Performance-Based Building System

Evaluation for DOE Energy Asset Score

Supriya Goel Na Wang, PhD Michael Rosenberg

Associate ASHRAE ASHRAE Member
Vrushali Mendon
Associate ASHRAE

ABSTRACT
The Commercial Building Energy Asset Score, being developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the Department of Energy
(DOE), aims to help building owners evaluate overall building energy efficiency under typical operation and occupancy conditions, defined by
building use type. The Asset Scoring tool, a web-based application, consists of a simplified user interface built on a centralized simulation
engine—EnergyPlus. The tool analyzes the as-built physical characteristics (including building envelope, the mechanical and electrical systems),
pinpoints building systems with potential for efficiency improvement , and identifies cost-effective retrofit opportunities. A pilot project with more
than 100 buildings revealed that use of whole building Energy Use index (EUI) could not adequately examine efficiency and performance of
individual building systems. A building with a well-insulated envelope and low-efficiency HVAC equipment could, theoretically, use the same
amount of energy as a building with a poorly insulated envelope and high-efficiency HVAC equipment. For two buildings with the same energy
Asset Score (based on source EUI), the system-level evaluations can give tool users insight into the system-level performance and identify building
components that need greater attention. Hence, a performance-based system evaluation method has been developed to analyze individual building
components pertaining to the building envelope, lighting, heating, cooling, and service hot water systems, as well as their interactions. A
prescriptive approach for evaluating building components, though simple to use, is often limited to single variable input comparisons. A
simulation-based performance approach has been selected as the primary system evaluation method due to the multivariate nature of most systems
examined by the Asset Scoring tool. The performance approach compares the energy use of a building system with that of baselines. The baseline
values are determined using the DOE Commercial Building Models (Thornton et. al 2011). A series of performance ranges for different building
use types are developed from the highest and lowest energy use obtained by modeling the prototype buildings available for similar use types, typically
with the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 model defining the lower limit performance and the 90.1-2010 model defining the higher limit. A
building system is ranked by being compared to the predefined performance ranges. For example, a system falling within the range is considered
“good.” This methodology allows a high level of flexibility and considers a building as an integrated system.

INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing a voluntary national scoring system for commercial buildings to
help building owners and managers assess a building’s energy-related systems independent of how they are operated. The
goal of the system is to facilitate cost-effective investment in energy efficiency improvements of commercial buildings. The
system, known as the Commercial Building Energy Asset Score, will allow building owners and managers to compare their
building infrastructure against peers and track building upgrades over time. The system will also help other building
Supriya Goel, Na Wang, Michael Rosenberg and Vrushali Mendon are Researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA
stakeholders (e.g., building investors, tenants, financiers, and appraisers) understand the relative efficiency of different
buildings in a way that is independent from operations and occupancy. The physical characteristics evaluated include the
building envelope as well as the mechanical and electrical systems,. The Asset Score is generated by simulating building
performance under a standard set of typical operating and occupancy conditions. By focusing only on a building’s physical
characteristics and removing occupancy and operational variations, the system allows consistent comparisons between
differently operated buildings.
The Asset Scoring tool is a web-based evaluation tool. The tool is built on a centralized modeling engine to reduce
the implementation cost and increase standardization compared with an approach that requires users to build their own
energy models. With this tool, users can enter building information online to obtain a standard Asset Score Report and
feedback on areas and options for energy efficiency improvements. A standard Asset Score Report includes four sections—
(1) scores (current score and potential score after all recommended upgrades are made) based on source energy use
intensities (EUIs), (2) building system evaluations, (3) a list of improvement areas and options, and (4) building assets (a
detailed list of building characteristics that contribute to a building’s Asset Score) (Wang et al, 2013).
This paper discusses the methodology used for the building system evaluation, which separately characterizes the
building’s envelope, lighting system, heating and cooling systems, and service hot water system. System evaluation is
intended to help users assess all individual assets of the building. For two buildings with the same Asset Score but different
characteristics, system evaluation can help identify the unique problems and potentials of the individual buildings.

