ASHRAE LO-09-095-2009 Improving Energy Performance of Army Dining Facilities《军队餐饮设施提高能源性能》.pdf

1、2009 ASHRAE 1013ABSTRACTThe Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires that federal facil-ities be built to achieve at least 30% energy savings over ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004. The Construction Engineering Research Laboratory of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in collaboration with USACE HQ and centers of

2、standardization for respective building types, the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the ASHRAE MTG have developed design guides to achieve 30% energy savings over a baseline. This baseline was built to the minimum requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-

3、2004 for new buildings to be constructed under the Military Trans-formation Program. The building types include barracks, administrative buildings, a maintenance facility, a dining facility, a child development center, and an Army reserve center. This paper presents the results of the energy analysi

4、s for Dining facilities. It provides a definition of the baseline build-ing and the modeling assumptions. EnergyPlus version 2.1 was used to determine baseline and target energy budgets for all 15 DOE climate zones. Finally, a recommended set of energy-effi-cient solutions for each climate zone is p

5、resented that enable at least 30% energy savings over the baseline. Results of this study were implemented through the Armys standard bid-build process in late 2008 by incorporation in request for proposal target energy budgets by climate zone and sets of technologies to meet these budgets.INTRODUCT

6、IONSection 109 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) states that, for new federal facilities, “the buildings be designed to achieve energy consumption levels that are at least 30 percent below the levels established in the version of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Con

7、di-tioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard or the International Energy Conservation Code, as appropriate” (U.S. Congress 2005). The energy-efficient designs must be life cycle cost effective; however, EPAct does not define cost effective; each federal agency defines this term. The U.S. Department of Ene

8、rgy (DOE) issued additional guidance in the Federal Register (NARA 2006), which states that savings calculations should not include the plug loads and implies that the savings shall be determined through energy cost savings. The U.S. Army decided, with DOEs approval, that it would use site energy fo

9、r the HVAC, lighting, and hot water loads to deter-mine the energy savings.The U.S. Army constructs buildings across the country; the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff of the Installations Management and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE) worked to streamline the process of meeting the

10、energy savings requirements. The U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers (USACE) collaborated with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the ASHRAE Military Tech-nology Group (MTG) to develop baseline and target energy budgets and design guides with a prescriptive path for achiev-ing energy sav

11、ings of 30% or more over the baseline. The proj-ect covers eight building types over all U.S. climate zones: basic training barracks, unaccompanied enlisted personal housing, battalion headquarters, tactical equipment mainte-nance facilities, dining facilities, child development centers, Army reserv

12、e centers, and company operations. This paper Improving Energy Performance of Army Dining FacilitiesMichael Deru, PhD Alexander Zhivov, PhD Dale HerronMember ASHRAE Member ASHRAE Member ASHRAEDonald Fisher Vernon SmithAssociate Member ASHRAE Associate Member ASHRAEMichael Deru is a senior engineer w

13、ith the Center for Buildings and Thermal Systems, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. Alexander M. Zhivov is an operating agent of the IEA ECBCS Annex 46 and a program manager in the Energy Branch of the US Army Engi-neer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Construction Engineering

14、 Research Laboratory (CERL), Champaign, IL. Dale Herron is a mechanical engineer and project manager in the Energy Branch of the ERDC, CERL. Donald Fisher is president and CEO of Fisher-Nickel, Inc., San Ramon, CA. Vernon A. Smith is a senior engineer at Architectural Energy Corp., Boulder, CO.LO-09

15、095 2009, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE Transactions 2009, vol. 115, part 2. For personal use only. Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without

16、 ASHRAEs prior written permission.1014 ASHRAE Transactionsfocuses on Dining facilities; however, the process for devel-oping all the design guides is similar.The concept for these design guides was adapted from the Advanced Energy Design Guides (AEDGs) from ASHRAE (2008). Each AEDG was developed for

17、 a specific building type and provides recommendation tables for each of the eight major climate zones and a “how-to” section on implementing the recommendations. The AEDGs do not provide baseline and target energy budgets, which are used by the Army in its requests for proposals (RFPs).APPROACHA re

18、presentative model of the dining facility building was developed based on the information provided by the USACE Norfolk Districtthe dining facility Center of Standardiza-tion. Baseline and target energy budgets were developed and energy savings that use different sets of technologies were analyzed.

