energy performance of a building and help in sustainable and efficient buildings design in the Middle Eastern region. INTRODUCTION Buildin

11、gs represent the largest energy-consuming sector in the economy, with over one-third of all energy and half of global electricity consumed there. As a result, they are also responsible for approximately one-third of global carbon emissions. The building envelope the parts of a building that form the

12、 primary thermal barrier between interior and exterior plays a key role in determining levels of comfort, natural lighting and ventilations, and how much energy is required to heat and cool a building. Analysis of building envelopes is complicated by the extreme global diversity of building material

13、s, climates, and standards and practices of building design and construction. There are vast differences in construction practices between traditional buildings in developing countries and sophisticated buildings in developed countries. Similarly, the EER value for the HVAC systems is a very importa

14、nt parameter to be considered. The challenges in increasing the EER values in hot ambient temperature countries are more difficult when combined with meeting the HCFC Phase-out Management Plans (HPMPs). The continuation of HFCs, which are currently promoted as alternatives to HCFC over the last two

15、decades, is currently doubtful due to its contribution to the global warming and some HFCs may not be the best efficient alternatives for many air-conditioning applications particularly in high-ambient operating conditions. ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1 AND LOCAL REGULATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST ASHRAE 90.1 is

16、 a well recognised standard globally for energy efficiency of buildings, which provides minimum design and construction requirements for residential and non-residential buildings except low-rise residential buildings and their systems. In Tables 5.5 1 to 8, ASHRAE 90.1-2013 provides values for build

17、ing envelope requirements such as wall, roof, and glazing for various climatic zones and in Tables 6.8.1 1 to 13 it provides the minimum efficiency requirements for various listed air-conditioning equipments. It is often found that there are considerable variances in these values when compared with

18、corresponding values in local regulations of Middle Eastern regions. Table 1, below shows a comparison of building envelope values and Energy Efficiency Ratios (EERs) for ASHRAE 90.1-2013 and various local regulations in the Middle East. EER values mentioned in the below table are for Air Cooled Chi

19、llers at 95 deg. F (35 deg. C) ambient temperature. Table 1: Building Envelope and EER Data from ASHRAE 90.1 and Various Regulations in the Middle East Description UnitsASHRAE 90.1 2013 MEW R-6 2014 DM 2014 Kharamaa 2010 SBC 601 USA Kuwait Dubai Qatar KSAWall U values (BTU/hr/ft2/ oF) 0.580 0.1 0.1

20、0.1 0.09Roof U values (BTU/hr/ft2/ oF) 0.048 0.07 0.053 0.077 0.043Glazing U values (BTU/hr/ft2/ oF) 0.500 0.59 0.37 0.58 0.5Glazing SHGC 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.5EER (BTU/Wh) 10.2* 10.4* 9.6 9.6 8.53*Converted from COP values in the Table 6.8.1-3, ASHRAE 90.1-2013.*Converted from KW/TR values in the

21、Table 07.1, MEW R6-2014. An analysis of the above Table 1 indicates the following: 1. Wall U values stipulated in most of the Local regulations are consistent and are less than ASHRAE 90.1-2013. 2. Roof U values for most of the local regulations except for SBC 601, KSA are higher than ASHRAE 90.1-20

22、13. 3. Glazing U values for most of the Local regulations except for DM Regulations, Dubai are higher thanASHRAE 90.1-2013. 4. Glazing Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) values for most of the Local regulations except for MEW,Kuwait are higher than ASHRAE 90.1-2013. 5. The Energy Efficiency Ratio fo

23、r HVAC systems is higher in ASHRAE 90.1-2013 compared to Localregulations in the Middle-East except for MEW Regulations Kuwait. Case Studies Considering the above analysis, four case studies were conducted to assess the energy efficiency potential for different cities in the region to form a wider s

24、pectrum of climatic conditions. The four cities considered were Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait City in Kuwait, Dubai in United Arab Emirates, and Doha in Qatar. The energy efficiency assessment was carried out using building energy modeling simulation techniques on a typical commercial office buildi

25、ng. Energy simulations were carried out using an industry- standard hourly analysis HVAC simulation program. The assumed inputs for the building energy modeling are provided in below tables 2 and 3. Table 2. Assumed Input data Floor Description Floor Area Height Lighting Power Density Occupants Peop

