Building energy efficiency: everybody can win

(1)

Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la

première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.

Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at

PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.

https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits

L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.

READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright

NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC :

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=40d40a37-1f89-4522-ae05-d7288f381e42 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=40d40a37-1f89-4522-ae05-d7288f381e42 NRC Publications Archive

Archives des publications du CNRC

Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at

Building energy efficiency: everybody can win

(2)

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca B u i l d i n g e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y : e v e r y b o d y c a n w i n I R C - O R A L - 8 1 4 V e i t c h , J . A . A p r i l 2 5 , 2 0 0 7

The material in this document is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission. For more information visit http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/C-42

Les renseignements dans ce document sont protégés par la Loi sur le droit d'auteur, par les lois, les politiques et les règlements du Canada et des accords internationaux. Ces dispositions permettent d'identifier la source de l'information et, dans certains cas, d'interdire la copie de documents sans permission écrite. Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements : http://lois.justice.gc.ca/fr/showtdm/cs/C-42

(3)

Building Energy Efficiency:

Everybody Can Win

(4)

Overview

• Introduction to NRC

• Why care about occupants?

(5)

National Research

Council Canada

• Developing and transferring knowledge to support innovation and commercialization

– 24 research institutes & programs – 1 institute for construction sector

• Network of technology advisors to support small business

– 260 industrial technology advisors in 90 communities

(6)

NRC Institute for

Research in

Construction

(NRC-IRC)

• Established 1947

• Guided by industry advisory board & 2 independent Commissions

• $30 million annual budget • 230 employees

• Post-Doctoral Fellows • Visiting Workers

(7)

NRC Construction

• Durability

• Sustainability • Safety

(8)

NRC-IRC Services

for Industry

• Research to address industry and government priorities • Support for building regulatory system

• Evaluation of innovative construction products

• Dissemination of technical knowledge • Decision tools

(9)

Support for Building

Regulatory System

• Partnership with provinces and territories

• Governed by Codes Commission (CCBFC)

• Brings research to bear on code development

• A new era

– Objective-based codes – Model energy code

(10)

Evaluation of

Innovative

Construction Products

• Canadian Construction Materials Centre (NRC-CCMC) • Canadian Infrastructure Technology Assessment

Centre (CITAC)

Objective

To provide a national evaluation service that facilitates market acceptance of innovative

products and systems nationally and internationally.

(11)

Research –

H

ealth and

Occupant

(12)

Research – Health and

Occupant Satisfaction

• Indoor Air Quality:

– Managing emissions of VOC’s

– Energy-efficient ventilation of houses

• Acoustics:

– Evaluation tools for open-plan offices – Speech in classrooms

• Lighting:

– Lighting quality

– Design tools: Daysim, LIGHTSWITCH, SkyVision – Individual control over lighting

(13)

Canadian Buildings

and Energy

• Buildings account for 35-40% of national energy consumption

• Commercial and institutional buildings contribute ~13% of greenhouse gas emissions and ~13% of total energy use

• Commercial building energy use increased 35% from 1990 to 2004

(14)

People in Buildings

•

P

eople spend 90% of

(15)

The Cost of Work

• People cost more than buildings by all estimates

Staff 82%

Equipment & Training 10%

3% Maintenance & Operations

5%

Building & Furnishings

Source: Brill, M., Weidemann, S., & BOSTI Associates. (2001). Disproving myths about workplace design. Jasper, IN: Kimball International.

(16)

Value of the

Investment

• In the USA, the cost of salaries and benefits taken together is $167/sf as compared to $0.36/sf for the lighting operating cost. Source: www.lightright.org

(17)

Importance of

Employee Satisfaction

Charles, K.E., Veitch, J.A., Farley, K.M.J., Newsham, G.R. (2003). Environmental Satisfaction in Open-Plan

Environments: 3. Further Scale Validation, Research Report, Institute for Research in Construction, National Research

(18)

Employee Attitudes

Carlopio, J. R. (1996). Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction questionnaire. Journal of Occupational

(19)

Business Performance

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.

