Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Energy Performance Validation of A Gaseous Air Cleaning Technology For Commercial Buildings
Energy Performance Validation of A Gaseous Air Cleaning Technology For Commercial Buildings
Suggested Citation
Deru, Michael, and Jason DeGraw. 2020. Energy Performance Validation of a Gaseous
Air Cleaning Technology for Commercial Buildings. Golden, CO: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5500-74545. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/74545.pdf.
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 15013 Denver West Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov
NOTICE
This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable
Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding
provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building
Technologies Office. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S.
Government.
Cover Photos by Dennis Schroeder: (clockwise, left to right) NREL 51934, NREL 45897, NREL 42160, NREL 45891, NREL 48097,
NREL 46526.
This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for
Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-
AC36-08GO28308. Funding provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Office. The views expressed herein do
not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government.
iii
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Nomenclature or List of Acronyms
AHU air handling unit
CARB California Air Resources Board
CO 2 carbon dioxide
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
HLR HVAC Load Reduction
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
IAQ indoor air quality
IAQP Indoor Air Quality Procedure
IEQ indoor environmental quality
M&V measurement and verification
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
O&M operations and maintenance
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
REL reference exposure level
T temperature
T&RH temperature and relative humidity
T dry dry bulb temperature
T wet wet bulb temperature
VOC volatile organic compounds
VRP Ventilation Rate Procedure
iv
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Executive Summary
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building Technologies Office Commercial Building
Integration group conducts evaluations of new energy efficiency technologies as part of the High
Impact Technology Catalyst program. The subject of this field validation project is an air
cleaning technology that removes gaseous contaminants from indoor air to reduce outdoor air
ventilation requirements. Reducing the volume of outdoor air required reduces heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) loads and can provide significant energy savings for
some buildings in certain climates. The technology, called the HLR (HVAC Load Reduction),
was developed by enVerid. The technology uses a solid regenerable sorbent material that was
developed by DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory and licensed to the vendor for this
application. The sorbent material was originally developed to adsorb carbon dioxide (CO 2 ); the
vendor continued to develop the sorbent and the overall system so that it can also remove volatile
organic compounds (including aldehydes), carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter 2.5
micrometers in diameter or smaller (PM 2.5 ) from the air. This material has low regeneration
temperature requirements, and its sorption properties are unaffected by humidity levels, both of
which are beneficial for building applications.
Several buildings were considered for testing this technology; however, only three were included
in the results. One of these test buildings experienced a significant increase in occupancy prior to
the field test, and the original HVAC system was undersized and was unable to maintain
adequate ventilation and temperature set points. However, the reduced ventilation requirements
with the HLR systems allowed the HVAC system to meet indoor air quality requirements and
maintain comfort conditions without expensive HVAC system upgrades. Energy savings in a
Miami wellness center installation was measured to be 37% of the cooling energy during a 3-
month test period. The final installation was in a 42-story class-A office building in New York
City. The energy savings from this building were 6% of the cooling energy. Savings during the
heating season are also possible but were not included in this project. Energy modeling for
medium-sized office buildings in five locations was used to show the impact of this technology
in cooling and heating dominated locations. The annual energy cost savings ranged from $1,130
to more than $3,500, depending on ventilation reduction, location, and utility costs.
The savings are highly dependent on the ability to reduce outdoor air ventilation, HVAC
equipment type and efficiency, and the climate in which the building is located. Each project
should be evaluated for performance. This technology is applicable to retrofit projects and new
construction. Application of this technology in new construction or major retrofits may allow for
reduced HVAC system sizing, which may reduce overall system costs. Energy simulations of a
medium office building estimated reductions in cooling capacity of 9% to 20%, depending on the
location.