26、le Sensible Load People Latent Load Equipment Load Fresh Air Rate ft2/ (m2) ft./(m) (watts/ft2)/ (watts/m2) (No.s) (watts/ person)/ (BTUH/ person) (watts/ (person)/ (BTUH/ (person) (watts/ft2)/ (watts/m2) cfm/ person/ (L/s)/ person Basement 20429/1898 13.1/ (4) 0.19/(2) - - - - - Ground 20429/1898 1

27、3.1/ (4) 0.98/(10.5) 246 75/256 55/188 2/(21.5) 10/(4.7) Typical Floors 20429/1898 13.1/ (4) 0.98/(10.5) 246 75/256 55/188 2/(21.5) 10/(4.7) Top Floor 20429/1898 13.1/ (4) 0.98/(10.5) 246 75/256 55/188 2/(21.5) 10/(4.7) Table 3. Assumed Building Wall and Glazing dimensional data Exposure Orientation

28、 Wall Gross Area Window Gross Area (m2) (ft2) (m2) (ft2) West 125 1343 83 895North 88 943 58 628East 125 1343 83 895South 88 943 58 628Inside Design conditions assumed in the calculations were 75 OF (23.9 OC) dry bulb temperature and 50-55 % relative humidity. Fresh air ventilation rates were consid

29、ered as per ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2013, Table 6.2.2.1, Minimum Ventilation Rates in Breathing Zone. People sensible and latent loads were considered as per Table 1, Chapter 18, ASHRAE Fundamentals 2013. To obtain a holistic approach on the total building energy consumption, other energy consumption e

30、lements were also considered such as plumbing pumps, elevators and other electrical appliances. Energy simulations were carried out for each city using ASHRAE 90.1-2013 values, local regulations pertaining to the respective region, average of middle-east values and proposed optimized values. The opt

31、imized ME values are, Optimised ME1 values with 10% more stringency and Optimised ME2 values with 20% more stringency compared to Average middle-east values for building envelope and EER. Building envelope and EER values for average middle-east and optimum conditions are indicated in Table 4 below:

32、Table 4. Building Envelope and EER Data Optimization for the Middle East Region Description Units Average ME Optimum ME 1 Optimum ME 2 Wall U values (BTU/hr/ft2/ oF) 0.1 0.09 0.08Roof U values (BTU/hr/ft2/ oF) 0.06 0.054 0.048Glazing U values (BTU/hr/ft2/ oF) 0.51 0.459 0.408Glazing SHGC 0.36 0.324

33、0.288 EER (BTU/WH) 9.54 10.494 11.448Case Study 1: Kuwait city, Kuwait Energy simulation and peak load results for Case Study 1 are summarized in Table 5, which indicates the annual Total energy consumption, HVAC and non-HVAC components energy consumption, and Peak cooling loads for various cases, a

34、nd comparative percentage savings compared with ASHRAE 90.1-2013. Table 5. Tabulated Summary of Energy Consumption and Peak Cooling Load for Case-Study 1 - (Kuwait City, Kuwait) Component90.1 Kuwait City MEW Kuwait City Savings Percentage Average ME Kuwait CitySavings Percentage Optimum ME1 KuwaitCi

35、tySavings Percentage Optimum ME2 Kuwait CitySavings Percentage HVAC Components 2,480,589 2,301,519 7% 2,612,583 -5% 2,369,637 4% 2,182,701 12% Non-HVAC Components 2,768,599 2,768,599 0% 2,768,599 0% 2,768,599 0% 2,768,599 0% Total 5,249,188 5,070,118 3% 5,381,182 -3% 5,138,236 2% 4,951,300 6% Peak C

36、ooling Load 732.30 651.90 11% 649.40 11% 636.90 13% 624.60 15% Note: Energy Consumption is in KWH (Kilo-watt hour) and Peak Cooling Load in Tons of Refrigeration Figure 1 Annual Energy Consumption and Peak Load Bar Chart for Kuwait City, Kuwait Analysis of results for Case Study 1 (Kuwait City) Comp

37、aring MEW regulations to ASHRAE 90.1 standards there is a saving of 7% on HVAC energyconsumption, 3% on Total energy consumption and 11% on HVAC Cooling load. This is because both theenvelope values and energy efficiency ratio in ASHRAE 90.1 are less stringent than MEW regulations.Comparing Average