(20)

Barriers to

Energy Efficiency

• Survey of US lighting industry showed lack of demand for energy-efficient products slowed sales

– Difficulty making economic case for increased first costs – Risks of problems for employees

• Survey of Canadian designers, engineers, facilities managers found high first costs, risks of novelty, and system complexity limited use of building automation systems

• Survey of lighting decision-makers in organizations showed they would make an investment in the work environment if it improved employee satisfaction

(21)

Individual Controls

and Energy

Several studies linking Individual control over lighting to energy savings of 10-40+%

On average, people choose lower light levels than recommended practice

Manual switching in response to daylight and occupancy

Several studies show satisfaction benefits

NRC-IRC has conducted 4 lab experiments and 1 field study on this topic

(22)

Individual Controls

Task Task Lighting Lighting Temperature Temperature Control

Control Ventilation _ControlVentilation _Control

Ventilation Ventilation Direction Direction Acoustic Acoustic Control Control Openable Openable Windows Windows

(23)

Individual Controls

• PC-based controls available for lighting and ventilation

• IR remote controls, wall-mounted controls

(24)

Benefits to Building

Manager

• Automated controls: occupancy sensing, daylight-linked dimming

• Integration with building energy management system • Load control

(25)

task light (undershelf), 2’ fixture, 17 W lamps (x6), non-dimmable Indirect (partition-mounted), 4’ fixture, 2-32 W lamps (x8), dimmable

Direct Parabolic (ceiling centre), 4’ fixture, 2-32 W lamps (x10), dimmable Direct Parabolic (ceiling perimeter), 4’ fixture, 2-32 W lamps (x10), dimmable

Lighting Quality

Project, Expt 2

(26)

LQ, Expt 2 Procedure

• LC participants adjusted lighting to their preferences at start of day

• NC participants got same lighting without knowing who set it • Participants worked for a day under lighting: 47 matched pairs • At end of day NC participants set lighting to their own

(27)

LQ, Expt 2 Results

• Overall, ratings of the quality of the lighting and satisfaction with the space were very high (4 out of 5)

• Having control didn't affect performance or satisfaction

• NC participants made less use of perimeter parabolics resulting in reduced VDT glare and lower LPD

Veitch, J. A., & Newsham, G. R. (2000). Exercised control, lighting choices, and energy use An office simulation experiment. Journal of

(28)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Desktop Illuminance (lux)

Frequency

LC NC

IES RP1

Veitch, J. A., & Newsham, G. R. (2000). Preferred luminous conditions in open-plan offices Research and practice recommendations. Lighting Research and Technology, 32, 199-212.

LQ, Expt 2

(29)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2.2 6.5 10.8 15.1 19.4 23.7

Lighting Power Density (W/m2₎

Frequency LC NC ASHRAE 90.1 & Energy Code Mean = 14.3 W/m Mean = 14.3 W/m22 Savings = 10 Savings = 10--20%20%

LQ, Expt 2

Energy Use

Veitch, J. A., & Newsham, G. R. (2000). Preferred luminous conditions in open-plan offices Research and practice recommendations. Lighting Research and Technology, 32, 199-212.

(30)

LQ, Expt 2

Satisfaction Benefits

• Focus on NC participants

• New, categorical, independent variable:

– SAME, during day NC got within 100 lux of what they chose at end of day

– DIFF, during day NC got Edesk differing by

>100 lux, in either direction, from what they chose at end of day

Newsham, G. R., & Veitch, J. A. (2001). Lighting quality recommendations for VDT offices A new method of derivation. Lighting Research

(31)

DIFF SAME

LQ, Expt 2

Satisfaction Benefits

DIFF SAME DIFF SAME DIFF SAME

(32)

LQ Expt 2

Preferences

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 200 400 600 800 Desktop Illuminance (lx)

Fraction within 100 lx of preference

(33)

Controls Lab 1

Method

4.9m x 6.1m x 2.7m (16’ x 20’ x 9’) room 2.4m x 2.4m (8’ x 8’) cubicles Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4

(34)

Controls Lab 1

Participants

• 118 participants

• 2 participants per session • 1 day exposure

• Random assignment to lighting designs • 1 of 4 initial lighting levels

– ~ 200, 400, 600, 800 lx (Designs 1-3) – ~ 150, 200, 250, 300 lx (Design 4)

