Daylighting presentation by Tom Marseille.

1. Energy and HVAC System
Implications of Daylighting Design
Tom Marseille, P.E.
Managing Principal
1

2. What do Mechanical Engineers Care About?
• Our primary objectives are (or should be):
– Delivering occupant comfort
– Helping provide a healthy environment
– Providing ever more energy efficient
buildings (becoming a mandate)
– Providing maintainable/reliable
systems
– Hold down mechanical first cost(!)
2

3. What do Mechanical Engineers Care About?
• Our primary objectives are (or should be):
– Delivering occupant comfort
– Helping provide a healthy environment
– Providing ever more energy efficient
buildings
– Providing maintainable/reliable
systems
– Hold down mechanical first cost(!)
3

4. Comfort First
4

5. Comfort First
• Thermal comfort is affected by:
– air temperature (what your thermostat says)
– mean radiant temperature - The average
temperature of all the surfaces to which a
person is exposed, exchanging infrared
radiation.
• Radiating surfaces (e.g., hot or cold windows) can
reduce occupant comfort
• How occupants interact with glazing impacts
comfort
5

6. Comfort
Radiant temperature influence: far from window
Air temperature 73°F Blinds
Room objects 73°F 95° F
Sunlight
Small angle
Mean radiant temperature 77°F
Resultant temperature 75°F
6

7. Comfort
Radiant temperature influence: close to window
Air temperature 73°F Blinds
95° F
Room objects 73°F
Large angle Sunlight
Mean radiant temperature 84°F
Resultant temperature 79°F
7

8. Comfort
Radiant temperature: sunshine through window
Air temperature 73°F
Room objects 73°F
Sunlight
Mean radiant temperature 90°F
Resultant temperature 82°F
8

9. Comfort
Radiant temperature: externally shaded window
Sunlight
Air temperature 73°F
Room objects 73°F
Shade
Mean radiant temperature 73°F
Resultant temperature 73°F
9

10. Perceived Temperature vs. Air Temperature
90
85
80
Temperature (°F)
75
70
65
60
55
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Date: Mon 02/Aug
Dry resultant temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_conf1.aps)
Mean radiant temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_conf1.aps)
Air temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_conf1.aps)
10

11. Perceived Temperature vs. Air Temperature
90
85
80
Temperature (°F)
75
70
65
60
55
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Date: Mon 02/Aug
Dry resultant temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_off1.aps)
Mean radiant temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_off1.aps)
Air temperature: Level 5 West Office (odot_west_off1.aps)
11

12. Glazing – just another load to be managed?
Different solar loads by exposure
• South exposure
– moderate solar load in winter for heating
– low solar load in summer if shaded
• East and West exposure
– high morning and evening solar load
– shading less effective
• Not all building exposures need the same
treatment
12

13. Glazing – just another load to be managed?
Treatment of different exposures
• Façades should be treated
according to which direction
they face
• For example, for cold winters,
hot summers in northern
hemisphere:
– reduced windows on north
side
– windows with
overhangs/shading on
south side
– deciduous shading on west
end to reduce late
afternoon overheating in
summer
13

14. Glazing
Transmitted Radiation
North East
Architect's View of the Sun - Radiation
200.0
ANNUAL SUMMARY: Btu/SF Hr. 180.0
160.0
Hour DEC JAN-NOV FEB-OCT MAR-SEP APR-AUG MAY-JUL JUNE 140.0
113 °AZI 120.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80.0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40.0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20.0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1
6 0 0 0 0 68.7 121.8 134.2 0
7 0 0.0 72.7 149.5 183.2 194.9 195.7 JUNE
8 76.7 99.0 145.4 179.4 194.9 199.8 199.0 APR-AUG
9 76.4 89.5 120.7 148.9 163.7 169.8 170.3 TIME
FEB-OCT
10 37.7 45.3 65.5 87.6 106.0 116.6 119.6 DEC
11 20.5 22.3 26.3 34.4 49.4 60.9 65.3 34 °LAT
113 °AZI
12 21.4 23.2 27.2 31.7 36.2 39.3 40.5
13 20.5 22.3 26.3 30.7 35.3 38.5 39.7
14 17.8 19.6 23.6 28.0 32.7 36.0 37.3
15 13.3 15.1 19.1 23.6 28.5 32.0 33.4
16 6.4 8.4 12.8 17.6 22.7 26.4 28.0
17 0 0.0 3.7 9.4 15.1 19.3 21.0
18 0 0 0 0 4.1 9.3 11.4
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 291 345 543 741 940 1065 1095
14

