[Type text] Michael R. Vaughn, P.E. TO:
[Type text]
1791 Tullie Circle NE • Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305 • Tel 678.539.1211 • Fax 678.539.2211 • http://www.ashrae.org
Michael R. Vaughn, P.E.
Manager
Research & Technical Services
mvaughn@ashrae.org
TO:
Vance Payne, Chair TC 8.11, vance.payne@nist.gov
CC:
David Yashar, Research Liaison 8.0, david.yashar@nist.gov
Raymond Rite, Research Subcommittee Chair TC 8.11, ray.rite@irco.com
Reid Hart, Work Statement Author, reidhart@gmail.com
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mike Vaughn
Manager of Research and Technical Services
October 10, 2012
Work Statement (1608-WS), “Development of a Load-Based Method of Test for
Light Commercial Unitary HVAC”
During their recent fall teleconference meeting, the Research Administration Committee (RAC)
reviewed the subject Work Statement and voted 12-0-0 to conditionally accept it for bid provided
that the RAC approval conditions are addressed to the satisfaction of your Research Liaison in a
revision to the work statement.
See the bottom of the attached WS review summary for the approval conditions.
The WS review summary also contains comments from individual members of RAC that the TC may
or may not choose to also consider when revising the WS; some of these comments may indicate
areas of the WS where readers require additional information or rewording for clarification.
Lastly, please provide ASHRAE staff with the final names and contact information for the Proposal
Evaluation Subcommittee (PES) roster, and the Technical Contact that will respond to questions
from prospective bidders during the bid posting period (typically this is a WS author or PES
member). The technical contact and all members of the PES must also agree to not bid on this
project.
Please coordinate changes to this Work Statement with your Research Liaison, David Yashar,
david.yashar@nist.gov or RL8@ashrae.net. Once he is satisfied that the approval conditions have
been met, the project will be ready to bid.
The first opportunity that you will have for this project to possibly bid is winter 2013. To be eligible
for this bid cycle, a revised work statement that has been approved for bid by your research liaison
should be sent (electronically) to Mike Vaughn, Manager of Research and Technical Services,
mvaughn@ashrae.org or morts@ashrae.net, by February 15, 2013.
Project ID
1608
Project Title
Sponsoring TC
Cost / Duration
Submission History
Classification: Research or Technology Transfer
RAC FALL 2012 (Web) Meeting Review
Check List Criteria
Development of a Load-Based Method of Test for Light Commercial Unitary HVAC
TC 8.11, Unitary and Room Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
$130,000/22M
2nd submission, 1st submission Returned Jul. 2012, RTAR conditionally accepted Nov. 2009
Basic/Applied Research
SUMMARY COMMENTS
Voted NO
Additional Comments & Suggestions
Adequate Intermediate Deliverables? The project should include the review of
intermediate results by the PMS at logical milestone points during the project.
Before project work continues, the PMS must approve the intermediate results.
#6 - Deliverables added to tasks
Time and Cost Estimate Reasonable? The time duration and total cost of the
project should be reasonable so that the project can be as it is described in the
WS.
#5 - Has AHRI been re-contacted about potentially being a co-funder? #14 - The time and budget listed are probably reasonable, but the stated level of effort uses all of the man-hours within one
quarter of the alloted time
Detailed Bidders List Provided? The contact information in the bidder list should
be complete so that each potential bidder can be contacted without difficulty.
#14 - I don't believe that NREL will be able to bid on this project, but the list includes three others.
Proposed Project Doable? Can the project as described in the WS be
accomplished? If difficulties exist in the project's WS that prevent a successful
conclusion of the project, then the project is not doable. In this situation, major
revision of the WS is needed to resolve the issues that cause the difficulty.
#14 - I think that the project is doable, although it is possible that the LBMoT may not be. The scope does include a couple of stopping points if the proposed methods do not work. #6 - Yes but
somewhat concerned about "load based" testing method. Id the method described really "load based"?
Proposed Project Description Correct? Are there technical errors and/or
technical omissions that the WS has that prevents it from correctly describing the
project? If there are, than the WS needs major revision.
#5 - Work Statement does not include the requirement of project results being published in the ASHRAE Transactions or the HVAC&R Journal.
Task Breakdown Reasonable? Is the project divided into tasks that make
technical and practical sense? Are the results of each task such that the results of
the former naturally flow into the latter? If not, then major revisions are needed to
the WS that would include: adding tasks, removing tasks, and re-structuring tasks
among others.
Proposed Project Biddable? Examining the WS as a whole, is the project
described in the WS of sufficient clarity and detail such a potential bidder can
actually understand and develop a proposal for the project? This criterion
combines the previous three criteria into an overall question concerning the
usefulness of the WS. If the WS is considered to not be biddable, then either
major revisions are in order or the WS should be rejected.
Decision Options
Initial
Decision
Additional Comments or Approval Conditions
ACCEPT
COND. ACCEPT
RETURN
REJECT
X
#5 - Applicability to the ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan apparently based on 2005-2010 Plan, and author provides no specific information on how the project supports several goals which are
identified only by letters and numbers. Author apparently not using the current Work Statement form which requires publication of results in either the ASHRAE Transactions or the HVAC&R
Journal. Not certain that AHRI's comments were addressed.
ACCEPT Vote - Work statement(WS) ready to bid as-is
CONDITIONAL ACCEPT Vote - Minor Revision Required - RL can approve WS for bid without going back to RAC once TC satisfies RAC's approval condition(s) to his/her satisfaction
RETURN Vote - WS requires major revision before it can bid
REJECT Vote - Topic is no longer considered acceptable for the ASHRAE Research Program due to duplication of work by another project or because the work statement has a fatal flaw(s) that makes it unbiddable
August 14, 2012
Date:
WORK STATEMENT COVER SHEET
(Please Check to Insure the Following Information is in the Work Statement )
A. Title
B Executive Summary
C. Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan
D. Application of the Results
E. State-of-the-Art (background)
F. Advancement to State-of-the-Art
G. Justification and Value to ASHRAE
H. Objective
I. Scope
J. Deliverables/Where Results will be Published
K. Level of Effort
Project Duration in Months
Professional-Months: Principal
Investigator
Professional-Months: Total
Estimated $ Value
L. Other Information to Bidders (optional)
M. Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors
N. References
Responsible TC/TG:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8.11
Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating
(CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1
WS#
1608
(To be assigned by MORTS - Same as RTAR #)
Results of this Project will affect the following Handbook Chapters,
Special Publications, etc.:
None initially
If successful may lead
to a new method of test
Standard development
Date of Vote:
For
Against
Abstaining
Absent or not returning Ballot
Total Voting Members
Work Statement Authors:
Reid Hart
Title:
*
*
*
**
8
0
1
June 25, 2012
This W/S has been coordinated with TC/TG/SSPC (give vote and date):
7.6 voted to co-sponsor June 26, 2012 vote: 5-1-0
Has RTAR been submitted ?
Strategic Plan
Theme/Goals
Yes
Supports A2, A7, B4, D1, and D5
Gives credibility to equipment savings
claims for RTU systems beyond
efficiency measured by EER & IEER
Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee:
Roger Voorhis, Trane
Chair:
Members:
Reid Hart, PE, PECI (CM for TC 7.06 & TC 8.11)
Project Monitoring Subcommittee:
(If different from Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee)
Recommended Bidders (name, address, e-mail, tel. number): **
**Lorenzo Cremaschi, Ph.D; Oklahoma State University;
Cremasc@okstate.edu; (405) 744 5900
Eckhard Groll, Dr. Eng.; Purdue University;
groll@purdue.edu ; (765)494-7430
Steven Slayzak; National Renewable Energy Laboratories
Steven_Slayzak@nrel.gov ; 303-275-3000
Robert A. Davis; PG&E Applied Technology Services
rad2@pge.com ; (925) 866-5443
Potential Co-funders (organization, contact person information):
(Three qualified bidders must be recommended, not including WS authors.)