PERFORMANCE-BASED EVALUATION
Although the whole building EUI indicates the overall building efficiency as an integrated system, it is inadequate to
fully understand the individual effect of building subsystems. A building with a well-insulated envelope and low-efficiency
HVAC equipment could, use the same amount of energy as a building with a poorly insulated envelope and high-efficiency
HVAC equipment. System evaluations are provided separately for the building envelope (roof, walls, windows, floor),
lighting, heating, cooling, and service hot water systems. This information can provide insight into the specific energy using
components of a building. Both prescriptive and performance approaches have been used in energy standards to design and
evaluate building systems. The prescriptive approach specifies some minimum acceptable construction or system
standards, such as minimum R-value (or maximum U-factor) for building envelope components or required equipment
efficiencies for mechanical systems. A prescriptive approach is easy to use, especially for building or system designers;
however, for existing system evaluations, a prescriptive approach can be restrictive, for several reasons.
First, a prescriptive approach is generally limited to single variable component comparisons. More complex systems
with multiple components and/or different configurations need to be modeled to understand how the different
characteristics operate in concert. For example, a chiller’s efficiency is defined both by its design condition coefficient of
performance (COP) and the part-load performance curves of its compressor. Second, it is difficult to compare different
HVAC systems using a prescriptive approach. For example in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 Table 6.8.1A provides cooling
efficiency metrics for packaged equipment in terms of energy efficiency ratio (EER) and integrated energy efficiency ratio
(IEER). These ratings are inclusive of energy used by the compressor, the condenser fan, and the system supply fan, thus
representing the cooling energy use of the system in its entirety. In contrast Table 6.8.1.C provides cooling efficiency
metrics for water cooled chillers in terms of kW/ton and Integrated Part Load Value (IPLV). This represents only the
compressor energy use. To account for the energy use of the chilled water cooling system as a whole, you would need to
include energy used by the cooling tower (regulated partly by Table 6.8.1G), the system supply fan (regulated by Table
[Link].1A) and the chilled and condenser water pumps (unregulated by Standard 90.1). It is apparent that it is not possible
to compare these two systems based on their prescriptive efficiency metrics only. Third, a prescriptive approach isolates a
system from the evaluated building. For example, a building with less insulation may force its HVAC system to handle
more extreme operating conditions and use more energy than a building with the same HVAC system but a more efficient
envelope.
Due to the multivariate nature of most systems examined by the Asset Scoring tool and considering the appropriate
level of data that can be collected by users, a model-based performance approach is selected as the primary system
evaluation method for envelope, lighting, HVAC, and service hot water systems. A performance approach compares the
source energy use of a building or system with that of a baseline or reference design. It allows a high level flexibility and
considers a building as an integrated system. Source energy is used to account for the generation and transmission loss of
different fuel types. The following metrics are used as indicators of system performance (Table 1).
Table 1. Performance indicators for building systems
Performance
Building Systems Indicators Calculation Methods* Evaluations
Window kBtu/ft2-yr = Annual heat transfer through windows /
[W/m2-yr] total window area
Wall kBtu/ft2-yr =Annual heat trasnfer through walls / total
Higher value indicates
[W/m2-yr] wall area
more heat transfer
Window + Wall kBtu/ft2-yr = Annual heat transfer through walls and through the envelope
[W/m2-yr] windows / total wall plus window area components, and
(account for window-wall ratio) therefore represents poor
Roof kBtu/ft2-yr = Annual heat transfer through roof / total thermal performance
[W/m2-yr] roof area
Floor kBtu/ft2-yr = Annual heat transfer through floor /
[W/m2-yr] total floor area
Lighting System kBtu/ft2-yr = Annual lighting energy use / total floor Higher value indicates
[W/m2-yr] area more lighting energy use,
and therefore represents
low-efficiency lighting
system
Heating System Heating System = Annual heating load / annual heating
Performance Ratio system energy use
(H-SPR)
Cooling System Cooling System = Annual cooling load / annual cooling Lower value indicates
Performance Ratio system energy use more energy use to meet
(C-SPR) the load, and therefore
Overall HVAC Total System = Heating and cooling load / HVAC represents low-efficiency
System Performance Ratio system energy use system
(T-SPR)
Service Hot Water Hot water System = Hot water energy load / hot water use
System Performance Ratio
(HW-SPR)
* Source energy is used in the above calculations.