v
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Demonstration Objectives ................................................................................................................... 4
3 Site Selection ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.1 Site Screening Checklist................................................................................................................ 6
3.2 Site Selection Challenges .............................................................................................................. 6
3.2.1 UMH Wellness Center ..................................................................................................... 7
3.2.2 UM Richter Library.......................................................................................................... 8
3.2.3 Diplomat Conference Center ............................................................................................ 8
3.2.4 U.S. Custom House .......................................................................................................... 9
3.2.5 ArcBest Headquarters Building ....................................................................................... 9
3.2.6 Morgan Stanley Headquarters Building ........................................................................... 9
3.3 Lessons Learned in the Site Selection Process ............................................................................ 10
4 Energy Savings Results ..................................................................................................................... 11
4.1 UMH Wellness Center ................................................................................................................ 11
4.2 ArcBest Headquarters ................................................................................................................. 13
4.3 Morgan Stanley Global Headquarters ......................................................................................... 14
5 Indoor Air Quality Results ................................................................................................................. 18
5.1 UMH Wellness Center ................................................................................................................ 18
5.2 Morgan Stanley Headquarters ..................................................................................................... 20
6 Energy Modeling for Potential Available Savings ........................................................................... 24
6.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 24
6.2 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 25
6.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 30
7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 31
References ................................................................................................................................................. 32
Appendix A—Demonstration Site Checklist .......................................................................................... 34
Appendix B—Uncertainty Calculations .................................................................................................. 36
Appendix C—Utility Tariffs....................................................................................................................... 37
vi
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
List of Figures
Figure 1. HVAC Load Reduction unit .......................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Typical installation of the HLR unit .............................................................................................. 2
Figure 3. UMH chilled water energy for HLR ON and OFF operation ...................................................... 13
Figure 4. HLR installation in the ArcBest building .................................................................................... 14
Figure 5. HLR installation in the Morgan Stanley building........................................................................ 15
Figure 6. Morgan Stanley chilled water energy for HLR ON and OFF operation ..................................... 16
Figure 7. UMH Wellness Center measurement and sampling locations..................................................... 20
Figure 8. Morgan Stanley IAQ measurement and sampling locations ....................................................... 21
Figure 9. Miami cooling energy use by fraction of design outside air........................................................ 26
Figure 10. Chicago ventilation air heating energy use by fraction of design outside air ............................ 26
List of Tables
Table 1. Technology Performance Objectives, Metrics, and Data Requirements ........................................ 5
Table 2. Buildings Under Consideration for Inclusion in the Project ........................................................... 7
Table 3. 2015 UMH Wellness Center Data Summary by Week................................................................. 12
Table 4. 2016 UMH Wellness Center Data Summary by Week................................................................. 12
Table 5. Selected Contaminants of Concern for the UMH Wellness Center .............................................. 18
Table 6. UMH Formaldehyde Measurements ............................................................................................. 19
Table 7. UMH Chemical Sampling Results (µg/m3) .................................................................................. 19
Table 8. Selected Contaminants of Concern for Morgan Stanley Building ................................................ 21
Table 9. Morgan Stanley Building Measured VOC Levels (µg/m3) ........................................................... 22
Table 10. Morgan Stanley Building Measured Contaminants (µg/m3)....................................................... 22
Table 11. Morgan Stanley Building Measured CO 2 (ppm) ........................................................................ 23
Table 12. Selected Locations for Energy Modeling.................................................................................... 25
Table 13. Annual Electricity Savings ......................................................................................................... 27
Table 14. Monthly Peak Demand (kW and %) Reductions for One HLR Operation ................................. 27
Table 15. Annual Natural Gas Savings (million Btu) ................................................................................. 28
Table 16. Energy Cost Savings for One HLR............................................................................................. 28
Table 17. Energy Cost Savings for Two HLRs .......................................................................................... 29
Table 18. Cooling Coil Capacity Reductions.............................................................................................. 30
Table A-1. Site Information ........................................................................................................................ 34
Table A-2. High-Level Criteria................................................................................................................... 34
Table A-3. Systems-Related Criteria .......................................................................................................... 35
Table A-4. Utilities-Related Criteria........................................................................................................... 35
Table B-1. Measurement Uncertainties ...................................................................................................... 36
vii
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
1 Introduction
This report documents a measurement and verification (M&V) effort to quantify the benefits of
an air cleaning technology developed by enVerid. This effort was funded as a U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) Building Technologies Office Commercial Building Integration technology
demonstration project.
The subject of this validation project is an air cleaning technology that removes gaseous
contaminants from indoor air with the intention of reducing outdoor air ventilation requirements.
Reducing the volume of outdoor air can reduce heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
(HVAC) loads required to condition this air and provide significant energy savings for buildings.
The subject technology uses a solid regenerable sorbent material that was initially developed by
DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory and licensed to the vendor for this application.
The sorbent material was originally developed to adsorb carbon dioxide (CO 2 ); the vendor has
continued to develop the sorbent and the overall system so that it can also remove volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) (including aldehydes), carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate
matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller (PM 2.5 ) from the air. The sorbent material has low
regeneration temperature requirements, and its sorption properties are unaffected by humidity
levels. Both characteristics are beneficial for building applications.
The technology, labeled HLR (HVAC Load Reduction), is implemented with compact modules
that can be retrofitted into HVAC systems and integrated with new systems. The solid sorbents
are contained in replaceable cartridges in a flexible design that is adaptable to different
configurations. The cartridges are stacked in a v-bank configuration to maximize surface area
utilization with minimum volume and pressure drop. Figure 1 shows the vertical configuration of
the HLR module. The HLR module is designed for new construction and as a retrofit measure to
central HVAC systems and is typically installed in the return airstream of a building HVAC
system, as shown in Figure 2. The HLR is also compatible with plenum-return designs, in which
one of more HLRs is installed in the return plenum.