Is an extended bidding period needed?
Has an electronic copy been furnished to the MORTS?
Will this project result in a special publication?
Has the Research Liaison reviewed work statement?
* Reasons for negative vote(s) and abstentions
Author abstained on 8.11
7.6 negative voter stated: that ASHRAE will be paying for data
that will be held in confidence
** Denotes WS author is affiliated with this recommended bidder
Use additional sheet if needed.
Yes
No
X
X
X
X
How Long (weeks)
WORK STATEMENT # 1608-WS
SPONSORING TC/TG/SSPC: TC 8.11 Unitary and Room Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
CO-SPONSORING TC/TG/SSPCs: TC 7.6 Building Energy Performance
Title: Development of a Load-Based Method of Test for Light Commercial Unitary HVAC
Executive Summary:
Currently there are no recognized testing and rating procedures for unitary equipment systems operating in
conjunction with accessories and improved controls that provide savings beyond steady-state efficiency measured
and used in calculating EER, SEER, or IEER. This project is the first step in developing a testing and regional
performance projection procedure for unitary HVAC equipment operating as a system with accessories or control
strategies. A credible testing method will allow manufacturers to better promote—and engineers to have an
objective basis for recommending—items like economizer effectiveness, variable speed fans, variable compressor
controls, or condenser pre-cooling. This work statement covers phase 1 that develops a preliminary load-based
method of test that can be used to improve measurement of unitary system energy use with accessories or controls
that can reasonably be tested in an environmental lab in less than 90 minutes of operation for each combination of
load and climate condition.
The goal of load based testing is to generate a system performance model (power demand as a function of outdoor
air temperature and building load as shown in Figure 2) that incorporates controls and accessories for a unitary air
conditioning units.
Applicability to the ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan:
Development of the proposed testing procedure and Regional System Performance (RSP) tool would support
multiple goals in ASHRAE’s strategic research plan, including A2, A7, B4, D1, and D5. The main impact would be
to give credibility to energy saving improvements beyond steady-state efficiency improvements in light commercial
unitary HVAC systems. In some cases this research supports the cited ASHRAE research goals by providing a
testing platform for development of improved technology. The preliminary method of test developed under this
work statement would form the basis for future development of an RSP tool.
Application of Results:
Development of new testing procedures that can lead to an ASHRAE standard for testing Unitary
Equipment system accessories and a Regional system performance (RSP) method.
Provide marketing benefits to control and equipment manufacturers by verifying performance claims.
Support ASHRAE green building goals in the light commercial market.
Allow utility and other energy efficient organizations to more readily support advances in rooftop unit
operation beyond efficiency as indicated by EER, SEER, or IEER.
State-of-the-Art (Background):
Unitary HVAC equipment testing is currently limited to steady-state efficiency, including part-load operation. There
are multiple technologies that function outside the realm of steady-state efficiency that have the potential to save
much more energy than the incremental improvements that impact SEER, IEER or EER. Such untested features
include economizer effectiveness, variable speed fans, fan cycling, variable speed compressor systems, condenser
pre-cooling and other system enhancements. At this time there are no recognized testing and rating procedures for
unitary equipment systems operating in conjunction with accessories and improved controls.
Packaged unitary equipment serves more than half of commercial floor area. There is a large potential for savings
not covered by current test standards (Hart et. al. 2008). Attempts to field test such technologies have not provided
conclusive results, due to load variability and small sample sizes. There is a need for a standard test procedure
similar to the miles per gallon estimates for automobiles that provide reliable regional energy estimates for upgrades
to unitary equipment systems.
While some measures can be simulated in computer models, current models for unitary systems are not well
calibrated to actual system operation. For example, small rooftop units typically have economizer bypass between
exhaust and return air in a difficult to determine proportion, and the actual maximum percentage outside air
delivered is difficult to test in the field. Minor details such as the location of relief air outlets relative to condenser
WS #1608 Develop Load Based Method of Test for Unitary HVAC– v12m August 2012
Page 1
and economizer intake can affect system efficiency. Without a lab testing method and a standardized approach to
simulation calibration, simulations will not result in accurate and credible predictions of performance.
While IEER accounts for part-load operation and intermediate fan use and is a significant step forward for
equipment energy impact rating, there are multiple items that IEER does not account for that can save significant
energy. There are multiple innovations that manufacturers can make and have made to reduce energy use. The
tradition has been to create a separate testing procedure for each variation. The proposed method of test and RSP
can provide a means to quickly validate the energy saving claims of a newly developed technology without waiting
for a new testing and rating methodology. This validation will speed approval of incentives through utility and tax
credit programs, helping support a new technology during its critical launch period. The many items addressed by
the RSP that are not covered by the IEER include:
Economizer function, including dynamic cycling and air stream interaction.
Technologies that mitigate refrigeration system cycling degradation.
Technologies that dynamically change air flow at a particular part-load condition; for example, reducing air
speed or cycling the fan when cooling or heating is not operating.
Evaporative, heat recovery, and other technologies involving a change in outdoor conditions seen by the
system and interaction of indoor and outdoor air.
Systems or system retrofits that vary compressor speed or refrigerant flow to match changes in load.
The ability to produce discrete results based on various outdoor and indoor load conditions that can then be
applied to climate and building load profiles to arrive at regional performance results.
Field tests have resulted in reliable inverse model development as shown in Figure 1, where the blue data points for
a heat pump represent the base condition and red points an improved condition. The validity of the simplified
signature approach developing a model of energy vs. outside air temperature has been verified (Cherniack &
Reichmuth, 2009); however the cost of field data collection remains high. Given that we know what data is needed
for a reliable model, reducing the cost of obtaining that data in a more standardized manner will advance the ability
to predict actual unitary system energy use significantly.
Figure 1: Field data and simplified inverse model as a function of OAT and building load
Advancement to the State-of-the-Art:
The proposed research would adapt existing lab-based performance testing procedures to allow a range of control
and other technologies to be tested and system performance determined for multiple climates using regression based
hourly projection. Current methods test steady-state full- or part-load operation at fixed indoor and outdoor
conditions. The proposed testing will test at fixed outdoor conditions with a fixed sensible load on the indoor test
chamber to allow the complete unitary equipment system to cycle through various states and simulate actual inWS #1608 Develop Load Based Method of Test for Unitary HVAC– v12m August 2012
Page 2
building operation. The proposed focus is on light commercial applications and technologies like economizer
cooling, optimum start, and night flush or integrated unit thermal storage. We do not anticipate that these new tests
would form the basis for equipment rating standards since most of the items tested are separate accessories, options,
or related controls and not part of the basic equipment package.
The goal of the system testing would be to generate a system performance correlation, as shown in Figure 2, with
the minimum needed points. Exact repeatability of test conditions from laboratory to laboratory would not be
required; what would be required is agreement of the system performance correlation, generated from those test
points, from laboratory to laboratory. If the surfaces required for system performance correlation are relatively
smooth or have known break points and if testing facilities can maintain constant loads while allowing the system
under test to cycle under the authority of the tested controls, creation of repeatable system performance correlations
should be possible. Figure 2 shows a possible system map that could result from testing for a unitary air-source heat
pump with economizer. Once the system map is developed, it can be applied to climatic data and building load
profiles to produce Regional System Performance results.