Building Envelope
For the envelope assessment, the heating and cooling loads through the envelope are extracted from the energy
model. The loads are divided by the exterior surface area of the particular envelope component being examined (thermal
boundary) to calculate the annual building loads per unit area of the component (measured in kBtu/ft2-yr).

   ℎ ℎ ! "  #  (%&)[)]

     = (1)
+ ,##  # (-.)[/0 ]
A higher value indicates more heat transfer through the envelope and therefore reflects poor thermal performance.
This method goes beyond the typical prescriptive standards, which simply use assembly U-values, because it reflects the
overall effect of the envelope on the heating and cooling loads, considering such factors as orientation, layout, shading,
surfaces reflectance and other factors that affect non-conductive heat transfer properties. This evaluation method is applied
to windows, walls, combination of windows and walls (to account for window-to-wall ratio), roofs, and floors to separately
evaluate their performances. Because thermal resistance is usually much lower for windows than it is for walls, a building
envelope with well-insulated walls and windows may not have good overall performance if the window-wall ratio is high.
The Asset Score tool uses the EnergyPlus engine for whole building simulation and a technical barrier to
implementing this performance based approach for envelope evaluations is the complexity involved in reporting heating
and cooling loads through envelope components (windows, walls, roof, floor) in the current version of EnergyPlus.
However, EnergyPlus is expected to provide a simplified output function in the near future.

Lighting System
For the lighting system assessment, the lighting EUI is used. A higher value indicates more lighting energy use based
on the standard assumptions of operating schedules and therefore it represents a less efficient lighting system. Compared
to lighting power density (W/ft2), which only considers installed lighting load, lighting EUI (kBtu/ft2) includes the effects
of lighting controls and daylighting controls in the building, thus considering all component of the system together.

12 3 4#5 (%&)[W]

     = + & # (-.)[m2 ]
(2)

HVAC Systems
For the HVAC systems, a metric called System Performance Ratio (SPR) is used. It is defined as the ratio of annual
system load to the annual system energy consumption, similar to a whole system COP. A higher value indicates less heating
and cooling energy use to meet the loads, and therefore represents a more efficient HVAC system. This metric provides
single evaluation criteria which addresses all components of a HVAC system, including mechanical ventilation, equipment
full and part load performance and distribution system effectiveness. Standard system efficiency ratings (such as seasonal
energy efficiency ratio, COP, kW/ton used in Standard 90.1 Tables 6.8.1A through K) usually address a single component
within a system and fail to account for all system inefficiencies that may be present within a building as well as their
interaction with building loads and ventilation requirements. System efficiency ratings are also based on prescribed rating
conditions that may not reflect actual building conditions. This analysis methodology differs from the HVAC Power
Density approach (Kavanaugh et. al 2006), which evaluates HVAC systems based on HVAC equipment power density,
similar to the lighting power density allowance in ASHRAE 90.1 standards. HVAC power density (HvacPD) is defined in
terms of electric power input for the entire system per unit area. The allowances are based on peak load demand hence part
load efficiencies, impact of system controls and similar factors aren’t reflected in this metric.
Cooling system performance ratio (C-SPR), heating system performance ratio (H-SPR), and total system performance
ratio (T-SPR) are separately calculated to provide a discrete evaluation of the heating, cooling, and integrated HVAC
systems. Baseline ranges for evaluating HVAC equipment performance are developed specific to a building type and
climate zone to account for inherent differences between HVAC systems. For example, a building in a heating-dominated
climate needs a more efficient heating system to achieve a good overall performance compared to a building in a cooling-
dominated climate because cooling systems for most system types have higher efficiency ratings than heating systems; for
example, a 90.1 2004 air cooled chiller would have a COP of 2.8 whereas a gas-fired furnace would have an AFUE of 78%.
This aspect is accounted for through reference ranges for each climate zone. The sections below discuss the development
of reference ranges for HVAC system evaluation. The proposed approach considers energy used by all individual
components that comprise the HVAC system.
Fan and pump energy is assigned to either cooling or heating energy use, based on the mode of operation of the
system while the fan or pump is running. Multi-zone reheat systems (such as standard Variable Air Volume (VAV)) pose a
challenge in that it is not simple to assign fan energy to either heating or cooling for a system that provides both
simultaneously. For each simulation time-step, the supply fan energy use is split between the zones served by the multi-zone
system based on the ratio of total system air flow to each zone, hence for an AHU serving perimeter and core zones, the
fan energy use is split into heating or cooling in accordance to the end-use condition for each zone.. The coil conditions are
evaluated to identify whether the zone is in heating or cooling mode and fan energy use is assigned accordingly. Table 3 lists
each applicable scenario and the end use to which fan energy use is assigned.
Table 3. Methodology for Splitting Fan Energy Use for Heating and Cooling
Fan Energy
Case Zone Mode
Consumption
9: ;, = 0 Cooling
Case 1
(Evaluated for each zone) (For Zonex)
Case 2 9: ;, > 0 Heating
(Evaluated for Each Zone) (For Zonex)
9: ;>… = Reheat coil energy consumption