1
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Figure 1. HVAC Load Reduction unit
Source: enVerid (2017)
The HLR operates in three modes—adsorption, regeneration, and standby. The HLR can be
placed in standby mode when the building is unoccupied and during economizer mode when
outdoor air quality is adequate for bringing into the building. During the adsorption mode, a
fraction of the building return air is treated by the HLR to remove contaminants upstream of the
air handling unit (AHU). The AHU outdoor air damper position is minimized to reduce the
amount of outdoor air coming into the building and treated by the AHU. As the HLR treats the
air, the contaminants accumulate in the sorbent material and the sorbent material must be
regenerated to safely eliminate the contaminants. During the regeneration cycle, the HLR system
is blocked from the building air system, and the cartridges are heated to 130°–150°F for 30–60
2
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
minutes to release the absorbed gases, which are exhausted to the ambient. Regeneration
typically occurs once or twice every 24 hours and can be full or partial, depending on the timing
of the space ventilation requirements and utility rates. The HLR unit monitors temperature,
relative humidity, pressure across the cartridge bank, CO 2 , and total VOC, which can be used to
determine when to regenerate, filtration effectiveness, and when it is time to replace the sorbent
cartridges. For most cases, the vendor recommends annual replacement of the sorbent cartridges.
3
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
2 Demonstration Objectives
The overall project objective is adapted from a vendor-provided Statement of Project Objectives:
The objective is to install and operate modular HLR retrofits in multiple and
diverse buildings, monitor their performance, analyze the energy savings, evaluate
the overall economics, and verify indoor environmental quality and indoor air
quality (IEQ and IAQ) with specific tests for CO 2 and other contaminants of
concern (to be determined prior to demonstration initiation). The set of buildings
selected for demonstration should collectively represent target markets based on
market and commercialization analyses and strategies. The demonstration
outcomes, if positive, will be developed into a body of validating case studies and
data to encourage and enable widespread adoption around the country.
In support of the overall project objective, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
focused on two technical performance objectives and four deployment-related objectives. The
technical performance objectives are to:
1. Determine the energy performance and energy cost performance under HLR operation
(compared to baseline operation without HLR)
2. Confirm that IEQ under HLR operation meets the requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE
Standards 62.1-2016 (ASHRAE 2016) and 55-2017 (ASHRAE 2017).
The deployment-related objectives are to:
1. Identify and document the technical and practical challenges that emerge in design,
installation, control, and operation of the HLR system
2. Document the level of occupant and maintenance staff satisfaction with the HLR system
3. Estimate the economic performance of the HLR system
4. Estimate the potential market impact and document potential challenges for wide-scale
deployment of the HLR system.
Building on these objectives, Table 1 shows the general performance objectives, performance
metrics, and data requirements for validation of this technology. These requirements were
modified for each site to accommodate site-specific details. The specific indoor air contaminants
of concern and performance targets were determined in coordination with subject matter experts.
4
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Table 1. Technology Performance Objectives, Metrics, and Data Requirements
5
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
3 Site Selection
This technology has the highest potential for savings in more extreme climates where heating or
cooling the outdoor air is energy intensive. Climates with mild ambient conditions or many hours
of potential economizing conditions may reduce the potential energy savings attributed to the
HLR. Buildings such as schools, office buildings, assembly buildings, and retail buildings, which
have high ventilation loads, may be good candidates. Health care facilities also have high
ventilation loads, but they are very sensitive to IEQ and are less attractive as demonstration sites.
6
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
filling out the site screening checklist, and for unforeseen reasons that are detailed in Section 3.3.
The buildings that were seriously considered for inclusion in the demonstration are listed in
Table 2. Several of buildings that were initially selected for inclusion in the project later
presented challenges to successful demonstration of the technology. Ultimately, these issues
resulted in some buildings being dropped from the study in various stages of installation.
Table 2. Buildings Under Consideration for Inclusion in the Project
Several serious issues were identified during the initial site visit, including irregular occupancy,
pressurization problems in the whole building (a significant breeze was noted in the connecting
walkway) and in the pool area (airflow at doorways was out of the pool area), and inoperable
outdoor air dampers. Significant corrosion froze the dampers in the closed position, resulting in
make-up air being supplied through connection to the adjacent building. Communication with
the vendor and the building owner indicated that the issues would be fixed prior to
7
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
commencement of data collection. The pool dehumidification system was brought back into
working order, and the whole building pressurization was addressed by repairing the outdoor air
dampers. During the technology validation, it was found that facilities personnel modified the
positions of the dampers (and broke one of the damper actuators during the first summer of
operation), resulting in compromised performance data during portions of the demonstration.
These periods of abnormal operation are noted in the results section.
The building was selected as a demonstration site, but subsequent issues with the systems
serving the three-story section required further investigations. Eventually it was determined that
faults with these AHUs (including a fan installed backwards) required that this portion of the
building be dropped from the demonstration. The stacks section of the building is of less interest
because the lower occupancy and irregular frequency of occupancy, so the building was not
included in the demonstration project.
The conference center complex is conditioned with 10 AHUs and chilled water from a central
chilled water plant that serves the entire property. The demonstration project focused on the
conference center portion of the site and chilled water flow rate and temperatures supplied to the
conference center were monitored. HLR systems were installed on all 10 AHUs for the
demonstration project.
