Shaping the Energy Efficiency in New Buildings - Building Energy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

This study selects the midpoint score levels for comparison (specifically, thesecond score level for roofs and walls, and the fourth to sixth levels forwindows). 30 Japan’s building energy codes place heavy emphasis on SHGC. Forexample, the highest score for SHGC is 90 (for most of Japan), 50 (in the coldzone), and 170 (in the tropical zone), while the highest score for U-factors ofwalls and windows, respectively, is 30.South Korea also uses a point system to measure building performance in theBDCES. The minimum score should be 60 for the whole building (includingconstruction and mechanical and electronic design criteria). For the buildingenvelope, there are five levels of thermal requirements. South Korea providesminimum R-value by region for roofs, walls and floors for all buildings. For theenvelope of large building, there are five levels of thermal requirements (overallenvelope U-value) that are calculated by averaging the U-value both window andwall which varies depending on window to wall ratio. The RBFCO providesadditional prescriptive requirements for insulation; the envelope analysis relies onthe RBFCO requirements. The maximum U-factors in the United States commercial building energy codesare categorized by building materials. U-factor and SHGC are two indicators forwindow thermal insulation.Four countries have jurisdictions in the hot climate zone including Australia, China, India,and the United States. In this zone, Australia has the most stringent requirements forroofs and floors, while India has the most stringent requirements for walls. The UnitedStates has comparatively stringent requirements for roofs and solar heat gain coefficientin windows. It has a wide range of requirements for walls, and the least stringentrequirements for floors. China has relatively weak requirements in all categories, but it isnot the least stringent in any single category. Figure 1 shows a comparison of the roofrequirements in this zone, while Table 10 provides a more comprehensive comparison ofall the key envelope requirements in this zone. Each of the comparative tables in thissection highlight one country under each component. This is the country that has the moststringent requirements (for the majority of its commercial buildings) in a given category.Several factors can affect the stringency of envelope requirements in different countries.Energy prices vary among countries. Most countries conduct cost-benefit analyses of therequirements before adopting them; differences in energy prices can lead to differentrecommendations on cost-effective requirements. Stakeholders can also play an importantrole, particularly in countries that use some type of stakeholder process or allow publiccomment before revising their standards. Insulation manufacturers may play aparticularly active role in one country, while windows manufacturers may be moreprominent in another. In some cases, if an industry like insulation is less vocal, it mayalso indicate that there are few products available on the local market. The productsavailable and the role of industry can thus affect the requirements adopted.30 We selected the midpoint levels instead of the maximum U-factors because Japan’s commercial code hasno maximum in most categories. In addition, since Japan does not have prescriptive commercialrequirements – only trade-off ones – it was important to pick numbers that would lead to a building thatcomplied, but did significantly exceed the compliance level in order to provide a good point of comparison.38
Figure 1 Comparison of Roof U-factor Requirements in the Hot Zone1.210.8U-factor0.6Roof (Low)Roof (High)Midpoint0.40.20Hainan, CHN(Residential)Hainan, CHN(Commercial)Miami, USA New Delhi, IND Darwin, AUSTable 11 Thermal Characteristics of Roofs, Walls, Floors and Windows in the Hot ZoneMaximum U-factors W/(m²·K)Window IndicatorsCitiesSuspendedRoof External WallFloorAggregate conductance factorDarwin0.31 0.56 0.67 not directly comparable with u-AUSfactors 31HainanCHNNew DelhiIND0.90 1.50 1.50Heavyconstruction:1.0, lightconstruction:0.50.41(Others)0.26 (24-hourbuildings),Heavyconstruction:1.0to 2.0N.A.0.41 N.A.Maximum U-factor: 3.0 to 6.5by WWR; shading coefficient,SC (east, south and west /north): 0.50/0.60 to 0.35/0.45by WWRMaximum U-factor: 2.00 to6.50 by WWR and outdoorconditionsMaximum U-factor is 3.30, andmaximum SHGC is 0.20 to0.2531RE Horne (2005) International comparison of building energy performance standards.39
Page 1 and 2: PNNL-122267Shaping the Energy Effic
Page 3: Shaping the Energy Efficiency in Ne
Page 6 and 7: efficient air conditioning system,
Page 8 and 9: ContentsForeword ..................
Page 10 and 11: List of TablesTable 1 GDP, Primary
Page 12 and 13: ForewordBuildings account for about
Page 14 and 15: 1 Introduction and Background1.1 Im
Page 16 and 17: esidential buildings in 2006, with
Page 18 and 19: JAP 1. Criteria for Clients on the
Page 20 and 21: can significantly increase energy d
Page 22 and 23: f) South Korea’s building energy
Page 24 and 25: 2.1 AustraliaIn the past, Australia
Page 26 and 27: small cities will be pilot of such
Page 28 and 29: (DCGREUH) issued by the Ministry of
Page 30 and 31: according to the current codes. Thi
Page 32 and 33: Table 7 Structural Comparison of Bu
Page 34 and 35: 3.3 Building EnvelopeKey Findings A
Page 36 and 37: JAPCCREUH1999KORBDCES2008USAASHRAE9
Page 40 and 41: MiamiUSA0.36(Insulationabove deck)t
Page 42 and 43: Six countries have jurisdictions in
Page 44 and 45: thermal requirements for roofs, flo
Page 46 and 47: Figure 6 Maximum U-factors in Resid
Page 48 and 49: Table 16 HVAC in Japan’s Building
Page 50 and 51: ItemsService water heating refers t
Page 52 and 53: Water conservation Canada has manda
Page 54 and 55: practice (MNECB 1997). India sets m
Page 56 and 57: Canada and India adopt compliance p
Page 58 and 59: Japan only supervises the building
Page 60 and 61: 4.2 Testing and RatingKey Findings
Page 62 and 63: Other commonly used tools among APP
Page 64 and 65: CAN 55MNECH1997CHNINDECBCJAPCanadia
Page 66 and 67: and local jurisdiction contact info
Page 68 and 69: certifying third-party verifiers or
Page 70 and 71: Point of ControlIncentives for Comp
Page 72 and 73: Point of ControlIncentives for Comp
Page 74 and 75: AUS,continuedCANTesting Agencies an
Page 76 and 77: CAN,continuedCHNTesting Agencies an
Page 78 and 79: Testing Agencies and Certification
Page 80 and 81: USA,continuedTesting Agencies and C
Page 82 and 83: Appendix C - Compliance SoftwareAUS
Page 84 and 85: CANMNECB1997,continuedSoftwareMetho
Page 86 and 87: USAIECC 2006,continuedSoftwareMetho
Page 88 and 89:
AUSBCA 2007,continuedCANMNECB1997CA
Page 90 and 91:
JAP,ContinuedKORUSAASHRAE90.1-2007T
Page 92 and 93:
AcronymsAPPAS/NZSASHRAEAUSBATFBCABD
Page 94 and 95:
ReferencesABCB (Australian Building
Page 96 and 97:
IEA (International Energy Agency).
Page 98:
OEE. 2008. Energy Use Data Handbook
show all

Shaping the Energy Efficiency in New Buildings - Building Energy ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?