38、middle-east values to ASHRAE 90.1 standards there is an increase of 5% on HVACenergy consumption, 3% on Total energy consumption, but the HVAC Cooling load is reduced by 11%.This is because the envelope values are more stringent and energy efficiency ratio is less stringent in Average middle-east va

39、lues compared to ASHRAE 90.1 standards. Comparing Optimum ME 1 values to ASHRAE 90.1 standards there is a saving of 4% on HVAC energyconsumption, 2% on Total energy consumption and 13% on HVAC Cooling load. Comparing Optimum ME 2 values to ASHRAE 90.1 standards there is a saving of 12% on HVAC energ

40、yconsumption, 6% on Total energy consumption and 15% on HVAC Cooling load. Case Study 2: Dubai, UAE Energy simulation and peak load results for Case Study 2 are summarized in Table 6, which indicates the annual Total energy consumption, HVAC and non-HVAC components energy consumption, and Peak cooli

41、ng loads for various cases, and comparative percentage savings compared with ASHRAE 90.1-2013. Table 6. Tabulated Summary of Energy Consumption and Peak Cooling Load for Case-Study 2 - (Dubai, UAE) Component90.1 - Dubai DM - DubaiSavings Percentage Average ME - DubaiSavings Percentage Optimum ME 1 -

42、 DubaiSavings Percentage Optimum ME 2 - DubaiSavings Percentage HVAC Components 2,642,429 2,654,102 -0.4% 2,702,356 -2% 2,441,896 8% 2,241,022 15% Non-HVAC Components 2,768,599 2,768,599 0% 2,768,599 0% 2,768,599 0% 2,768,599 0% Total 5,411,028 5,422,701 -0.2% 5,470,955 -1% 5,210,495 4% 5,009,621 7%

43、 Peak Cooling Load 668.10 584.30 13% 587.90 12% 576.00 14% 564.30 16% Note: Energy Consumption is in KWH (Kilo-watt hour) and Peak Cooling Load in Tons of Refrigeration Figure 2 Annual Energy Consumption and Peak Load Bar Chart for Dubai, UAE Analysis of results for Case Study 2 (Dubai) Comparing DM

44、 regulations to ASHRAE 90.1 standards the HVAC energy consumption and Total energyconsumptions are almost same, but there is 13% savings on HVAC Cooling load. This is because theenvelope values are less stringent and energy efficiency ratio is more stringent in ASHRAE 90.1 standardcompared to DM reg

45、ulations.Comparing Average Middle East values to ASHRAE 90.1 standards there is an increase of 2% on HVACenergy consumption, 1% on Total energy consumption but the HVAC Cooling load is reduced by 12%. Thisis because the envelope values are more stringent and energy efficiency ratio is less stringent

46、 in Averagemiddle-east values compared to ASHRAE 90.1 standards.Comparing Optimum ME 1 values to ASHRAE 90.1 standards there is a saving of 8% on HVAC energyconsumption, 4% on Total energy consumption and 14% on HVAC Cooling load.Comparing Optimum ME 2 values to ASHRAE 90.1 standards there is a savi

47、ng of 15% on HVAC energyconsumption, 7% on Total energy consumption and 16% on HVAC Cooling load.Case Study 3: Doha, Qatar Energy simulation and peak load results for Case Study 3 are summarized in Table 7, which indicates the annual Total energy consumption, HVAC and non-HVAC components energy cons

48、umption, and Peak cooling loads for various cases, and comparative percentage savings compared with ASHRAE 90.1-2013. Table 7. Tabulated Summary of Energy Consumption and Peak Cooling Load for Case-Study 3 - (Doha, Qatar) Component90.1 - DohaKharamaa - DohaSavings Percentage Average ME - DohaSavings

49、 Percentage Optimum ME 1 - DohaSavings Percentage Optimum ME 2 - DohaSavings Percentage HVAC Components 2,897,693 2,902,532 -0.2% 2,891,715 0.2% 2,611,964 10% 2,394,934 17% Non-HVAC Components 2,768,599 2,768,599 0% 2,768,599 0% 2,768,599 0% 2,768,599 0% Total 5,666,292 5,671,131 -0.1% 5,660,314 0.1% 5,380,563 5% 5,163,533 9% Peak Cooling Load 714.20 651.10 9% 632.60 11% 620.10 13% 607.90 15% Note: Energy Consumption is in KWH (Kilo-watt hour) and Peak Cooling Load in Tons of Refrigeration Analysis of results for Case Study 3