Heat Pump with Economizer System Map
Power Input, kW
11-12
10-11
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9-10
8-9
7-8
6-7
5-6
107
87
-60
-40
67
-20
47
0
Space & Vent
Load, MBH
40
7
3-4
2-3
1-2
27
20
4-5
OAT DB
0-1
60
Figure 2: Example power demand for a packaged heat pump as a function of OAT and building load
Establishing a load-based laboratory testing method that can test the performance of non-steady-state technologies is
a rational first step and is the focus of the proposed research project (Phase 1). If a load-based testing procedure is
successful, it will allow system performance evaluation of specific solutions and equipment configurations operating
as a system, and provide support for a large potential of savings that exists beyond steady-state efficiency
improvement. Using inverse modeling1 to project annual energy use from a limited number of tests allows
performance assessment of whole unitary systems (Phase 1). A recognized testing method and protocol for
Regional System Performance (RSP) (Phase 2 and the next step if the current research project is successful) would
allow controls and option manufacturers to adopt the method as an additional descriptor of system economic
performance. The availability of a generic test procedure for an entire system would allow new technologies to be
1
An inverse model is a regression method using data of interest associated with parametric conditions to project energy use on
an annual basis. Inverse models are described further in ASHRAE Guideline 14-2002. In this case it is likely that the inverse
model would represent the dependent variable of unitary system energy input relative to parameters such as delivered cooling or
heating, outside dry-bulb temperature and outside wet-bulb temperature.
WS #1608 Develop Load Based Method of Test for Unitary HVAC– v12m August 2012
Page 3
tested without waiting for a specific method of test to be developed. Once a method of test for controls and
accessories that introduce variability or cycling over short time frames has been developed, future phases could
address more complex strategies that require longer term testing or emulation.
Justification and Value to ASHRAE:
Assessing new technologies by developing separate lab test methods that focus on single components is
cumbersome and fails to fully capture system-wide energy savings. Conducting field tests of large samples is timeconsuming and expensive. Field testing also involves significant delays while waiting for full seasonal weather
impacts. A new approach designed to test integrated components, and their control algorithms, as a complete
system provides a more credible and cost-effective method to project regional annual energy use for light
commercial unitary HVAC equipment.
A more comprehensive testing procedure combined with a regional system performance tool that provides estimates
of annual energy use for certain system and accessory combinations would give manufacturers credible backing to
promote energy-saving accessories and utility and efficiency planners the data needed to promote technology based
on valid regional savings. This will speed up the adoption of successful energy saving technologies in this hard-toreach market. There is strong potential for a new ASHRAE testing standard to result, and significant potential
energy savings in the light commercial market. Once a reliable lab method of test is established and a valid
Regional System Performance (RSP) tool is developed (in phase 2), new technologies can be evaluated much more
quickly and with less expense than with current field-monitoring protocols. The new process will provide clearer
results than field testing that is subject to variation in individual building loads.
This research proposal only deals with the first phase (Phase 1) of a RSP development effort, with future phases
needed to develop the method for projecting annual energy use based upon testing results. It is anticipated that the
full development of a testing method and energy performance protocol would be developed in six phases as
described below:
1. Develop and validate a preliminary method of test for unitary systems at a constant load condition using an
environmental lab; resulting in a preliminary method of test.
Once the first phase provided under this work statement is complete, contingent on proving the validity of loadbased testing, possible future phases may include:
2.
Provide added testing and method revision, using testing in a different lab than the phase one work.
Develop an inverse modeling method to project annual use (RSP) from load based testing. Review existing
system models to determine likely change points needed for robust inverse modeling. Assist in
development of guidelines for application of the method of test.
3.
Develop an RSP tool for using results from phase 1 to model regional energy use with building type load
profiles, inverse models and climatic conditions to project annual energy use for unitary equipment.
4.
Apply the methods from phases 1-3 to a broader range of building types and climate zones, enhancements
and heating types. Test in multiple labs and progress toward a standardized ASHRAE method of test.
5.
Expand the method of test to include transient load parameters. Use the inverse models to develop a
software unitary system emulator that can be used for testing real-time controls performance impact.
6.
Further test the method and procedure developed in phase 5 to verify repeatability at multiple labs. Develop
a protocol for using the methods to project annual system performance. including load and climatic profiles
to allow annual regional performance projection.
Due to the high variability of testing time and test conditions that may be required for load-based testing; the
potential cost of future phases is not estimated here. Results from phases 1 and 2 of the project will be necessary to
clarify potential scopes and costs for downstream phases. The overall outcome of phases 1 and 2 will provide a
useful intermediate tool that can be used while the consensus process toward a more formal method of test standard
is pursued if appropriate.
WS #1608 Develop Load Based Method of Test for Unitary HVAC– v12m August 2012
Page 4
Objectives:
Ultimately the goal is to develop a testing and performance projection procedure for unitary HVAC equipment
operating as a system with accessories or control strategies to determine the performance in terms of return air to
supply air temperature and enthalpy difference vs. system energy input.
This research proposal only deals with the first phase (Phase 1) of a RSP development effort, with future phases
needed to develop the method for projecting annual energy use based upon testing results. The objective of this
work statement is to develop and validate a preliminary method of test for unitary systems at a constant load
condition using an environmental lab; resulting in a preliminary method of test. If successful, this preliminary or
preliminary method of test could form the proof of concept for development of a final method of test through the
ASHRAE consensus process.
The figure below shows the process flow for phases 1 & 2 of the long term development, resulting in a simplified
annual energy use projection. This work statement only covers phase 1.
Regional
Hourly TMY3
OAT DB & WB
OAT DB
& WB
Standard
Controls;
Single
Setpoints
Sensible
& Latent
Space
Load
Loadbased
Lab
Testing
Inverse Model
of RTU
Performance
Expert Process to
find regional loading
probabilities
Annual
Performance
Projection
Space
Load
Profiles
Phase 1 (this research project) will:
Develop a preliminary method of test for the comprehensive performance of an RTU including cycling
issues, air circulation energy use; economizer operation (including damper effectiveness and return-air
bypass effects); direct, indirect, and evaporative condenser assist strategies; static control impacts such as
economizer changeover and cycling differentials; or other temperature control algorithms. The method will
be based upon a load-driven testing procedure that can use current environmental chamber test facilities
with minor modifications.
Validate the proposed method by testing two technologies (economizer and low fan speed during idle) at a
limited number of outdoor conditions and indoor loads to determine accuracy and repeatability of the
proposed load-based testing.
Develop and validate by test a method to determine both sensible and total effective hourly load on the
RTU vs. its energy input at various outside conditions and various indoor loading (rather than entering
temperature and humidity) conditions.
To maintain an incremental approach and reasonable budget, the goal of Phase 1 of the research will be to develop
and validate a preliminary load-based testing approach.
WS #1608 Develop Load Based Method of Test for Unitary HVAC– v12m August 2012
Page 5
Timeline
The overall anticipated timeline is 16 to 22 months.
Load-Based Method of Test Preliminary Development
2012
ID
Task
Start
Duration
2013
2014
2015
Finish
Q4
1
ASHRAE Bidding & Contracting Phase 1
10/1/2012
24w
3/15/2013
2
Phase 1 PM & Review;
Coordinate with PMS & ASHRAE
3/18/2013
102w
2/27/2015
3
1.1 Develop Load-Based Method of Test (LBMoT)
3/18/2013
26w
9/13/2013
4
1.2 Validate LBMoT
9/16/2013
20w
1/31/2014
5
1.3 Revise LBMoT & Draft Report
2/3/2014
24w
7/18/2014
6
1.4 Final Report, Conference Paper & Presentation
7/21/2014
27w
1/23/2015
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Scope/Technical Approach:
Preliminary Proposed Load-Based Testing Method. Units incorporating the measures discussed earlier could
have their effectiveness tested as a comprehensive system. Developing a Load-Based Method of Test is needed to
support an industry-wide consensus process to develop a protocol for annual energy use projection in phase 2. The
new load-based method of test would likely be similar to the current protocols, with the following suggested
modifications:
The testing apparatus would be similar to the ones specified in ASHRAE Standard 116-1995, except that it
would allow for operation of a pre-cooler on the condenser and it would allow interior air to be exchanged
with the outdoor side test room to simulate an economizer and ventilation and relief damper effectiveness.