After installation, commissioning, and monitoring started, it was determined that the operation of
the building prevented normal HLR operation and realization of savings. Several doors facing
the ocean side of the property were routinely held open, resulting in a situation in which the
outdoor air was uncontrolled. Additionally, kitchen ventilation problems led to issues with
pressurization. When these items were discussed with the building owner, it became clear that,
for business reasons, the operation of the ocean facing doors could not be changed, and the
kitchen ventilation problems were likely to continue. As a result, the building was dropped from
this project.
8
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
3.2.4 U.S. Custom House
The U.S. Custom House is a four-story historical building located in downtown Houston, Texas.
Construction of the building was completed in 1911, and the building has seen several
configurations and tenant arrangements. The roadways surrounding the building are multilane
city streets that see significant traffic at times.
The building is served by four AHUs, three in the penthouse and one in the basement. An HLR
was installed on each of the AHUs and operation was initiated in July 2016; however, lower than
expected savings results led to an investigation of the building systems and it was determined
that the building was not operating in a manner consistent with current ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
62.1 requirements. In particular, the intentional outdoor airflows through the AHUs were
measured to be less than the exhaust airflow, leading to negative building pressurization and
uncontrolled outdoor airflows through other building openings. Further investigations by the
building owner and the vendor failed to fully explain this and other anomalies in the behavior of
the building. Measured energy savings in the building were marginal and within measurement
uncertainty of no energy savings. As a result, the building was dropped as a demonstration site.
After this building was selected as a demonstration site, it was determined that the existing
HVAC system was unable to operate in a manner that is consistent with ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 62.1. The existing mechanical systems did not have sufficient capacity to handle the
building loads and condition the outdoor air required for the increased occupancy, resulting in
uncomfortable conditions during the peak heating and cooling seasons. This situation created a
problem for M&V, as it was not possible to establish a credible baseline performance and
calculate energy savings. Even though no energy savings could be measured, this building was
included in the demonstration project to understand the impact on building performance with
undersized HVAC.
9
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
The large mechanical rooms act as return air plenums where return air from multiple ducts is
mixed with outdoor air before being introduced to the supply air fans. The large mixing plenum
provides an easy location for installation of the HLRs. 40 HLRs (20 in each mechanical room)
were installed in four clusters of 10 with a common exhaust header for each cluster. The
operation of the HLR clusters is sequenced to provide continuous air cleaning when needed and
to avoid adding to the building peak electricity demand.
10
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
4 Energy Savings Results
One of the challenges of assessing the energy impacts of technological interventions in real
buildings is the lack of directly comparable data. More specifically, the conditions during the
baseline period cannot be reproduced exactly for the test period. It is thus necessary to find ways
to compare data collected under different conditions to assess the impact of the technology on
energy consumption. The standard method is to collect weather, energy, and building condition
data under the same operating control for the baseline and test periods then adjust the results for
variations in the uncontrolled variables (ASHRAE 2014 and IPVMP 2017).
The data that are available and not compromised are analyzed using multiple linear regression
analysis, computed using the statistical software R. In mathematical terms, the model is written
as:
𝑦𝑦 = 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥1 , . . . , 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛 ) = 𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1 𝑥𝑥1 + ⋯ + 𝛽𝛽𝑛𝑛 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛 + 𝜀𝜀 (1)
where y is the modeled quantity, x 1 ,…,x n are measured variables, the β 0 ,…,β n are model
coefficients, and ε is the error of fit. In this case, the modeled quantity is chilled water energy use
and the measured variables are quantities such as dry bulb temperature, wet bulb temperature or
relative humidity, weekday, and technology status. Weekday (taking values Sunday, Monday,
Tuesday, and so on) and technology status (taking the value on or off) are called categorical
variables and are a crucial component to the analysis. For longer data sets, experience indicates
that the month may be needed to get good statistical models, so the model for the energy is:
Energy savings are then computed as the difference between the models with the HLR units off
and the model with the HLR units on.
The final reported value is a percentage savings computed from summations of the savings and
the chilled water energy over the measurement time period.
11
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
project period are described in Table 3 and Table 4. In these tables, the three installed HLRs are
referred to as HLR2, HLR3, and HLR4 corresponding to AHUs 2, 3, and 4. AHU 1 is a much
smaller unit and was not included in the project. The HLR units were cycled on and off weekly
starting on Sunday to create alternating operation periods.
For the first two years of the project, incorrect positioning of the damper systems resulted in
approximately one calendar month of legitimate data (covering part of August and September of
2016). During this short period, approximately 28% chilled water energy savings were realized.
Results from 2017 were somewhat better, with available data running from June 22, 2017,
through September 27, 2017. The HLRs operated 44 days and were off for 42 days, giving a
nearly even split of the available days between technology operation and baseline operation. The
daily chilled water energy along with the daily average ambient dry bulb temperature is shown in
Figure 3. Only days with valid system operation and data collection are shown in the graph. The
HLR OFF and HLR ON operation correspond with the change in outdoor air damper from fully
open to minimum position for each AHU, which is what produces the energy savings. There is a
clear relationship between chilled water energy consumption and the outdoor air damper
position, and the estimated chilled water savings over this interval is estimated to be 37% ±
14.5%.
