Executive SummaryTypical processes of whole Building Energy simulation Model (BEM) generation are subjective, labor intensive, time intensive and error prone. Essentially, these typical processes reproduce already existing data, i.e. building models already created by the architect. Accordingly, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) developed a semi-automated process that enables reproducible conversions of Building Information Model (BIM) representations of building geometry into a format required by building energy modeling (BEM) tools. This is a generic process that may be applied to all building energy modeling tools but to date has only been used for EnergyPlus.This report describes and demonstrates each stage in the semi-automated process for building geometry using the recently constructed NASA Ames Sustainability Base throughout. This example uses ArchiCAD (Graphisoft, 2012) as the originating CAD tool and EnergyPlus as the concluding whole building energy simulation tool. It is important to note that the process is also applicable for professionals that use other CAD tools such as Revit ("Revit Architecture," 2012) and DProfiler (Beck Technology, 2012) and can be extended to provide geometry definitions for BEM tools other than EnergyPlus. Geometry Simplification Tool (GST) was used during the NASA Ames project and was the enabling software that facilitated semi-automated data transformations. GST has now been superseded by Space Boundary Tool (SBT-1) and will be referred to as SBT-1 throughout this report.The benefits of this semi-automated process are fourfold: 1) reduce the amount of time and cost required to develop a whole building energy simulation model, 2) enable rapid generation of design alternatives, 3) improve the accuracy of BEMs and 4) result in significantly better performing buildings with significantly lower energy consumption than those created using the traditional design process, especially if the simulation model was used as a predictive benchmark during operation.Developing BIM based criteria to support the semi-automated process should result in significant reliable improvements and time savings in the development of BEMs. In order to define successful BIMS, CAD export of IFC based BIMs for BEM must adhere to a standard Model View Definition (MVD) for simulation as provided by the concept design BIM MVD (buildingSMART, 2011). In order to ensure wide scale adoption, companies would also need to develop their own material libraries to support automated activities and undertake a pilot project to improve understanding of modeling conventions and design tool features and limitations.3

Building retrofits provide a large opportunity to significantly reduce energy consumption in the buildings sector. Traditional building retrofits focus on equipment upgrades, often at the end of equipment life or failure, and result in replacement with marginally improved similar technology and limited energy savings. The Integrated System (IS) retrofit approach enables much greater energy savings by leveraging interactive effects between end use systems, enabling downsized or lower energy technologies. This paper presents a case study in Hawaii quantifying the benefits of an IS retrofit approach compared to two traditional retrofit approaches: a Standard Practice of upgrading equipment to meet minimum code requirements, and an Improved Practice of upgrading equipment to a higher efficiency. The IS approach showed an energy savings of 84% over existing building energy use, much higher than the traditional approaches of 13% and 33%. The IS retrofit also demonstrated the greatest energy cost savings potential. While the degree of savings realized from the IS approach will vary by building and climate, these findings indicate that savings on the order of 50% and greater are not possible without an IS approach. It is therefore recommended that the IS approach be universally adopted to achieve deep energy savings.

No abstract

Light-emitting diodes (LED) fixtures and lamps have emerged as leading technologies for general illumination and are a well-established energy efficiency retrofit measure in commercial buildings (from around 2% of installed fixtures and lamps in 2013 to 28% by 2020). Retrofit approaches that integrate elements, such as networked controls, daylight dimming, and advanced shade technologies lag in comparison. Integrated retrofits have been shown to increase savings over single end-use retrofits, but are perceived as higher complexity and risk. More validation of integrated lighting system performance is needed. This study presents results from laboratory testing of three packages combining fixtures, networked controls, task tuning, and daylight dimming, advanced shades, and lighting layout changes. We characterize performance in perimeter open-office zones, finding energy savings from 20% for daylight dimming and automated shades (no LED retrofit) to over 70% for LED retrofits with advanced controls and shades or lighting layout changes. We present some implementation details, including lessons learned from installation and commissioning in the laboratory setting. We also discuss cost-benefit analysis approaches for the types of packages presented, including the need to quantify and incorporate energy and non-energy benefits for advanced shades packages, which enhance occupant comfort but add significant cost.

No abstract