19、Energy conservation technology candidates were selected based on previous energy design guide work (FSTC 2004a) and input from commercial kitchen consultants, who have experience with military kitchens.All energy simulations for the dining facility were carried out with EnergyPlus version 2.1 (DOE 2

20、008). NREL is part of the EnergyPlus development team and has developed addi-tional programs that work with EnergyPlus. These programs work together to create input files, manage the numerous simulations, provide optimization, and post process the results. A baseline building energy model was create

21、d from the representative dining facility model that meets the minimum requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 following Appendix G (ASHRAE 2004a). We followed Appendix G with two exceptions, which were approved by DOE for these design guides. We used site energy, and developed baseline and target

22、 energy budgets without plug or process loads as our metric for savings following EPAct 2005 guidance from DOE. Finally, Standard 90.1-2004 does not contain requirements to building air leakage and infiltration levels. For the dining facil-ity, we defined a baseline air leakage rate and an energy-ef

23、fi-cient leakage rate and included these factors in our energy efficiency analysis.EXISTING ARMY DINING FACILITIESExisting Army dining facilities were not designed with energy and water efficiency as a primary objective. Minimiz-ing construction costs has always been a goal of facility design, but s

24、pecifying lower first-cost equipment that is inher-ently energy inefficient has been a reality with the design of Army Dining facilities. Even though the focus has changed within the context of EPAct 2005, facilities cannot be trans-formed into energy efficient models of institutional food service.

25、However, step-by-step, low-cost energy conservation measures (ECMs), such as low-flow prerinse spray valves in the dishroom and high-efficiency motors for evaporator fans in walk-in coolers, can be implemented. Dining facilities are some of the most energy-intensive buildings on Army instal-lations,

26、 so comprehensive audits should be initiated in existing Dining facilities to address the many available no-cost, low-cost, and investment-grade retrofits of ventilation, lighting, and automation systems, and equipment replacement oppor-tunities. Energy-efficient options (e.g., ENERGY STAR qualified

27、 for applicable equipment categories, including fryers, steamers, holding cabinets, ice machines, reach-in refrigerators, and freezers), must be considered when equip-ment is replaced (EPA 2008). Where there are no ENERGY STAR categories, Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)-recommended or Calif

28、ornia rebate-qualified equip-ment should be considered (FEMP 2008; FSTC 2004b).Army Dining Facilities DescriptionThe Army has developed standard designs for its dining facilities, based on the number of meals served in a single meal time. These range in size from 251 to 500, 501 to 800, 801 to 1300,

29、 and 2600 meals. Most of the building elements scale with the size of the building. However, the kitchen is nearly the same size across all models to fit a standard set of food prep-aration equipment. The basic design is a single-story building with spaces for food preparation, serving, dining, dish

30、wash-ing, take-out food area, employee break area, storage, and util-ities. The design must facilitate feeding the maximum number of meals in an hour and a half. Many short orders are cooked in the serving area on broilers or griddles, range tops, and in ovens. Several ventilation hoods are required

31、 to service the cooking equipment. A walk-in cooler, a walk-in freezer, and several reach-in refrigerators and other ancillary equipment are typically found in commercial food service. Figure 1 shows a sketch of a proposed dining facility. A dining facility that serves 801 to 1300 meals was selected

32、 for our study. This medium sized building is the one most often constructed. The area of the proposed floor plan (see Figure 2) is 25,609 ft2(2,379 m2). The building is occu-pied 7 days per week from 3:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Table 1 lists the zones and thermal loading in I-P units and Table 2 in SI u

33、nits. Determination of the electric and gas equipment loads are presented in the Plug and Process Load section. LocationsFifteen locations were selected to represent 15 climate zones in the United States based on TMY2 weather files. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory selected locations as represe

34、ntative cities for the climate zones by Briggs et al. (2003). We selected Colorado Springs instead of Boise, Idaho for climate zone 5B to align with the installations at Fort Carson, Colorado. Table 3 lists the 15 climate zones and their representative cities.ENERGY MODELINGEnergyPlus version 2.1 (D

35、OE 2008) was used to conduct the energy simulations. All simulations were completed with the NREL analysis platform based around Opt-E-Plus, which manages EnergyPlus simulations. This section describes the modeling assumptions used in the base-line and energy-efficient models.ASHRAE Transactions 101

36、5Figure 1 Sketch of a proposed army dining facility (USACE 2006).Figure 2 Proposed DFAC floor plan from the Army (USACE 2006).1016 ASHRAE TransactionsTable 1. Building Zones and Internal Loads (I-P units)ZoneArea(ft2)Volume(ft3)PeopleLights(W/ft2)ElectricEquipment (W/ft2)GasEquipment(W)Dining 7,981

37、95,772 500 0.9 3.76Storage/Receiving 2,622 31,465 5 0.8 0.25Dishwash 1,120 13,439 5 1.2 51.79Kitchen 2,763 33,150 12 1.2 14.84 54,000Servery 4,277 51,324 50 1.2 23.85 29,000Entry/Circulation 3,290 39,478 35 1.3 0.25Carryout 1,044 12,528 6 1.2 12.45 14,000Office 1,444 17,328 6 1.1 0.75Utility 1,053 1