12
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Figure 3. UMH chilled water energy for HLR ON and OFF operation
13
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Figure 4. HLR installation in the ArcBest building
Source: enVerid
14
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Figure 5. HLR installation in the Morgan Stanley building
Source: enVerid
The airflow balance between the return, supply, exhaust, and ventilation airflow rates is
determined by the pressure balance driven by multiple return, supply, and exhaust fans and the
return and outdoor air damper positions. It is a complicated system and difficult to measure or
estimate the flow rates accurately. The initial design called for 14% outdoor air during normal
operation. Airflow measurements were taken by a testing and balancing contractor on May 17,
2017, for three of the air systems on the 7th floor and one air system on the 28th floor. These
measurements were used to determine damper positions for HLR ON and OFF operations and to
estimate the outdoor airflow rates. From measurements on one seventh floor system, it was
determined that the percent outdoor airflow rate is 13% for HLR OFF and 3.5% for HLR ON
operation. This equates to an approximate change in outdoor airflow rate of 4,000 cfm between
HLR OFF and HLR ON operation.
HLR operation in this building began on June 12, 2017, and chilled water energy data was
supplied starting July 17, 2017. Operational testing and damper adjustments continued through
August 8, 2017. Daily chilled water energy with HLR ON and OFF operation along with the
outdoor air temperature for weekdays only are shown in Figure 6. The air-side economizer
operated for 6 days in September, and the HLR units were turned off during these days. The
outdoor air temperature varies significantly during this period making it difficult to visually see a
correlation of energy consumption with HLR operation.
15
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Figure 6. Morgan Stanley chilled water energy for HLR ON and OFF operation
The available data for model development are ambient dry bulb temperature, ambient relative
humidity, chilled water supply and return temperatures, chilled water flow rates, and damper
positions from the Morgan Stanley building automation system and HLR status from enVerid.
The air-side economizer operated for six days in September, and the HLRs were turned off.
These six days were not included in the regression model analysis. Multiple regression models to
predict chilled water energy consumption were developed with different combinations of these
variables including subsets of days. The best regression model based on highest coefficient of
determination (R2) was based on the HLR status, ambient dry bulb temperature, and ambient
relative humidity covering the entire period of data collection. For the period of July 17, 2017, to
September 28, 2017, the estimated energy savings are:
HLR energy consumption was not measured and was not included in this analysis, which would
reduce the energy savings. The modeled energy performance in Section 6 includes HLR energy
consumption. Measurement uncertainty is calculated using the quantities indicated in Appendix
B and are propagated through the calculation procedure. This result indicates that operation of
the technology is correlated with energy savings but at a smaller fraction of the total chilled
water energy compared to the UMH Wellness center. Some of the difference may be explained
by the cooler and less humid climate in New York, and by the lower fraction of the cooling load
driven by the outdoor airflow rates in this building.
16
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Measurement of the heating season performance was planned but was unable to be determined
because of challenges with operation during cold weather. The fans in the HLRs were unable to
overcome the increased pressure drop in the exhaust duct work and a booster fan had to be
installed. The booster fan was installed too late in the season to collect heating season
performance. Heating system performance for multiple locations is included in the energy
modeling in Section 6.
17
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
5 Indoor Air Quality Results
An important component of this project was to demonstrate energy savings while maintaining
acceptable indoor air quality. Data for this purpose was collected at both the UMH Wellness
Center and the Morgan Stanley headquarters building.
To demonstrate that the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1 IAQP is satisfied, it must be established
that each of these contaminants is controlled (i.e., kept below the limits in Table 5). Testing was
conducted in 2015 during the time period in which the outdoor air damper positions were
incorrect and in 2018 with correct outdoor air damper positioning. This testing is summarized in
Table 6 and Table 7. The locations that measurements and samples were taken are shown in
Figure 7.
The formaldehyde measurements summarized in Table 6 were taken by the vendor. Four of the
five measurements with the HLR OFF exceeded the limit shown in Table 5. The measurements
with the HLR ON were lower except for Location 1 and two measurements from 2015 were
slightly above the limit of 33 µg/m3; however, the measurement taken in 2018 is below the limit
for Location 3. The chemical sampling results summarized in Table 7 were collected by the
vendor and the concentrations determined by a third-party laboratory. All contaminant
concentrations are well below the target (high limit) values. For reference, the preinstall (HLR
OFF) measurements are also presented in the table.
18
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Table 6. UMH Formaldehyde Measurements
Carbon dioxide measurements were also taken during the 9/20/2018 with the HLRs ON at
sampling in Locations 1 and 4. The average measured CO 2 levels in were 649 ppm and 752 ppm,
respectively, which are well below the ambient concentration plus 500 ppm and within the range
of acceptable levels.