(35)

Controls Lab 1

Schedule

Questionnaires (1) & Task Training

Morning Break

Tasks (1)

Lunch

Questionnaires (2) & Tasks (2)

Afternoon Break

Questionnaires (3) & Tasks (3)

Control Introduced

T1

T2

(36)

Controls Lab 1

Chosen Conditions

1 2 3 4 DESIGN 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 F IX _ D E S K Lighting Design D e s k top Illum inance , lux

Newsham, G. R., Veitch, J. A., Arsenault, C., & Duval, C. (2004). Effect of dimming control on office worker satisfaction and performance. In Proceedings of the IESNA Annual Conference, Tampa, FL, July 26-28, 2004 (pp. 19-41). New York IESNA.

(37)

0 1 2 3 4 T1 T2 T3 Time of Day Mean Rating Lighting Satisfaction Glare Dissatisfaction Control introduced

Controls Lab 1

Lighting Satisfaction

• Similar effect on:

– Overall environmental satisfaction

– Session satisfaction – Self-assessed

productivity

(38)

Controls Lab 1

Lighting Satisfaction

• Not just having control, it’s

using it to create preferred conditions

• Participants who made the biggest changes in light levels post-control were furthest from their own preferred luminous conditions pre-control; and, they will experience the biggest improvements in outcomes as a result 0 10 20 30 40 PADELTA_D(3) -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 D _ L S A T r2 adj = 0.13

|Δ E

_desk

|

0.5

Δ

Lighting Satisf

act

ion

(39)

Personal

Environmental

Controls

• Laboratory experiment -personal control over lighting and ventilation • Effects of control

• Effects of ramping (demand response) • Interactions

(40)

Personal

Environmental

Controls - Conditions

• Total flow rate ~350 ls-1_{, ~25% outdoor air}

20 21 22 23 24 25 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 15:30 Time of Day Air Temperature ( o C) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Desktop Illuminance (lux)

Supply 24o_C

Supply 18o_C

Dim @ 75% Dim @ 75%

(41)

Personal

Environmental

Controls — Results

• Chosen lighting and ventilation conditions differed from the static settings for no-control participants

• ~10% reduction for lighting energy use; savings for ventilation system would depend on system configuration

0 5 10 15 0-100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600 600-700 700-800 Iluminance (lx) Frequency 0 5 10 15 0-5 _5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 Flow Rate (ls-1) Frequency

(42)

Personal

Environmental

Controls — Results

• Controls used 2-3 times per day, mostly in the morning • Controls were perceived as being easy to use

• Having control …

– improved environmental satisfaction

(43)

Personal

Environmental

Controls — Results

• Ramping did not affect environmental satisfaction, and the

changes were scarcely noticed; however, discomfort increased slightly with ramping

• No interaction - having control didn't change the response to ramping

• Guidelines for demand response: in a power emergency,the following changes shouldn't create undue hardship:

– Temperature change rates: ~0.5-1.0 o_{C/hr up to 25}o_C

– Lighting reductions by dimming: ~20% from 500 lux

• Extended to >40% if done slowly, and with no expectation

Newsham, G. R., Donnelly, C., Mancini, S., Marchand, R. G., Lei, W., Charles, K. E., & Veitch, J. A. (2006, August). The effect of ramps in temperature and electric light level on office occupants: A literature review and a laboratory experiment. In Proceedings of the 2006

ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings (Pacific Grove, California, August 13, 2006) (pp. 4-252 to 4-264). Washington,

(44)

Base Case Best Practice

Best Practice +

Switchable Control Dimming Control

(45)

Light Right

Lighting Appraisals

Selected Office Lighting Survey results

(* Χ2 test shows p<.05)

Norm (%) BG - Afternoon Repeaters - PM

Overall, the lighting is comfortable 69 % Agree % Agree

Base Case 71 80

Best Practice 85*

Switching Control 81

Dimming Control 91* 98*

How does the lighting compare to similar workplaces in other buildings?