An alternative to condition based testing would be developed, where constant sensible2 loads, rather than
fixed temperature conditions, are maintained in the indoor space to simulate zone loading while putting
controls through actual cycles. For the process to work effectively in different labs, the method would
focus on measuring the maintained average system load (SA-RA) and power input to generate an inverse
model, rather than attempting to maintain the same load condition in each lab.3
The external fan static pressures would be changed to more typical commercial values. It is likely that
reasonable values developed after review of field data would be double the current test specification.
The testing method developed in phase 1 would be limited to single zone systems, where the system
variation and control cycles are relatively short and the impact of variation can be measured at a steady
load and outside condition over the course of a 30 to 90 minute test period.
A separate project phase (developed later, after the fundamental accuracy of a load-based method of test is verified)
includes a Regional System Performance (RSP) tool for unitary HVAC equipment and accessories and controls that
would apply to commercial unitary equipment up to 25 tons. The RSP tool will be developed in phase 2 after this
research. In conjunction with the LBMoT, the RSP would provide a commercial regional energy use indicator.
While there is a high variability in commercial building loads, a standardized set of parameters would allow utility
efficiency program managers and commercial customers to compare different units in relation to how they operate
under standardized regional conditions. The RSP would include:
2
It is anticipated that maintaining a constant sensible load will be achievable while maintaining a constant latent load may be
more difficult. Maintaining a constant relative humidity in conjunction with a sensible load should be achievable and allow the
measured latent load to be used in generating the inverse model. The preferred approach will be a recommendation that comes
out of the research project.
3
Since the goal of the testing is to produce an inverse model for annual energy use projection, calibrating to an exact load
condition should not be as important as maintaining a repeatable space load to input ratio on average during the test. As long as
the relationship of load to energy input is relatively linear between tested points, the inverse model developed from a particular
test will adapt for minor variations in the actual tested load point. The impact on accuracy of the energy projection of this inverse
modeling issue will be investigated in phase 2.
WS #1608 Develop Load Based Method of Test for Unitary HVAC– v12m August 2012
Page 6
Typical load schedules for various building types will allow the energy performance of variable speed fan,
continuous fan, and economizer and other short-term control measures to be predicted.
Making available single-condition results and compiling RSP results will be important to making the new
standard flexible (Kavanaugh 2002).
The tasks required to complete phase 1 of this research project follow:
1.1. Develop Preliminary Load-Based Method of Test (LBMoT). Develop preliminary language for a
method of test for the comprehensive performance of an RTU including cycling issues, air circulation
energy use; economizer operation including damper effectiveness and return-air bypass effects; direct,
indirect, and evaporative condenser assist strategies; static control impacts such as economizer
changeover and cycling differentials; or other temperature control algorithms. The method will be
based upon a load-driven testing procedure that can use slightly modified existing environmental
chamber test facilities. Develop and validate by test a method to determine both sensible and total
effective hourly load on the RTU vs. its energy input at various outside conditions and various indoor
loading (rather than entering temperature and humidity) conditions.
Deliverable: Written load-based method of test outline and document showing deviations from
ASHRAE Standard 116-1995. Submit to PMS for review before proceeding with MoT validation step.
1.2. Validate LBMoT. Validate the proposed method to determine accuracy and repeatability at different
load and climatic conditions in terms of two measures:
Sensible Performance = [average delivered sensible MBH] / [average unit power input]
Total Performance = [average delivered total MBH] / [average unit power input]
Verify performance by testing an air source heat pump unit with two technologies (economizer and
reduced fan speed when heating or cooling is not on) as follows:
1.2.1. 4 heating tests (range of heating conditions) and 8 cooling tests (range of cooling
conditions) including test of constant latent load vs. constant RH. Each test to be of 90minute duration.
1.2.2. To verify repeatability, conduct 2 repetitions each of 1 heating test and 1 cooling test
(with same conditions as one of the task 1.2.1 tests) of 90-minute duration.
1.2.3. 5 repetitions of 2 cooling tests with intentionally introduced minor load variations and the
same average load during the test. Each test to be of 90-minute duration.
1.2.4. Perform tests needed to evaluate accuracy and load variability impacts of such issues as
exchange of air from indoor to outdoor space through relief dampers and variation in cycle
time based on different types of temperature control strategies (electro mechanical vs.
programmable thermostat).
1.2.5. Determine the impact on testing accuracy of time at each load run. Using data previously
collected from 8 of the 90 minute tests at representative combinations of load and climatic
conditions conducted in 1.2.1 above, compare the relative accuracy of the following averaging
approaches.
30 minute test
45 minute test
60 minute test
90 minute test
Cycle based approach with 3-cycle minimum for on/off controls with the evaluated
test period data starting in the middle of the first off cycle and ended during the
middle of the next off cycle after the greater of a 30 minute minimum time or
minimum number of cycles had elapsed.
Note: the proposer may suggest an alternate combination of testing conditions for validity
verification that involves the same number of lab tests of similar duration, with an explanation of
how that would better meet the goal of validation.
Deliverable: Load-based testing accuracy analysis and recommendation on time cycles.
Recommendation of sustained latent load vs. sustained relative humidity. Overall recommendation
of feasibility of the load-based testing method.
WS #1608 Develop Load Based Method of Test for Unitary HVAC– v12m August 2012
Page 7
Stop Gate: Should the testing be found infeasible after tasks 1.1 and 1.2 and review with the PMS, then the
overall recommendation from Task 1.2 shall be the final deliverable and tasks 1.3 & 1.4 shall be
eliminated.
1.3. Revise LBMoT & Draft Report. Complete a report on the results, proposed method of test, and write
up the testing method in standard language. Finalize project reporting and present results. Meet with
review committee and agree to and make any needed revisions. Prepare, review, finalize and present
technical paper for ASHRAE conference, journal article, and other final deliverables. Deliverable:
Revised Preliminary testing method, draft Report, draft Technical Paper, and draft Journal article.
1.4. Final Report, Conference Paper & Presentation: Review, finalize and present technical paper for
ASHRAE conference, journal article, and other final deliverables. Deliverables: Final Report,
Technical Paper, and Journal Article.
Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published:
Progress, Financial, Interim, and Final Reports, Technical Paper(s), and Data shall constitute required deliverables
(“Deliverables”) under this Agreement and shall be provided as follows:
a. Progress and Financial Reports
Progress and Financial Reports, in a form approved by the Society, shall be made to the Society through its
Manager of Research and Technical Services at quarterly intervals; specifically on or before each January 1,
April 1, June 1, and October 1 of the contract period.
Furthermore, the Institution’s Principal Investigator, subject to the Society’s approval, shall, during the period
of performance and after the Final Report has been submitted, report in person to the sponsoring Technical
Committee/Task Group (TC/TG) at the annual and winter meetings, and be available to answer such questions
regarding the research as may arise.
b. Interim Report
An interim report with the following and participation in a PMS review meeting:
1.1: Written load-based method of test outline and document showing deviations from ASHRAE
Standard 116-1995.