19
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Figure 7. UMH Wellness Center measurement and sampling locations
Two issues with the data presented here must be noted. First, at the time of the 2015
measurements, there was a food service establishment located in the main lobby area (which
moved out of the building before the 2016 cooling season). The food service operations
introduced higher levels of VOCs and particulate matter to the indoor air based on the cooking
and cleaning activities. Second, the data from 2015 are compromised (even if only a little) by the
incorrect damper position. This issue prompted the final set of IAQ measurements taken in 2018
to show compliance with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1 IAQP.
An additional concern with the Wellness Center as a demonstration site is that levels and
schedules of occupancy are insufficient to provide adequate occupant evaluation of the
effectiveness of the technology; however, the available IAQ data tend to indicate that
requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1 are being met.
20
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Table 8. Selected Contaminants of Concern for Morgan Stanley Building
To demonstrate that the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1 IAQP is satisfied, it must be established
that each of these contaminants are controlled (i.e., kept below the limits in Table 8) with the
HLR units ON. Testing was completed by the vendor and by a third party contracted by Morgan
Stanley. Testing was completed in six locations on the 4th, 16th, and 30th floors, as shown in
Figure 8.
The results of the IAQ testing are shown in Table 9 and Table 10. These numbers represent the
average concentration over an eight-hour period. All the measurements are below the
concentration limits established in Table 8 and therefore satisfy the requirements for
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2016 IAQP. The measurements taken with the HLR OFF are not
required per the IAQP but are included here for reference. The outside levels for the
contaminants that are primarily sourced from outside are also shown in Table 10.
21
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Table 9. Morgan Stanley Building Measured VOC Levels (µg/m3)
The CO 2 measurements with HLR OFF and HLR ON operation are shown in Table 11. The CO 2
concentrations increased with the HLR ON in all locations except for #1; however, the outdoor
air CO 2 concentration was slightly higher during the HLR ON operation, and all readings are
less than 500 ppm above the outdoor air CO 2 , which is well within the range of acceptable
levels.
22
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Table 11. Morgan Stanley Building Measured CO 2 (ppm)
CO 2
Location / HLR Status OFF ON
4th floor, location #1 754 741
4th floor, location #2 780 866
16th floor, W location #3 736 869
16th floor, E location #4 597 827
30th floor, location #5 787 961
30th floor, location #6 790 968
W. 47th St. sidewalk NA 536
7th floor, OA plenum 453 476
23
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
6 Energy Modeling for Potential Available Savings
6.1 Overview
The deployment-based results described above show a positive correlation between installation
of the technology and energy savings. To better assess the potential for energy savings for other
locations, a modeling study was completed using EnergyPlus® energy modeling software
(version 9.0.1) with typical meteorological year (TMY3) data for six locations (DOE 2018a). For
general results, the DOE prototype building model of a medium office building and compliant
with energy efficiency ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013a) was used for
the energy simulations (DOE 2018b).
The medium office building prototype model represents a “typical” medium office building with
a 53,600 ft2 floor area and three floors. The HVAC system is representative of a packaged direct
expansion air-conditioning unit with gas heating for each floor (three total) and terminal variable
air volume boxes with electric heating coils in each zone. The gas heating is used for heating the
outdoor air only, and the electric reheat provides zone heating to maintain comfort conditions.
The ventilation flow rates are compliant with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2013 (ASHRAE
2013b), which is 1,520 cfm per floor assuming an occupant density of 200 ft2 per person. The
model operates with 100% ventilation 15 hours per day on weekdays, 11 hours on Saturday, and
zero hours on Sundays and holidays. Exhaust is not explicitly modeled; however, it would be
300 cfm per floor assuming there are three women’s and three men’s toilets per floor.
Some changes to the reference building models were made for these simulations. A supply air
temperature reset with outdoor air temperature strategy was implemented in order to reduce
excessive reheat energy in the perimeter zones. The model autosize feature was turned on for this
exercise to properly account for sizing impacts of reducing the ventilation air.
To understand the impact of reducing the ventilation rate on building energy performance, five
simulations were run for each location reducing the outdoor airflow rate from 100% to 20% in
20% steps during occupied hours. The outdoor airflow rate at 20% of the design value is slightly
more than the exhaust floor rate to keep the building pressurized. The actual outdoor airflow rate
should be kept at least 10% higher than the exhaust to maintain a positive pressure in the
building.
The 20% ventilation rate case represents the typical application for the HLR technology for this
building configuration. The HLR installation for each building must be designed for building
AHU and ducting configuration. For this study, we consider cases for one and two HLR units.
The HLR units are scheduled to run only when ventilation is 100% and off when the ventilation
dampers are closed or when the ventilation system is in economizer mode. The HLR-1000 power
levels are 0.288 kW in adsorption mode, 5 kW in regeneration mode, and less than 1 W in idle or
standby mode (enVerid 2017). It was assumed that the HLR units run in adsorption mode during
building ventilation operation, run 1 hour per day in regeneration mode for days with greater
than five hours of adsorption run time, and are in standby mode when the building is unoccupied.