Energy use of all system components including pumps and heat rejection systems are included in calculations for a
complete heating, cooling or total system evaluation. Hence, the total heating energy use includes coil energy consumption
including preheat, reheat, primary and/or supplementary heating coils (9@ ), fan energy consumption during heating
mode (9ABCDEFGH ) and pump energy consumption in the case of hydronic systems (9IJKBCDEFGH ). The total cooling
energy use includes coil energy consumption, for cooling and dehumidification (9; ), fan energy consumption during
cooling mode (9ALMMNFGH ), and pump and heat rejection energy use in the case of hydronic systems (9IJKLMMNFGH ) and
9@_:P" ).
To determine the base annual heating, cooling, and total loads for each building, the simulation uses a special HVAC
system type available in EnergyPlus called the Ideal Loads system. This system calculates the load for each zone in the
building and supplies heating or cooling air to meet the set-points at a system efficiency of 100% based on the
specifications of the system. This system includes options for humidity control, outdoor air, economizer, demand
controlled ventilation, and heat recovery. The supply air flow rate is varied between zero and the maximum in order to
satisfy the zone heating or cooling load, zone humidity controls, outdoor air requirements. In order to credit buildings that
use economizers or heat recovery to reduce energy consumption, economizer and heat recovery are ignored in base load
determination but included in annual energy consumption, thereby resulting in higher system efficiency.
2 2 ℎU 2 (%&)[V]
QRS
  TU = (3)
W4BCDEFGH ! 4XDGBCDEFGH ! 4YZ[\BCDEFGH ] (%&)[V]

^  "  (%&)[_]

QRS
  TU; = (4)
`9a2U + 9ca2U + 9
da2U + 9eTf U g (hi)[_]

( 2 2 ℎU 2 +^  " ) (%&)[_]

QRS
  TU+ = (5)
`9a2U + 9eU + 9cS + 9
dS + 9eTf U g (hi)[_]

Service Hot Water Systems

Service hot water systems are evaluated using the ratio of the energy delivered in the form of hot water to energy input
to the water heater. A higher value indicates that less energy is used to deliver a unit of hot water, and therefore represents
a more efficient hot water system. The hot water SPR accounts for a decrease in efficiency due to thermal efficiency, jacket
losses, etc. The efficiency is calculated using water density (ρ), flow-rate at each hot water using fixture (venduse), specific heat
of water (Cp) and the difference between the target water temperature at each end-use (Tenduse) and water mains temperature
(Tmains).
 ∑kl × nCGoZpC × ;\ × (+CGoZpC q+[DFGp )r (%&)[V]
QRS
  TU # 5J = [4sDECtBCDECt ! 4sDECtBCDECt_YZ[\p ](%&)[V]
(6)

The flow-rate and temperature information is gathered from the EnergyPlus objects used to model water-use
equipment. EnergyPlus uses a correlation between outdoor air temperature and water mains temperature to generate water
temperature profiles during simulation which can be captured during output.