19 60 22 Worse - Same - Better Worse - Same - Better

Base Case 8 69 24 9 60 30

Best Practice 3 45 53*

Switching Control 9 52 39*

Dimming Control 7 43 50* 0 50 50*

Boyce, P. R., Veitch, J. A., Newsham, G. R., Jones, C. C., Heerwagen, J., Myer, M., et al. (2006). Lighting quality and office work Two field simulation experiments. Lighting Research and Technology, 38(3), 191-223.

(46)

Light Right Albany

Preferences

• Control used sparingly, but effectively.

– When they had control, most people used it once, near the start of the day, to choose a preferred condition.

0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900₁₀00₁₁00₁₂00

Average Desktop Illuminance (lx) 0 10 20 30 40 C o u n t 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 P ro p o rti o n p e r B a r Mean desktop

Mean desktop illuminanceilluminance chosen by participants with

chosen by participants with

Dimming Control. Dimming Control. Cou n t Pr oportion Per Bar

Boyce, P. R., Veitch, J. A., Newsham, G. R., Jones, C. C., Heerwagen, J., Myer, M., et al. (2006). Occupant use of switching and dimming controls in offices. Lighting Research and Technology, 38(4), 358-378.

(47)

Light Right Albany

Effect of Control

Boyce, P. R., Veitch, J. A., Newsham, G. R., Jones, C. C., Heerwagen, J., Myer, M., et al. (2006). Lighting quality and office work Two field simulation experiments. Lighting Research and Technology, 38(3), 191-223.

(48)

BC Hydro

PowerSmart

Field Study

LS OS IC

LS

OS

IC

(49)

BC Hydro PowerSmart

Energy Study

• Lighting power density of installed system is 45% lower

than that of a static conventional fluorescent lighting

system;

• The three controls combined saved an additional

42-47% in lighting energy use compared to installed system

used at full power; This translates into savings of 67-69

% compared to a conventional system;

• Average peak daily power demand was reduced by

similar amounts;

Galasiu, A. D., Donnelly, C. L., Newsham, G. R., Veitch, J. A., Sander, D. M., & Arsenault, C. D. (2007). Field evaluation of the Ergolight

lighting control system [Executive Summary] (NRC-IRC Client Report B3222-B3228.1). Ottawa, ON: NRC Institute for Research in

(50)

BC Hydro PowerSmart

Energy Study

If used on their own (versus system at full power):

• Occupancy control average savings: 29-38%

• Light sensor average savings: 10-20%

• Individual control average savings: < 10%

• Frequency-of-use of the individual control averaged

under 0.05 control actions/WS/day

(51)

BC Hydro PowerSmart

Energy Study

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 Conventional system

-full power (no controls) Ergolight - full power

(no controls) Ergolight - actual use

(with controls)

Workstation average daily energy use [kWh] 69%

42% 47%

(52)

BC Hydro PowerSmart

Lighting Appraisals

Direct only (parabolic)- ~70% Still uncomfortable- 30%

PERCENTAGE COMFORTABLE

D/I Dimmable - ~90% Still uncomfortable- 10% PERCENTAGE COMFORTABLE

(53)

BC Hydro PowerSmart

Satisfaction Results

Window Proximity Personal Control over Lighting Satisfaction with Ventilation Satisfaction with Lighting Satisfaction with

Privacy & Acoustics

Overall Environmental

Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment

Intent to Turnover

(54)

Conclusions - Lighting

• People prefer to have control over the physical environment • Control allows individuals to obtain the conditions they prefer

– May improve persistence on difficult tasks

• Having preferred conditions improves mood and satisfaction

• Individually-controllable workstation lighting saves an additional ~10% in energy consumption

(55)

Conclusions - General

• Satisfying occupants is important to decision-makers • Selling energy efficiency can't come at this expense • …and it doesn't have to!

(56)

Credits

• Research on lighting controls described here has been supported financially by

– Panel on Energy Research and Development – Public Works & Government Services Canada – Natural Resources Canada

– Light Right Consortium – BC Hydro

(57)

Contact Information

Jennifer A. Veitch, Ph.D.

NRC I nstitute for Research in Construction (NRC-I RC) National Research Council Canada

Building M-24, 1200 Montreal Road Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6 Canada

tel. + 1-613-993-9671 / fax + 1-613-954-3733 e-mail: jennifer.veitch@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

http:/ / irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ ie