1.2: Load-based testing feasibility recommendation, accuracy analysis, and recommendation on
individual test duration.
c. Final Report
A written report, design guide, or manual, (collectively, “Final Report”), in a form approved by the Society,
shall be prepared by the Institution and submitted to the Society’s Manager of Research and Technical
Services by the end of the Agreement term, containing complete details of all research carried out under this
Agreement. Unless otherwise specified, six copies of the final report shall be furnished for review by the
Society’s Project Monitoring Subcommittee (PMS). The final report shall include:
Revised load-based method of test outline and document showing deviations from ASHRAE Standard
116-1995.
Load-based testing accuracy analysis and recommendation on individual test duration.
Following approval by the PMS and the TC/TG, in their sole discretion, final copies of the Final Report will
be furnished by the Institution as follows:
-
An executive summary in a form suitable for wide distribution to the industry and to the public.
Two bound copies
One unbound copy, printed on one side only, suitable for reproduction.
Two copies on CD-ROM; one in PDF format and one in Microsoft Word.
WS #1608 Develop Load Based Method of Test for Unitary HVAC– v12m August 2012
Page 8
d.
Technical Paper
One or more papers shall be submitted first to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and Technical Services
(MORTS) and then to the “ASHRAE Manuscript Central” website-based manuscript review system in a form
and containing such information as designated by the Society suitable for presentation at a Society meeting.
The Technical Paper(s) shall conform to the instructions posted in “Manuscript Central” for a technical paper.
The technical paper title shall contain the research project number (XXXX-RP) at the end of the title in
parentheses, e.g., (XXXX-RP).
Note: A technical paper describing the research project must be submitted after the TC has approved the
Final Report. Technical papers may also be prepared before the project’s completion, if it is desired to
disseminate interim results of the project. Contractor shall submit any interim papers to MORTS and the
PMS for review and approval before the papers are submitted to ASHRAE Manuscript Central for review by
the Society Program Committee.
e.
Data
The Institution agrees to maintain true and complete books and records, including but not limited to
notebooks, reports, charts, graphs, analyses, computer programs, visual representations etc., (collectively, the
“Data”), generated in connection with the Services. Society representatives shall have access to all such Data
for examination and review at reasonable times. The Data shall be held in strict confidence by the Institution
and shall not be released to third parties without prior authorization from the Society, except as provided by
GENERAL CONDITION VII, PUBLICATION. The original Data shall be kept on file by the Institution for
a period of two years after receipt of the final payment and upon request the Institution will make a copy
available to the Society upon the Society’s request.
f.
Project Synopsis
A written synopsis totaling approximately 100 words in length and written for a broad technical audience, which
documents 1. Main findings of research project, 2. Why findings are significant, and 3. How the findings
benefit ASHRAE membership and/or society in general shall be submitted to the Manager of Research and
Technical Services by the end of the Agreement term for publication in ASHRAE Insights.
The Society may request the Institution submit a technical article suitable for publication in the Society’s
ASHRAE JOURNAL. This is considered a voluntary submission and not a Deliverable.
All Deliverables under this Agreement and voluntary technical articles shall be prepared using dual units; e.g.,
rational inch-pound with equivalent SI units shown parenthetically. SI usage shall be in accordance with
IEEE/ASTM Standard SI-10.
The above deliverables are necessary, but not sufficient, to monitor a research project. The PMS and the sponsoring
TC have the responsibility to review the contractor’s on-going activities and intermediate results, to ensure that the
methods used and results obtained will be valid and well-enough substantiated to be labeled as “ASHRAE-approved
findings.” Proper oversight cannot wait until the final report, when most of the budget has already been expended.
WS #1608 Develop Load Based Method of Test for Unitary HVAC– v12m August 2012
Page 9
Level of Effort:
The estimated cost of phase one is $130,000 and the project is expected to take 16 to 22 months to complete. The
project anticipates the following level of effort:
- Principal investigator: 2 professional-months @ 30% effort
- Research Assistant:
4 professional-months @ 100% effort
- Research Technician: 4 professional-months @50% effort
- Equipment & materials:
$24,000
- ~30 Individual test runs:
$30,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST:
$130,000
Bid amount:
Tasks
Bid type
Amount
1.1 & 1.2
Lump Sum
$
1.3 & 1.4
Lump Sum
$
Project Total
Lump Sum
$
Other Information for Bidders:
Describe clearly the labs that will be used for the project, and the project approach to the research objectives.
Proposal Evaluation Criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Contractor's understanding of Work Statement as revealed in proposal.
a)
Logistical problems associated
b)
Technical problems associated
Quality of methodology proposed for conducting research.
a)
Organization of project
b)
Management plan
Contractor's capability in terms of facilities.
a)
Managerial support
b)
Data collection
c)
Technical expertise
d)
Environmental lab testing facilities
Qualifications of personnel for this project.
a)
Project team 'well rounded' in terms of qualifications
and experience in related work
b)
Project manager person directly responsible;
experience and corporate position
c)
Team members' qualifications and experience
d)
Time commitment of Principal Investigator
Student involvement
a)
Extent of student participation on contractor's team
b)
Likelihood that involvement in project will encourage entry
into HVAC&R industry
Probability of contractor's research plan meeting the objectives of the Work Statement.
a)
Detailed and logical work plan with major tasks and key milestones
b)
All technical and logistic factors considered
c)
Reasonableness of project schedule
Performance of contractor on prior ASHRAE or other projects.
(No penalty for new contractors to ASHRAE.)
WS #1608 Develop Load Based Method of Test for Unitary HVAC– v12m August 2012
15%
20%
15%
20%
5%
20%
5%
Page 10
References:
[AEC] Architectural Energy Corporation. 2007. “Project 4: Advanced Rooftop Unit Deliverable D4.3d – DRAFT
3 ARTU Cost Benefit Analysis.” Advanced Automated HVAC Fault Detection and Diagnostics
Commercialization Program.
August 28, 2007. Sacramento, Calif.: California Energy Commission.
www.newbuildings.org/mechanical.htm
[ARI] Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute. ARI Statistical Profile. October 7, 2004. Arlington, Virg.: ARI.
www.ari.org
Cherniack, M. and H Reichmuth. 2009. Commercial Rooftop HVAC Energy Savings Research Program. March
25, 2009. White Salmon, Wash.: New Buildings Institute.
Cowan, A. 2004. Review of Recent Commercial Roof Top Unit Field Studies in The Pacific Northwest and
California. October 8, 2004. White Salmon, Wash.: New Buildings Institute.
Hart, R., D. Morehouse and W. Price. 2006. “A Premium Economizer – An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” In
Proceedings of the ACEEE 2006 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 3:103-115. Washington,
D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
Hart, R., D. Morehouse and W. Price, J. Taylor, H. Reichmuth and M. Cherniack. 2008. “Up on the Roof: From the
Past to the Future.” In Proceedings of the ACEEE 2008 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 3:.
Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Included here:
C:\_PapersPresent\
ACEEE\2008Rooftop\Hart_2008_RTU_ACEEE.pdf
Jacobs, P., V. Smith, C. Higgins, and M. Brost. 2003. “Small Commercial Rooftops: Field Problems, Solutions and
the Role of Manufacturers.” In Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Building Commissioning: May
20-22, 2003. Portland, Oreg.: Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.
Kavanaugh, S. 2002. “Limitations of SEER for Measuring Efficiency.” ASHRAE Journal. July 2002. Atlanta Ga.:
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
TIAX LLC. 2003. Field testing report to National Energy Technology Laboratory, USDOE. Energy Efficient
Rooftop Air-Conditioner: Design, Development and Field Testing. Cambridge, Mass.