BASELINE DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY

Reference values are generated to evaluate system performance indicators. The “reference range” is hence defined as
the calculated annual SPR for heating, cooling and total system performance for each building type and climate zone, with
the lower end defined by Standard 90.1 2004 compliant prototype buildings and the upper end defined by Standard 90.1
2010 compliant prototype buildings. Source energy is used in the calculation of the metric, to account for the generation
and transmission losses of different fuel types. If a system’s performance is within the reference range, its performance is
considered “Good.” A value below the range indicates the system is “Fair” and a value above the range indicates the
system is “Superior”.
Prototype buildings compliant with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 and 2010 are used to generate the reference ranges.
These prototypes were originally developed for DOE to assess the relative improvement of sequential versions of
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. They represent 80% of the commercial building floor area in the United States for new
construction, including both commercial buildings and mid- to high-rise residential buildings (Thornton et al. 2011). The
HVAC systems in each prototype were selected based on standard “good design practice” for each that building type. The
characteristics of the prototype buildings are well documented and the models are readily available online (Thornton et al.
2011). Table 4 lists the specifications of the three prototype buildings evaluated for four climate zones and three ASHRAE
Standards. The prototype models were selected for this work to provide consistency, transparency and an industry accepted
baseline for the performance indicator comparison.
Table 4. Prototype Building Characteristics
Small Office Prototype Medium Office Prototype Large Office
Prototype
Envelope Characteristics
- Exterior Walls Wood framed walls Steel framed walls Masonry Walls
- Exterior Roof Attic roof with wood joist Built-up roof Built-up roof
- Foundation Slab-on-grade floors Slab-on-grade floors Basement
- Window-to-Wall Ratio 24% South, 19% All other 33% WWR 40% WWR
Interior Loads
- Interior Lighting Based on Standard 90.1 Based on Standard 90.1 Based on Standard 90.1
- Equipment Loads 0.75 W/ ft2 [8.07 W/m2] 0.75 W/ ft2 [8.07 W/m2] 0.75 W/ ft2 [8.07 W/m2]
HVAC System
- Heating Air source heat pump; Gas Furnace Gas fired boiler
supplemental gas furnace
- Cooling Air source heat pump Packaged direct expansion Two water cooled
chillers
- Fan Systems Constant volume fans Variable air volume Variable air volume
- Ventilation ASHRAE 62.1 1999 ASHRAE 62.1 2004 ASHRAE 62.1 2004
Requirements*
*Standard 90.1 2004 refers to ASHRAE 62.1 1999 for outdoor air requirements. 90.1 2010 refers to ASHRAE 62.1 2004 for
outdoor air requirements
 Since the reference range is building type specific, and is based on the prototype HVAC system type, the HVAC
system type in a rated building will influence the efficiency rating of that building. For example, small office buildings (≤
5,000 ft2) typically use packaged single zone HVAC equipment with direct expansion cooling. If a rated small office
building incorporates a more efficient water cooled chiller or ground source heat pump, the cooling system performance is
likely to be rated as "superior”. This is likely even if the water-cooled chiller or heat pump “just meets” the Standard 90.1
efficiency requirements, as that system is expected to use less cooling energy than the reference packaged direct expansion
system. Hence, the ranges developed based on the prototype buildings are specific to building type and based on the most
commonly used system for a building of that size and function. Table 5 shows the impact of including all system
components in the calculation of the annual SPR as against a single component evaluation of coils or equipment..
Table 5. SPR Calculations: Climate Zone 5A
Small Office Large Office
Description
Climate Zone 5A Climate Zone 5A
2004 2010 2004 2010
Ideal Loads (kBtu/ft2-yr) [kWh/m2-yr]
Annual Heating Load 7.79 [24.56] 5.70 [17.99] 6.23 [19.64] 4.57 [14.4]
Annual Cooling Load 10.56 [33.30] 9.23 [29.12] 15.94[50.27] 14.47[45.62]
Heating Energy Consumption (kBtu/ft2-yr) [kWh/m2-yr
Coil/Equipment Energy Use 5.81 [18.34] 3.14 [9.92] 14.3 [45.08] 7.86 [24.79]
Fans (during heating) 1.52 [4.79] 1.08 [3.41] 0.64 [2.01] 0.51 [1.6]
Hot water pumps 0 [0] 0 [0] 0.4 [1.25] 0.32 [0.99]
2 2
Cooling Energy Consumption (kBtu/ft -yr) [kWh/m -yr]
Coil/Equipment Energy Use 4.49 [14.16] 3.12 [9.83] 3.18 [10.01] 2.40 [7.58]
Fan (During Cooling) 2.96 [9.34] 2.72 [8.57] 1.28 [4.03] 1.01 [3.2]
Pumps (CHW and CW Pumps) 0 [0] 0 [0] 0.76 [2.41] 0.35 [1.09]
Heat Rejection 0 [0] 0 [0] 0.85 [2.67] 0.38 [1.2]
Heating Efficiency for Coil/Equipment Energy only 1.34 1.82 0.44 0.58
Cooling Efficiency for Coil/Equipment Energy only 2.35 2.96 5.02 6.02
System Efficiency for Coil/Equipment Energy only 1.78 2.39 1.27 1.85
SPR- Heating (Site) 1.06 1.35 0.41 0.53
SPR- Cooling (Site) 1.42 1.58 2.63 3.49
SPR- Total System (Site) 1.24 1.49 1.04 1.48