15. Shading options/relative cooling load
35000 No Shade
30000 35 btu/sq ft
25000
25 btu/sq ft
20000 1:1 ratio horizontal overhang
Load (Btu/h)
15000
Vegetated fins
10000
5000
0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Date: Thu 08/Jul
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to2.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_2to1.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to1.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_noshade.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_fins_surr.aps)
15

16. Glazing Percentage – / south / relative cooling load
40000
45 btu/sq ft
35000
40 btu/sq ft
30000
33 btu/sq ft
25000
Load (Btu/h)
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Date: Tue 05/Oct
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade_gp40.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade_gp30.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade.aps)
16

17. Building Codes Are Not Fans Of Excessive Glazing
17

18. Glazing
Selected Glazing Performances
Visi Trans Shading
Manufacturer Product U-Value
% Coefficient
Standard Clear IG 79 0.81 0.52
Viracon VE 1-85 76 0.64 0.31
PPG Solarban 60 69 0.44 0.30
Interpane Super E 69 0.46 0.29
Cardinal Low E2 171 70 0.46 0.30
Viracon VE 1-2M 70 0.44 0.29
PPG Solarban 70XL 64 0.32 0.28
Heat Mirror HMTC88 63 0.55 0.30
Heat Mirror HMSC75 61 0.41 0.34
18

19. Benefits of Solar Load Reduction
• Improved comfort for occupants
at perimeter
• Reduced HVAC equipment sizes
• Reduced energy usage
19

20. Energy
INDUSTRY
25%
TRANSPORTATION
27%
BUILDINGS
48%
Source: Energy Information Administration Statistics (Architecture 2030)
20

21. Why Do We Care?
Source: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
21

22. 22

23. BUILDING
STOCK
IN BILLION SF
www.architecture2030.org
23

24. WHY
BUILDING?
24

25. WHY
BUILDING?
25

26. WHY
BUILDING?
26

27. WHY
BUILDING?
27

28. WHY
BUILDING?
28

29. WHY
BUILDING?
29

30. ENERGY REGULATION – INDICATOR AND DRIVER
ASHRAE Standards
• 90.1 2010 requires 30% more efficiency than 90.1 2004
• ASHRAE 189.1 – 30% more efficient than current 90.1
• ASHRAE goal – market viable Net Zero Energy (NZE) buildings by 2030
AIA
• 2030 challenge – achieve carbon neutral (NZE) buildings by 2030
USGBC Cascadia Chapter
•“Living Building Challenge” - NZE buildings today!
State of Washington
• Legislation SB 5854 – incremental reductions, to 70% reduction by 2031
30

31. The Energy “Pie” Chart – Office Buildings
Office Building
VENT FANS DOMEST HOT WTR
5% 3%
PUMPS & AUX
5%
LIGHTS
HEAT REJECT 26%
0%
SPACE COOLING
5%
MISC EQUIP
10%
SPACE HEATING
46%
31

32. Residential Lighting Energy Use
Lighting
Lighting Power Number of Number of
(assuming 15 Number of room Room type Room type
Operation (hr/ Typical Townhouse W CFD = 60 W type in one bed in a two in a three
Room Type day/ room) Lighting Incandescent) unit bed unit bed unit
1 light over sink, one
Bathroom 1.8 in bath/shower 45 1 2 2
Powder Room 1.8 2 lights 30 1 1 1
2 light central fixture,
assume one light on
Bedroom 1.1 bedstand 30 1 2 3
Closet 1.1 No lighting 0 0 0 0
Dining Room 2.5 3 overhead lights 45 1 1 1
Garage 1.5 2 4' flourecsent 60 0 0 1
Hall 1.5 7 lights in a 2 bed unit 15 5 7 8
Kitchen 3 Use 8 lights 120 1 1 1
5 overhead lights 1
Living Room 2.5 wall wash 90 1 1 1
2 light central fixture,
assume one light on
Office 1.7 desk 45 1 1 1
Outdoor 2.1 3 lights 45 1 1 1
Utility Room 2 2 light central fixture 30 1 1 1
Lighting Density (W/SF) 0.56 0.41 0.36
Daily lighting load (W-hr) 1009.5 1099.5 1134
Annual lighting load (kWh) 368 401 414
Operation Hours from Navigant Consulting 2002 sample of 161 NW homes
Annual Exterior Lighting Load (kWh) 34.5 34.5 67.3
32

33. The Energy “Pie” Chart - Residential
Typical 2 Bedroom Townhouse - Seattle
Lights
Domestic Hot Water
Misc Equip (Plug)
Vent Fans
Mech Aux
Space Heating
Assuming efficient CF lighting, it can be a small piece of the pie
33