Authors:
Reid Hart, PE, Associate Director Technical Research, Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (PECI)
If any of the Work Statement authors plan to bid on the project, care must be taken to avoid actual or perceived conflict of interest. In particular,
the requirements of the Work Statement should not be tailored to a unique Work Statement author’s facility, equipment, or capability that is not
reasonably available to other bidders. If WS authors bid on the project, they must identify themselves as such in their proposals, and the
evaluators must satisfy themselves that these preparers did not gain an unfair advantage before their proposal may be considered. If it is
determined that a submitted proposal does exhibit a conflict of interest, then that proposal should be identified, not evaluated, and written
reasons given along with evaluations of the other proposals.
Nomenclature:
ARTU advanced rooftop unit
RSP regional system performance
DB dry-bulb temperature
DCV Demand Controlled Ventilation
EER energy efficiency ratio (Btu/(W h))
IEER integrated energy efficiency ratio (Btu/(W h))
MBH thousand Btus per hour
OAT outdoor air temperature
PMS project monitoring subcommittee
RTU rooftop unit
SEER seasonal energy efficiency ratio (Btu/(W h))
TC technical committee
WB wet-bulb temperature
WS #1608 Develop Load Based Method of Test for Unitary HVAC– v12m August 2012
Page 11
Reid Hart, PE
85444 Appletree Ct
Eugene OR 97405
Reid.hart@pnnl.gov
541-510-8545
August 22, 2012
RE: Work Statement (1608-WS), “Development of a Load-Based Method of Test for Light
Commercial Unitary HVAC”
To:
Michael Vaughn, MORTS, MORTS@ASHRAE.net
ASHRAE Research Administration Committee
Cc:
Byron Horak, Chair TC 8.11, byron.horak@intertek.com
Raymond Rite, Research Subcommittee Chair TC 8.11, ray.rite@irco.com
David Yashar, Research Liaison Section 8.0, david.yashar@nist.gov
Response to comments on the prior work statement are as follows:
Comment
Overall, the WS has been written too
broadly in scope; potential bidders will
develop diverging proposals. The WS,
however, is also sometimes too specific
as to what needs to be done (for
example Tasks 1.2 and 1.4).
There is good merit in exploring the
concept of a load-based test method.
This is a huge challenge alone and
should consume a huge effort
(development of the test method,
validation, perhaps round robin tests).
Response
The scope has been refined and reviewed in consultation with
TC members who participate in lab testing. The goal was to
provide a clear work statement that could be bid upon while
allowing the proposer to bring some creativity to the process.
It is correct that full development of a final method of test and
standard, along with analytical methods to optimize the
testing and project annual energy impact from the tests, will
be a long term process. This work statement is limited to the
first of six potential phases that are briefly identified in the
work statement introduction. Once this scope has verified the
feasibility of load based testing in one lab, the method can be
refined, tested in additional labs, and the required analytical
techniques developed to make the lab testing efficient and
useful for annual energy projections. It is prudent to
undertake this first phase and determine the feasibility of loadbased testing before developing detailed plans for the entire
long-range project.
Comment
Don’t understand the value/synergy of
including the Regional System
Performance tool in this project.
Would prefer the co-funding not be delinked from Phase 1 but rather 50% cofunding be negotiated for both phases.
Also, is it practical to expect the tandem
working of Phase 1 and Phase 2 to go
smoothly?
Response
The analytical method development is no longer included in
this work statement and is a future phase. The synergy from a
long term project perspective has three aspects:
1. The analytical methods will help determine break points in
the system map or curve to know where the critical conditions
are to test for in the lab based on input variables of outside
conditions and space loading. This should reduce the number
of tests and reduce lab expense.
2. The analytical methods will allow development of a system
map for the unitary system with the tested accessories or
controls. The system map or signature will be based results
from labs that have a known average power or other result
from the average load input and steady outdoor conditions.
Since it is expected that maintaining a constant load during a
given test, or maintaining exact loads from lab to lab will be
difficult, if not impossible, a statistical analysis method will be
needed to make the method viable.
3. The analytical methods for projecting regional annual
energy use will make the lab results useful for interested
parties. The earlier these methods are developed, the more
use can be made of the method for preliminary trials. These
trials will help improve the method both on the analytical side
and in the lab as the larger project moves through the phases
toward a standard.
The co-funding opportunity has lapsed, so this is no longer an
issue. The project as rewritten is limited to Phase 1 under
complete ASHRAE control and with one bidder providing
services.
I have reviewed the other detailed comments and made changes in the work statement to provide a
responsive project that can be successfully executed.
Respectfully Submitted,
Reid Hart, PE
Voting Member, TC 8.11
ASHRAE
Technology for a Better Environment
1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, GA 30329-2305 USA Tel 404.636.8400, Ext. 1211 Fax 678.539.2211
http://www.ashrae.org
Michael Vaughn, PE
Manager of Research & Technical Services
email: mvaughn@ashrae.org
TO:
Byron Horak, Chair TC 8.11, byron.horak@intertek.com
Raymond W Rite, Research Subcommittee Chair 8.11, ray.rite@trane.com
Richard Hermans, Research Liaison Section 8.0, rick.hermans@mcquay.com
Reid Hart, Work Statement Author, rhart@peci.org
FROM:
Michael Vaughn, MORTS, mvaughn@ashrae.org
DATE:
July 19, 2010
SUBJECT:
Work Statement 1608-WS, “Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary
HVAC, Phase 1”
At their annual meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Research Administration Committee (RAC) reviewed the
subject Work Statement (WS) and voted to return it. The following list summarizes the mandatory comments and
questions that need to be fully addressed in the work statement re-submission:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Address AHRI comments. Repeat their concerns as indicated in the RTAR review and respond to each one
in a cover letter.
Add more intermediate results and deliverables for each intermediate task, especially the method of test.
Require approval of intermediate deliverable before proceeding to next task.
Reconsider the time and cost estimates. Provide a cost for each phase and indicate the cost especially for
the phase proposed in this WS. Concentrate on the details of this phase in the WS.
Propose additional potential bidders with contact information (e-mail) for each..
Provide much more detail describing the “load based” tests to validate the concept. Identify a minimum
number of tests and conditions. Be more specific about what the outside air conditions must be for testing.
In general, give enough specifics so multiple organizations can bid the exact same project.
A WS evaluation sheet is attached as additional information and it provides a breakdown of comments and questions
from individual RAC members based on specific review criteria. This should give you an idea of how your work
statement is being interpreted and understood by others.
Please incorporate the above information into the work statement with the help of your Research Liaison prior to
submitting it to the Manager of Research and Technical Services for further consideration by RAC. In addition, a
separate document providing a point by point response to each of these comments and questions must be submitted
with the work statement. The response to each item should explain how the work statement has been revised to
address the comment, or a justification for why the Technical Committee feels a revision is unnecessary or
inappropriate. The work statement and response to these comments and questions must be approved by the Research
Liaison prior to submitting it to RAC.
If you wish for this work statement to be reconsidered at the next RAC meeting, the revised Work Statement must
be sent (electronically) to Mike Vaughn, Manager of Research and Technical Services (morts@ashrae.net ) by
August 15, 2010. The next opportunity for consideration after this deadline is December 15, 2010.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
This topic will time expire from the Society’s Research Implementation Plan on October 1, 2013 unless approved
for bid by RAC prior to this date.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
Project ID
1608
Project Title
Sponsoring TC
Cost / Duration
Submission History
Classification: Research or Technology Transfer
Annual 2010 Meeting Review
Check List Criteria
Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1
Adequate Intermediate Deliverables? The project should include the review of
intermediate results by the PMS at logical milestone points during the project.