The HLR units do not run when the HVAC system is in economizer mode.
The energy models were run in the six locations shown in Table 12 to represent a range of
climates and show the impact in cooling and heating seasons. The cooling and heating degree
24
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
days in the table were determined from TMY3 files. The energy models were run with actual
utility rates from each city representative of commercial rates for a building of this size and are
shown in Appendix C.
Table 12. Selected Locations for Energy Modeling
6.2 Results
The energy models were run for a full year with sub-hourly simulations in each location, and the
total cooling energy and heating energy consumption by month and by ventilation reduction are
shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10 for two locations. The cooling energy in Figure 9 is the total
building cooling electricity consumption for Miami, while the heating energy in Figure 10
represents the natural gas consumption in Chicago for heating ventilation air only. Zone heating
is accomplished by electric heating coils in the variable air volume boxes and is not affected by
changes in the ventilation. These figures show the potential energy savings from ventilation
reduction strategies for this building. As expected, the largest savings are during the months with
the most extreme temperatures (and extreme humidity when cooling). The ventilation air heating
energy drops to very low values in Chicago as the ventilation air volume is reduced to 40% and
20% of the design value.
25
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Figure 9. Miami cooling energy use by fraction of design outdoor air
Figure 10. Chicago ventilation air heating energy use by fraction of design outdoor air
The annual total electricity savings for each location are shown in Table 13, the monthly
electricity peak demand savings are shown in Table 14, and the annual natural gas energy
savings are shown in Table 15. Fan energy consumption increases slightly in the lower
ventilation cases, which is why the whole building electricity savings are slightly lower than the
cooling electricity savings. Negative peak demand reductions shown in Table 14 are increases in
whole building peak demand with the HLR operation. Advanced controls that limit peak demand
through shifting of loads may be able to avoid these peak demands and improve the cost
performance. The energy simulations predict a 100% savings for heating gas consumption for all
26
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
locations. Gas is only used for heating the ventilation air, space heating is controlled by electric
reheat coils in this building model.
Table 14. Monthly Peak Demand (kW and %) Reductions for One HLR Operation
27
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Table 15. Annual Natural Gas Savings (million Btu)
The monthly and annual total utility cost savings are shown in Table 16 and Table 17 for one and
two HLR operation. The energy impact of running two HLRs compared to one is small, but the
payback period will be significantly shorter with the cost of only one HLR. In mild conditions,
the energy cost for running the HLR units may exceed the energy cost savings, in which case, the
HLR units should be turned off. In the energy simulations, determination of when to run the
HLR units was determined monthly based on positive total energy cost savings. These results are
representative for the assumptions and utility rates used in the simulations, actual results will
vary depending on the building operation and utility rates.
Table 16. Energy Cost Savings for One HLR
28
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Table 17. Energy Cost Savings for Two HLRs
Another advantage and potential cost savings of reducing the ventilation rate for new
construction or major retrofit is the reduction in the peak cooling load and required cooling
capacity. The ability to downsize the cooling (and potentially heating) equipment represents a
significant cost savings and impact on payback of HLR installation. The total cooling coil
capacity reduction enabled by HLR operation in the medium office building is shown in Table
18 for each location.
29
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Table 18. Cooling Coil Capacity Reductions
Capacity Savings
Climate (%)
Location Reduction
Zone
1,000 Btu/hr (kW)
Miami, FL 1A 206 (61) 20%
Houston, TX 2A 195 (57) 19%
Atlanta, GA 3A 152 (45) 16%
Las Vegas, NV 3B 95 (28) 9%
New York, NY 4A 147 (43) 15%
Chicago, IL 5A 189 (55) 18%
6.3 Discussion
The energy simulations show that energy and demand savings are achieved in all climate zones
modeled. The energy saved is directly related to the reduction in ventilation airflow rate, duration
of the reduction, and the temperature and humidity difference between the outdoor air and the
HVAC supply air. The simulation results show that the highest energy savings are in climates
with extreme hot or cold temperatures; however, the cost savings are very dependent on the
utility tariffs and the tradeoffs between electricity and gas. Optimized control of the HLRs and
timing of regeneration will improve the cost performance by minimizing peak demand charges.
Reducing ventilation rates during periods of high outdoor air humidity or pollution may improve
some aspects of indoor air environmental quality depending on the severity of the outdoor air
conditions and the effectiveness of the HVAC system at conditioning the outdoor air. The impact
of ventilation air reduction on indoor air relative humidity was checked in the energy simulations
and very little change was seen in the simulation results; however, actual results may vary
depending on the dehumidification effectiveness of the HVAC system in high humidity
conditions. Air contaminants are not modeled in EnergyPlus and were not included in this
evaluation.