34. Component Interaction – Office Building
34

35. Energy
Impact of Window Height
Base Building: Office Building….Four Story….Floor-to-floor height = (12 ft)
Base Building Window Height = 3 m (10 ft)
(10’ Windows) Peak Cooling Load = 76 Tons
Annual Energy Cost = 100 units
5’ Windows Window Height = 1.5 m (5 ft)
Peak Cooling Load = 61 Tons
Annual Energy Cost = 81 units
7’ Windows &
Window Height = 2.4 m (7 ft)
overhangs With external overhangs (5 ft)
Peak Cooling Load = 51 Tons
Annual Energy Cost = 80 units
35

36. Energy
Impacts of Glass Performance
High Window Height = 3.0 m (10 ft)
Performance U=0.31 SC=.37 VLT=55
Glass Peak Cooling Load = 72 Tons
Annual Energy Cost = $ 91 units
Standard Window Height = 1.5 m (5 ft)
Base Building Glass U=0.46 SC=0.42 VLT=60
Window Height = 3.0 m (10 ft) Peak Cooling Load = 61 Tons
Floor-to-floor height = 3.7 m (12 ft) Annual Energy Cost = $ 81 units
U=0.46 SC=0.42 VLT=60 Low-E Window Height = 2.4 m (7 ft)
Peak Cooling Load = 76 Tons Glass With external overhangs (5 ft)
Annual Energy Cost = $ 100 units U=0.35 SC=.70 VLT=74
Peak Cooling Load = 60 Tons
Annual Energy Cost = $ 84 units
36

37. Energy
Impacts of Daylighting
10’ Windows Window Height = 3.0 m (10 ft)
U=0.31 SC=.37 VLT=55
Peak Cooling Load = 66 Tons (72 Tons)
Annual Energy Cost = 88 units
5’ Windows Window Height = 1.5 m (5 ft)
Base Building U=0.46 SC=0.42 VLT=60
Window Height = 3.0m (10 ft) Peak Cooling Load = 54 Tons (61 Tons)
Floor-to-floor height = 3.7m (12 ft) Annual Energy Cost = 80 units
Daylighting Control: Dimming 7’ Windows Window Height = 2.4 m (7 ft)
Illuminance Level: 37 fc With external overhangs (5 ft)
U=0.35 SC=.70 VLT=74
Peak Cooling Load: Peak Cooling Load = 53 Tons (60 Tons)
“with daylighting (without daylighting)” Annual Energy Cost = 83 units
37

38. Daylighting – incorporation into sustainable design process
ITERATIVE PROCESS
Thermal Analysis to determine glare shading
shading needed as well as glass
percentage impact
Shading Analysis to determine
glare issue (direct solar)
Daylighting Analysis to determine
glare (contrast ratio)
daylighting cooling
Daylighting Analysis to determine
lighting usage reductions
Lighting schedules - modeling input
Energy Analysis - lighting energy
and other end use savings
lighting Ventilation
38

39. Terry Avenue Case Study
39

40. NATURAL VENTILATION AND
DAYLIGHTING
This is not new!!!
General Motors Building, Detroit Terminal Sales Building, Seattle
General Motors Building, Detroit, 1921, Albert Kahn, Inc.,
Architects
This plan places each worker within 20 feet of an
operable window.
40

41. Terry Avenue Case Study
NATURAL VENTILATION STRATEGY
• Operable windows and automated dampers in occupied spaces
• Building form chosen to facilitate cross ventilation and day-lighting
• Narrow floor plate (approximately 35’ deep)
41

42. Terry Avenue Case Study
MECHANICAL DESIGN
• Operable windows in all spaces
• Trickle vents for minimum ventilation
• Automated dampers above windows
• CO2 sensors
• Night purge control strategy
• Occupant education about NV
• High efficiency hydronic heating
• Convection heaters at perimeter
• Minimal ductwork
• No mechanical cooling
42

43. Terry Avenue Case Study
SOLAR SHADING ANALYSIS
The building was analyzed
at different times of day
throughout the year. This
helped shading:
• Type
• Location
• Orientation
43

44. Terry Avenue Case Study
SOLAR SHADING SELECTION
• High performance glazing
• External adjustable aluminum blinds in
courtyard and portions of exterior
• Steel and glass sunshades
44

45. Terry Avenue Case Study
DAYLIGHTING
• Balance benefits of day-lighting
with solar gain mitigation
• High performance thermal
envelope
• Windows/louvers sizes and
locations
45

46. Thermal Analysis
ANALYSIS
Build Model:
• Walls
• Climate data
• 3-D geometry
• Windows/openings
• Shading
• Internal loads
• Aperture schedules
• Occupant schedules
46