Before project work continues, the PMS must approve the intermediate results.
Time and Cost Estimate Reasonable? The time duration and total cost of the
project should be reasonable so that the project can be as it is described in the WS.
TC 8.11, Unitary and Room Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
$185,000 / 18 months
1st submission as WS. RTAR conditionally approved 09.10.
Basic/Applied Research
WORK STATEMENT SUMMARY SCORE & COMMENTS
Voted NO
#1, #4, #7
#2, #5
Additional Comments & Suggestions
#1 - Specify results and deliverables from each task that will be reviewed and approved by the PMS before
proceeding to the next task. #7 - QUESTIONABLE #5- Intermediate deliverables are identified, but the
requirement for PMS approval could be more stringent. The last paragraph of the deliverables emphasizes the
need for intermediate monitoring of the project, but it isn't clear what this means to the contractor. Rather than this
paragraph, the WS should specifically state that intermediate deliverables are required and must be approved by
the PMS prior to proceeding with the next task.
#2- Cannot tell for sure because this is only one of four phases of the project to be completed. So, if the WS authors
can provide an idea of the total costs and time estimate for the other three phases, that would be useful in making
the final decision. #5- I think the time element is underestimated given that testing in two labs is required.
Developing methods of test can also be very time consuming.
Detailed Bidders List Provided? The contact information in the bidder list should
be complete so that each potential bidder can be contacted without difficulty.
#1 - I would like to see more proposed bidders. It should not be too difficult to add some.
Proposed Project Doable? Can the project as described in the WS be
accomplished? If difficulties exist in the project's WS that prevent a successful
conclusion of the project, then the project is not doable. In this situation, major
revision of the WS is needed to resolve the issues that cause the difficulty.
#9, #7, #5
#9 - There is possible confusion at the beginning of the objectives section between the numbered phases and the
list with the "dots". #7 - QUESTIONABLE #5 - I'm concerned that one of the more critical comments from the
RTAR review ("I believe the concept of load-based laboratory tests is flawed.") does not seemed to have been
addressed in the WS. The load-based tests are fundamental to the approach and I think the validity of the tests
must be resolved before this work is funded.
#1, #4, #7
#1- Need intermediate results/deliverables. #4 - I don't believe it is practical or useful to do laboratory-based
"load" testing. The dynamic response of an RTU on a lab room will not be extendable to any other circumstances.
This why god gave us building simulation programs -- which have already been vetted and compared to
experimental results over the years. I think this project would be more useful if it focused on developing appropriate
and manageable laboratory tests for individual components such as economizers, DCV controls, cycling controls.
#7- QUESTIONABLE
Proposed Project Description Correct? Are there technical errors and/or technical
omissions that the WS has that prevents it from correctly describing the project? If
there are, than the WS needs major revision.
Task Breakdown Reasonable? Is the project divided into tasks that make technical
and practical sense? Are the results of each task such that the results of the former
naturally flow into the latter? If not, then major revisions are needed to the WS that
would include: adding tasks, removing tasks, and re-structuring tasks among others.
#4, #7
#7 - QUESTIONABLE
#5 - The task breakdown is reasonable, but I recommend adding a task where the
method of test is reviewed with the PMS prior to any lab testing. This will help ensure that you get the most out of
the initial lab testing. Further refinement of the method of test, as currently specified, may still be necessary and a
second review/approval by the PMS would be appropriate.
Proposed Project Biddable? Examining the WS as a whole, is the project
described in the WS of sufficient clarity and detail such a potential bidder can
actually understand and develop a proposal for the project? This criterion combines
the previous three criteria into an overall question concerning the usefulness of the
WS. If the WS is considered to not be biddable, then either major revisions are in
order or the WS should be rejected.
#4, #7, #5
#7- QUESTIONABLE
#5- Although the WS identifies in considerable detail what is expected in the testing, I
still think it is too loose. In Task 1, the WS should identify a minimum number of load and outside condition points
(4th bullet) rather than require testing at a "limited number" of these conditions. In Task 2, the second bullet
requires the contractor to determine "reasonable ranges and increments of OAT". These subjective criteria need to
be tightened up to assure ASHRAE gets what they want from the project.
Decision Options
Initial
Decision?
ACCEPT
COND. ACCEPT
RETURN
REJECT
Additional Comments or Approval Conditions
#6
#2, #9
#1, #3, #4,
#7, #5
#1- Need intermediate deliverables. Have AHRI's concerns been addressed adequately? #2- It's either between
conditional acceptance and return for me since the authors have not provided more details on the scope, budget and
timeline for the remaining three phases of the project before we can make a decision to go forward on this. First
phase is to cost $185K and take 18 months to complete. #3 - This is a very complicated WS. The problem comes
from the fact that the WS includes the details of FOUR phases. There are two sets of objectives for Phase 1.
Needs rewriting to focus on Phase 1 and if necessary, other information about the other three phases could be
appended to the WS. #9 - The possible confusion mentioned above should be cleared up. Also, the research
Liaison should see the WS. #4 - I think this project should focus on findings ways to measure the performance of
individual components in the laboratory
ACCEPT Vote - Work statement(WS) ready to bid as-is
CONDITIONAL ACCEPT Vote - Minor Revision Required - RL can approve WS for bid without going back to RAC once TC satisfies RAC's approval condition(s) to his/her satisfaction
RETURN Vote - WS requires major revision before it can bid
REJECT Vote - Topic is no longer considered acceptable for the ASHRAE Research Program due to duplication of work by another project or because the work statement has a fatal flaw(s) that makes it unbiddable
WORK STATEMENT COVER SHEET
May 14, 2010
Date:
(Please Check to Insure the Following Information is in the Work Statement )
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A. Title
B Executive Summary
C. Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan
D. Application of the Results
E. State-of-the-Art (background)
F. Advancement to State-of-the-Art
G. Justification and Value to ASHRAE
H. Objective
I. Scope
J. Deliverables/Where Results will be Published
K. Level of Effort
Project Duration in Months
Professional-Months: Principal
Professional-Months: Total
Estimated $ Value
L. Other Information to Bidders (optional)
M. Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors
N. References
Responsible TC/TG:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8.11
For
Against
Abstaining
Absent or not returning Ballot
Total Voting Members
Title:
Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating
(CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1
WS#
1608
(To be assigned by MORTS - Same as RTAR #)
Results of this Project will affect the following Handbook Chapters,
Special Publications, etc.:
None initially
If successful may lead
to a new method of test
Standard development
Date of Vote:
*
*
*
Work Statement Authors:
Reid Hart
7
1
1
2
11
May 13, 2010
This W/S has been coordinated with TC/TG/SSPC (give vote and date):
TC 7.6 voted on 5/14/00 the results were 7-1-1-4
Has RTAR been submitted ?
Strategic Plan
Theme/Goals
Yes
Supports A2, A7, B4, D1, and D5
Gives credibility to equipment savings
claims for RTU systems beyond
efficiency measured by EER & IEER
Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee:
Reid Hart, PE, PECI (CM for TC 7.6 & TC 8.11)
Chair:
Members:
Roger Voorhis, Ingersoll Rand-Trane
Eric Newberg, United Technologies-Carrier
Project Monitoring Subcommittee:
(If different from Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee)
Recommended Bidders (name, address, e-mail, tel. number):
**Lorenzo Cremaschi, Ph.D; Oklahoma State University;
Cremasc@okstate.edu; (405) 744 5900
Eckhard Groll, Dr. Eng.; Purdue University;
groll@purdue.edu ; (765)494-7430
Steven Slayzak; National Renewable Energy Laboratories
Steven_Slayzak@nrel.gov ; 303-275-3000
Robert A. Davis; PG&E Applied Technology Services
rad2@pge.com ; (925) 866-5443
Potential Co-funders (organization, contact person information):
(Three qualified bidders must be recommended, not including WS authors.)