Equipment Efficiency 90.1 2004 Equipment Efficiency 90.1 2010

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2A 3B 5A 6B

Figure 1: Equipment Efficiency (Site) for Large Office Prototype: Variation Across Climate Zones
 Total System Performance Ratio 90.1 2004 Total System Performance Ratio 90.1 2010
4

0
2A 3B 5A 6B

Figure 2: SPR (Site) for Large Office Prototype: Variation across Climate Zones

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE RATIO: KEY CHARACTERISTICS

System performance ratio allowances evaluate the entire system including the building envelope, building design
elements, efficiency and configuration of HVAC equipment as well as internal loads and controls. This evaluation metric
provides the following benefits:
• Standard operation assumptions are used in the calculation of this metric, to avoid additional penalty or credit
due to operating conditions.
• Reference ranges are based on annual energy use and account for integrated building system performance.
• All building sub-systems, including building envelope, design characteristics, internal loads, all components of
HVAC system and control strategies, are evaluated as a whole to provide a ranking ‘Fair’, ‘Good’ or
‘Superior’. This approach overcomes the limitations of an individual component based evaluation.
• Differences in climate and dominant systems are accounted for by generating climate-zone and building type
specific reference ranges.

CONCLUSION
While the Asset Score of a building as determined by DOE’s Asset Scoring tool does a good job identifying a
building’s energy efficiency under typical operation and occupancy conditions, it does not identify the relative efficiencies
and interaction between each of the building system components like building envelope, HVAC and lighting and electrical
systems. Component level efficiency metrics such as those prescribed by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., EER, IPLV, COP,
annual fuel utilization efficiency, etc.) do not fill this gap, as they do not consider component interactions, nor do they
represent the efficiency of a building system as a whole. The system level efficiency evaluation proposed for the Asset
Scoring tool is meant to bridge the gap between individual component performance and the whole building integrated
system performance. Rating the annualized efficiency of each system as determined by a comparison against a building type
specific baseline, identifies the opportunities for improvement, and enables decision makers to focus time and effort on
systems with the most potential for improvement.

REFERENCES
Kavanaugh, S.P, S. Lambert, N. Devin, 2006. HVAC Power Density An Alternate Path to Efficiency. ASHRAE Journal Vol. 48:
40-48
Thornton, B.A, M Rosenberg, EE Richman, W Wang, Y Xie, J Zhang, H Cho, VV Mendon, RA Athalye, and B Liu. 2011.
Achieving the 30% Goal: Energy and Cost Savings Analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. PNNL-20405, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Wang, N., S., Goel, and A., Makhmalbaf. 2013. Commercial Building Energy Asset Score System: Program Overview and
Technical Protocol (Version 1.1). PNNL-22045 Rev. 1.1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,
Washington.