47. Thermal Analysis
ANALYSIS
Finesse the Model:
180
167 162 155
• Fine tune the loads
155 158
160 155
140
• Substitute glazing
120
100
• Increase/decrease amount of
80 glazing
60
40 29 30 36 43
• Substitute wall constructions
37 44
20
7
0
7 8 8
8
• New shading options
8
f
on
f
C
on
e
E
C
• Increase/decrease amount of
fe
N
e
E
of
ffe
N
e
.
C
t
l in
cc
Co
e
.
ct
se
A
l in
Ac
ine
Ba
se
operable windows
Ba
el
s
Ba
Run iterations until satisfied with the results of the model
47

48. Terry Avenue Case Study
TOTAL
LEED
Energy Savings per System ENERGY
POINTS
60.0% SAVINGS
50.0%
10.5% 1
14% 2
Percent Savings from Baseline
40.0%
17.5% 3
30.0% 21% 4
20.0%
24.5% 5 5 PTS!
28% 6
10.0%
31.5% 7
0.0% 35% 8
Vent Fans Space Pumps & Lights Space Domestic Misc Equip
Cooling Aux Heating HW 38.5% 9
42% 10
48

49. Terry Avenue - Measured Performance
Energy Consumption [kBtu/yr]
Webber + Thompson
1
End Use Space Total Building
Electricity
• Artificial LPD averages 0.38 Office Space 389,876 763,118
W/SF (Code = 1.0) Common Areas
2
40,208 78,701
Elevators 19,718 38,594
• Energy use much lower Natural Gas
than LEED Model Boilers
3
379,095 975,712
Total Energy [kBtu/yr] 828,896 1,856,125
Total Energy [kBtu/sf-yr] 40.1 45.9
Total Energy Cost [$/sf-yr] 0.57 0.64
Notes:
53% better than the average office+ according to CBECS data 3 (i.e., 20,700 sf).
1. Weber Thompson Architects occupy levels 2 and
2. Common areas does not include parking garage or exterior lighting.
60% - 70% better than average office according to BOMA data based on ratio of
3. Weber +Thompson portion of natural gas consumption
heat load for occupied space to total heat load of building.
4. Energy cost based on the following utility rates from bills:
Electric Rate [$/kWh]: $0.0551
Natural Gas Rage [$/Therm]: $1.197
49

50. Case Study – Edith Green Wendell Wyatt
Federal Office Building
Studies done for different options to
determine optimum solution for
Glazing percentage
Glazing properties
Shading Strategy
Daylighting Strategy
50

51. Thermal Analysis
Thermal Analysis to determine shading needed as well as glass percentage impact
South – shading options / relative cooling load
40000
No Shade
35000
30000 35 btu/sq ft
25000
Load (Btu/h)
25 btu/sq ft 1:1 ratio horizontal overhang
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Date: Tue 05/Oct
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to2.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_2to1.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to1.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_intblinds.aps)
51

52. Thermal Analysis
East– shading options / relative cooling load
40000
No Shade
35000
30000 35 btu/sq ft
25000 1:1 ratio horizontal overhang
Load (Btu/h)
25 btu/sq ft
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Date: Mon 16/Aug
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 East (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to2.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 East (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_2to1.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 East (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to1.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 East (egww_noshade.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 East (egww_intblinds.aps)
52

53. Thermal Analysis
North – shading options / relative cooling load
20 btu/sq ft No Shade
16000
14000
12000
10000
Load (Btu/h)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Date: Wed 16/Jun
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 North (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to2.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 North (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_2to1.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 North (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to1.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 North (egww_noshade.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 North (egww_intblinds.aps)
53

54. Thermal Analysis
West – shading options / relative cooling load
35000 No Shade
30000 35 btu/sq ft
25000
25 btu/sq ft
20000 1:1 ratio horizontal overhang
Load (Btu/h)
15000
Vegetated fins
10000
5000
0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Date: Thu 08/Jul
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to2.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_2to1.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_overhang(d)towindow(h)_1to1.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_noshade.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 West (egww_fins_surr.aps)
54

55. Thermal Analysis
Glazing Percentage – no shade / south / relative cooling load
40000 45 btu/sq ft
35000 40 btu/sq ft
30000 33 btu/sq ft
25000
Load (Btu/h)
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Date: Tue 05/Oct
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade_gp40.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade_gp30.aps)
Cooling plant sensible load: Level 15 South (egww_noshade.aps)
55