The largest cost impact on new construction or major retrofits (i.e., chiller replacement) may be
the reduction in load and associated required cooling capacity required to meet the load. The
energy simulations showed a reduction in peak cooling loads of 9% to 20%. The results from
these energy simulations are presented to show potential performance for one building type and
system design. Actual energy performance with application of the HLR technology is very
dependent on the building type, HVAC equipment design and efficiencies, building operation,
location, and energy costs and each application should be analyzed for performance.
30
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
7 Conclusions
The HLR technology was shown to control contaminants of concern below exposure limits with
lower ventilation rates, which leads to energy savings. Energy savings as a percent of building
load are highly dependent on the location, system types and efficiencies, and operating schedule.
Cooling system energy savings were measured to range from 6% to 37% during the peak cooling
month. Annual energy simulations were used to estimate the energy and energy cost performance
in other locations for a single building type. Annual energy cost savings for a medium office
building with one HLR unit ranged from roughly $1,130 to more than $3,500, assuming a
reduction in the ventilation airflow rate of 20% of the design value. A potential advantage of the
HLR technology is ability to reduce the required cooling capacity in new construction or in
cooling system replacement projects. Energy simulations estimated capacity reductions between
9% and 20%, depending on the location.
For retrofit applications, it is critical to find the correct application to achieve good performance.
Lack of volume and controllability of the outdoor air was a key issue with many of the buildings
reviewed in this project. The simulation results confirm that insufficient outdoor air will limit the
potential for savings. For retrofit applications with undersized HVAC systems that are unable to
meet indoor and ventilation load conditioning requirements, the HLR technology may reduce the
need to upsize the HVAC system to meet the high loads. In these situations, the HLR technology
may offset significant HVAC system upgrade costs, which may provide a quick return on
investment. For new building designs, the HLR technology may allow for a downsized HVAC
demand and distribution system, depending on the location and building ventilation
requirements. The reduced HVAC system may offset a portion or even exceed the cost of the
HLR system. Every application will be different and careful design and analysis should be
conducted on each case to determine if the HLR technology is appropriate.
31
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
References
ASHRAE 2013a. Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential.
ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013. Atlanta, GA.
ASHRAE 2013b. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-
2013. Atlanta, GA.
ASHRAE 2016. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-
2016. Atlanta, GA.
Deru, Michael, Kristin Field, Daniel Studer, Kyle Benne, Brent Griffith, Paul Torcellini, Bing
Liu, Mark Halverson, Dave Winiarski, Michael Rosenberg, Mehry Yazdanian, Joe Huang, Drury
Crawley. 2011. U.S. Department of Energy Commercial Reference Building Models of the
National Building Stock. NREL/TP-5500-46861. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/46861.pdf.
DOE 2018a. “EnergyPlus Energy Simulation Software.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Energy. www.energyplus.net.
DOE 2018b. 90.1 “Prototype Building Models.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
https://www.energycodes.gov/901-prototype-building-models-complete-package.
EIA. 2018. “National Energy Retail Cost Data.” Washington, D.C.: Energy Information
Administration. www.eia.gov.
enVerid. 2017. “enVerid Data Sheet HLR 1000-M.” Westwood, MA: enVerid Systems, Inc.
www.enVerid.com.
EPA. 2013. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR Part 50).” Washington, D.C.:
Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.
Granade, Hannah Choi, Jon Creyts, Anton Derkach, Philip Farese, Scott Nyquist, and Ken
Ostrowski. 2009. “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy.” McKinsey & Company.
http://www.uky.edu/~tmute2/GEI-Web/password-protect/GEI-readings/US-energy-efficiency-
abatement-full-report.pdf.
NIOSH (The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 2018. “National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards: Formaldehyde.”
Washington, D.C.: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0293.html.
32
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration). 2018. “Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. Limonene chemical sampling.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor.
https://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/partial/pv2036/2036.html.
WHO. 2010. WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants. Denmark: World
Health Organization Europe. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/260127.
33
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Appendix A—Demonstration Site Checklist
Table A-1. Site Information
Building Name
34
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Table A-3. Systems-Related Criteria
Electrical submetering
Available OA/Exhaust
measurements
Building ventilation challenges
(known IAQ issues, and so on)
Available occupancy and/or
people count
35
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Appendix B—Uncertainty Calculations
Table B-1. Measurement Uncertainties
36
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Appendix C—Utility Tariffs
Utility tariffs used for annual energy simulations for each location included in this study. Not all
fixed fees are included but they would not affect the energy cost savings, since they would be the
same for all cases. Taxes are not included and would slightly increase the energy cost savings
(and negative energy cost savings).
37
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
o Nov: $0.55158/therm
o Dec: $0.55156/therm.
38
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.
o ¢1.01/kWh winter off peak energy charge
o Summer: June 1–September 30
o On peak: weekdays 08:00-22:00.
• Natural gas utility: Consolidated Edison
o $30.45/therm for 1-3 therms
o $0.7462/therm for next 87 therms
o $0.4229/therm for next 160 therms
o $0.2774/therm for next 2,750 therms
o $0.1456/therm above 3,000 therms.
39
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/publications.