38、2,637 0 1.5 0.25Total 25,593 307,120 619 26,486 W 246,824 W 93,000 WTable 2. Building Zones and Internal Loads (SI units)ZoneArea(m2)Volume(m3)PeopleLights(W/m2)ElectricEquipment (W/m2)GasEquipment(W)Dining 741 2,712 500 9.68 40.46Storage/Receiving 244 891 5 8.61 2.69Dishwash 104 381 5 12.91 557.46K

39、itchen 257 939 12 12.91 159.75 54,000Servery 397 1,453 50 12.91 256.70 29,000Entry/Circulation 306 1,118 35 13.99 2.69Carryout 97 355 6 12.91 134.04 14,000Office 134 491 6 11.84 8.07Utility 98 358 0 16.14 2.69Total 2,378 8,697 619 27,759 246,824 93,000 WTable 3. Climate Zones and Cities Used for Sim

40、ulationsClimate Zone CityHeating Degree Day Base 65F (18C)Cooling Degree Day Base 50F (10C)1A Miami, FL 200 (111) 9474 (5263)2A Houston, TX 1599 (888) 6876 (3820)2B Phoenix, AZ 1350 (750) 8425 (4681)3A Memphis, TN 3082 (1712) 5467 (3037)3B El Paso, TX 2708 (1504) 5488 (3049)3C San Francisco, CA 3016

41、 (1676) 2883 (1602)4A Baltimore, MD 4707 (2615) 3709 (2061)4B Albuquerque, NM 4425 (2458) 3908 (2171)4C Seattle, WA 4908 (2727) 1823 (1013)5A Chicago, IL 6536 (3631) 2941 (1634)5B Colorado Springs, CO 6415 (3564) 2312 (1284)6A Burlington, VT 7771 (4317) 2228 (1238)6B Helena, MT 7699 (4277) 1841 (102

42、3)7A Duluth, MT 9818 (5454) 1536 (853)8A Fairbanks, AL 13940 (7744) 1040 (578)ASHRAE Transactions 1017Figure 3 shows the thermal zoning in the energy model of the dining facility used for this study, a one-story, 25,593 ft2(2,378 m2) building. Figure 4 shows the rendered view of the energy simulatio

43、n model. The skylights in the servery and dining zones are used for daylighting in the energy-efficient models. The skylights must also be included in the baseline building, according to Standard 90.1-2004 Appendix G modeling rules. The skylights and daylighting did not provide energy savings in Fai

44、rbanks and are not included in the energy models for this location. Table 4 lists some of the building model parameters.Modeling this building in EnergyPlus introduced some errors and required some changes in the model inputs. Several hours of unmet heating loads from a bug in EnergyPlus control alg

45、orithms led to temperatures dropping about 1F (0.6C) below the set point. This problem occurs in zones with high outside air and in cold climates. The result is a slightly lower than optimal heating energy, which was assumed to be slight and was ignored in this study. The bug is known to the Ener-gy

46、Plus development team and may be fixed in a future release. Another issue was undersized cooling coils in hot climates. This was corrected by increasing the zone sizing factor for the kitchens in Houston, Phoenix, and El Paso. Finally, there are concerns about the outside air for zones with exhaust

47、fans and transfer air, which are discussed further in the Ventilation and Outside Air Section.Plug and Process LoadsSeveral assumptions have to be made to include the plug and process loads in the energy models. The process loads for commercial kitchens are large and have a significant impact on Fig

48、ure 3 Thermal zoning for the DFAC energy model.Figure 4 Rendering of the energy simulation model for the DFAC.Table 4. Building Model ParametersBuilding ComponentBaseline Building ModelEfficient Building ModelArea 25,593 ft2(2,378 m2) Same as baselineFloors 1 Same as baselineAspect ratio 1.2 Same as

49、 baselineFenestration type Standard 90.1-2004See Table 12 and Table 13Wall construction Steel frame Steel frameWall insulationStandard 90.1-2004 steel frameSee Table 12 and Table 13Roof construction Flat built up roof Flat built up roofRoof insulationStandard 90.1-2004 equal to the “insulation entirely above deck”See Table 12 and Table 13Roof albedo 0.3 Same as baselineInfiltration0.4 cfm/ft2 0.3 in w.g. (2.0 L/sm2 75 Pa)0.25 cfm/ft2 0.3 in w.g. (1.25 L/s/m2 75 Pa)Temperature set points70F (21C) heating; 75F (24C) cooling set back/up to 55F (13C) heating; 91F (33C