56. Shading Analysis - Quantitative
Shading Analysis to determine glare issue (direct solar)
Times when shading required for Radiant system
Solar Altitudes
East
South
Month 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00
Jan - - - 1 9 16 21 23 23 19 14 7- - -
Feb - - - 6 15 23 28 31 31 27 22 14 5- -
Mar - - 5 15 24 33 38 41 41 37 30 21 12 1-
Apr - 5 15 26 36 44 51 54 52 47 39 29 19 9-
May 2 12 23 33 43 53 60 63 61 54 45 35 25 14 4
Jun 5 15 25 35 46 55 64 68 66 59 49 39 29 18 8
Jul 3 13 23 33 44 53 61 66 64 58 49 39 28 18 8
Aug - 7 18 28 38 47 55 58 57 51 43 33 23 12 2
Sep - 1 11 21 31 39 44 47 45 40 32 23 13 2-
Oct - - 4 14 22 29 33 35 33 28 21 12 3- -
Nov - - - 6 14 20 24 25 24 19 13 5- - -
Dec - - - 1 9 15 19 21 20 16 11 3- - -
Required Shading
east
south
altitude > 45 red
Diagonal shading – south and east Diagonal shading
56

57. Shading Analysis – Qualitative View
57

58. Daylighting Analysis
Daylighting Analysis to determine glare issue (contrast ratio)
Impact of surrounding buildings
58

59. Daylighting Analysis
Daylighting Analysis to determine lighting usage – lightign schedules for energy analysis input
Artificial sky at ESBL Univ of Oregon and physical model (scaled) used for daylighting studies
59

60. Energy Analysis
Energy Analysis lighting energy and other end use savings
Comparison of results from 2 methods of determining lighting
Following methods may be used to energy savings due to daylighting
model savings due to daylighting lighting sch input from external daylight study (physical model)
eQUEST daylight sensors used
1. Determine lighting schedule to
Lighting Energy
model daylighting impact
Physical scaled model 4500
4000
Daylighting Analysis tool
3500
3000
2. Model within energy analysis tool
MBTU
2500
2000
1500
Typical Lighting schedule for each month, each orientation (workday, 1000
Saturday and Sunday) 500
0
Example schedule
no daylighting w ith daylight w ith adj ltg sch
savings sensors
Office | Lighting Office | Lighting
Weekdays South (Apr/Aug)
Weekdays
100%
80% 100%
60%
40% 50%
20%
0% 0%
12 AM
3 AM
6 AM
9 AM
12 PM
3 PM
6 PM
9 PM
12 AM
3 AM
6 AM
9 AM
12 PM
3 PM
6 PM
9 PM
60

61. Daylighting Analysis – Software Approach
Skylight (no shade)
Sunny Sky Studies
Sept 1200 (sunny sky)
61

62. Daylighting Analysis Tools
Quantitative
Daylighting for Classrooms
90
Iteration 1 - option 2 with
north roof overhang
80 removed
Iteration 2 - interior light
shelf + iteration 1
70
Iteration 3 - higher
clearstory + iteration 1
60
Iteration 4 - interior light
shelf + iteration 3
footcandles
50
Iteration 5 - 1 foot higher
than iteration 3
40
Iteration 6 - interior
lightshelf + iteration 5
30
Iteration 7- 1 foot higher
than iteration 5
20 Iteration 8 - interior
lightshelf + iteration 7
10 Iteration 9- north monitor
2.25 6.75 11.25 15.75 20.25 24.75 29.25 33.75 + iteration 3
0
distance from window
62

63. SHADING
UW – EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH
63

64. Energy Conservation Measures
HANFORD REACH MUSEUM AND VISITOR CENTER
HVAC System
roof insulation
wall insulation
glazing
exterior shades
daylight Sensors
CO2 sensors
64

65. Energy Conservation Measures
HANFORD REACH MUSEUM AND VISITOR CENTER
HVAC system
roof insulation
wall insulation
20% savings
glazing
exterior shades
daylight sensors
10% savings
overall (30%
savings in lighting
energy, 12%
savings in cooling
energy)
CO2 sensors
65

66. Summary of Energy implications of Daylighting
Lighting and its associated cooling energy can constitute up to
30% of a commercial office building's total energy use.
Electrical demand savings:
Reduced lighting load
Reduction in HVAC load (chiller plant power)
Electricity reduction during peak load
Potential increase in heating load of perimeter
spaces
66

67. Energy implications or over all effect of daylighting
Daylighting Economics
A well-designed daylighting application can reduce
energy costs 10 – 30%.
Lighting energy can be reduced up to 70 percent
during peak natural light periods.
67

68. Thank you!
Questions?
Tom.marseille@stantec.com
68