Is an extended bidding period needed?
Has an electronic copy been furnished to the MORTS?
Will this project result in a special publication?
Has the Research Liaison reviewed work statement?
* Reasons for negative vote(s) and abstentions
1 vote against thought this would lead to a mandatory requirement for
Additional manufacturer equipment testing.
** Denotes WS author is affiliated with this recommended bidder
Use additional sheet if needed.
Yes
No
X
X
X
X***
*** Research Liaison was traveling and not available for review.
How Long (weeks)
WORK STATEMENT # 1608-WS
SPONSORING TC/TG/SSPC: TC 8.11 Unitary and Room Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
CO-SPONSORING TC/TG/SSPCs: TC 7.6 Buildings Energy Performance
Title: Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1
Executive Summary:
Currently there are no recognized testing and rating procedures for unitary equipment systems operating in
conjunction with accessories and improved controls that provide savings beyond steady-state efficiency measured
and used in calculating EER, SEER, or IEER.. This project is the first step in developing a testing and regional
performance projection procedure for unitary HVAC equipment operating as a system with accessories or control
strategies. A credible testing method will allow manufacturers to better promote—and engineers to have an
objective basis for recommending—items like economizer effectiveness, variable speed fans, night flush, optimum
start, demand controlled ventilation, or condenser pre-cooling. This work statement focuses on phase 1, limited to
developing a method of test that can be used to improve measurement of energy use related to equipment cycling,
accessories, or control strategies that limit variation to no more than 15 minutes and can reasonably be tested in
about 30 to 90 minutes in an environmental lab.
Applicability to the ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan:
Development of the proposed testing procedure and comprehensive performance rating (CPR) system would support
multiple goals in ASHRAE’s strategic research plan, including A2, A7, B4, D1, and D5. The main impact would be
to give credibility to energy saving improvements beyond steady-state efficiency improvements in light commercial
unitary HVAC systems. In some cases this research supports the cited research goal by providing a testing platform
for improved technology to be developed.
Application of Results:
• Development of new testing and rating procedures that can lead to an ASHRAE standard for testing
Unitary Equipment system options and accessories and support development of a Comprehensive
Performance Rating (CPR).
• Provide marketing benefit to member control and equipment manufacturers though verification of product
performance.
• Support ASHRAE green building goals in the light commercial market.
• Allow utility and other energy efficient organizations to more readily support advances in rooftop operation
beyond efficiency as indicated by EER, SEER, or IEER.
State-of-the-Art (Background):
There are multiple technologies that function outside the realm of steady-state efficiency that have the potential to
save much more energy than incremental improvements that impact SEER, IEER or EER. An advanced rooftop unit
(ARTU) has been developed with efficiency improvements in areas other than steady-state efficiency. At this time
there are no recognized testing and rating procedures for unitary equipment systems operating in conjunction with
accessories and improved controls. Such untested features include economizer effectiveness, variable speed fans,
night flush, optimum start, demand controlled ventilation, condenser pre-cooling and other system enhancements.
Packaged unitary equipment serves 40% of commercial floor area. Potential HVAC energy savings for a package of
non-steady-state efficiency improvements ranged regionally from 30% to 48%, comparing favorably with a 1.5% to
6.7% savings from upgrading 13- to 15-SEER (see attached reference: Hart et al. 2008). There is a large potential
for savings not covered by current test standards. This package of measures results in a range of regional savings
that is 5 to 25 times the savings of an upgrade from SEER 13 to 15. There have been attempts to field test such
technologies; however, due to variability and small sample sizes, field tests have not provided conclusive results.
There is a need on the part of users, energy efficiency agencies, and utilities to have a standard test procedure similar
to the miles per gallon estimates provided for automobiles that will provide reliable energy estimates for unitary
equipment systems, including upgrades beyond basic efficiency. While some of the measures covered by this
testing can be simulated in computer models, current leading models for unitary systems are not well calibrated to
WS #1608 Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1 – Draft v10c April 26, 2010
Page 1
actual building operation.1 For example, small rooftop units typically have economizer bypass between exhaust and
return air in a difficult to determine proportion, and the actual maximum percentage outside air delivered is difficult
to test in the field. Without a lab testing method and an agreed-to approach to calibrate simulations, simulations will
not result in accurate and credible predictions or performance. Parties interested in energy savings such as utilities,
regional energy agencies, and tax credit agencies are increasingly requiring a higher level of savings credibility than
current energy simulation can provide.
While IEER accounts for part load operation and intermediate fan use and is a significant step forward for
equipment energy impact rating, there are multiple items that IEER does not account for that can save significant
energy. There are multiple innovations that manufacturers can make and have made to reduce energy use. The
tradition has been to create a separate testing procedure for each variation. The proposed testing method and CPR
can provide a means to quickly validate energy saving claims of a newly developed technology without waiting for a
new testing and rating methodology. This validation will speed approval of incentives through utility and tax credit
programs, helping support a new technology during its critical launch period. The many items addressed by the
CPR that are not covered by the IEER include:
●
Economizer function, including dynamic cycling and air stream Interaction.
●
Technologies that improve refrigeration system cycling degradation.
●
Technologies that dynamically change air flow at a particular part load condition, for example increasing
air speed during dX cooling operation and reducing it or cycling the fan when cooling or heating is not
operating.
●
Evaporative, heat recovery, and other technologies involving a change in outdoor conditions seen by the
system and interaction of indoor and outdoor air.
●
The ability to produce discrete results based on various outside and indoor load conditions that can then be
applied to regional climate information to arrive at regional performance results.
Advancement to the State-of-the-Art:
The research would adapt existing lab-based performance testing procedures to allow a range of control and other
technologies to be tested and system performance rated for multiple climates using temperature bin projection and
expected value analysis. Current testing methods test steady-state operation at fixed indoor and outdoor conditions.
The proposed testing will test at fixed outdoor conditions with a fixed load on the indoor test chamber to allow the
complete unitary equipment system to cycle through various states and simulate actual in-building operation. The
focus would be on light commercial applications and technologies like economizer cooling, optimum start, and night
flush or integrated unit thermal storage. It is not anticipated that these new tests would form the basis for equipment
rating standards since most of the items tested are separate accessories, options, or related controls and not part of
the basic equipment package.
Establishing a laboratory testing and comprehensive performance rating procedure that recognizes the efficiency
potential of non-steady-state technologies would be a rational first step and is the focus of the proposed research
(Phase 1). The testing procedure will allow testing and rating of specific solutions and equipment configurations
operating as a system to solve the many problems found with rooftop units in the field, and provide support for a
large potential of savings that exists beyond steady-state efficiency improvement. Using inverse modeling to project
annual energy use from a limited number of tests would allow assessment of whole unitary systems (Phase 1). Like
the advent of independent testing for compliance with BACnet standards, a recognized testing method would allow
controls and option manufacturers to provide credible evidence that their products produced claimed savings. The
availability of a generic test procedure for an entire system would allow new technologies to be tested without
waiting for a new and specific method of test to be developed. Once a method of test for controls and accessories
that introduce variability or cycling over short time frames, future phases could address more complex strategies that
require longer term testing or emulation to be evaluated.
Justification and Value to ASHRAE:
There is a need to provide optional full system testing procedures and rating for unitary HVAC equipment for
commercial facilities to recognize total system efficiency, including cycling issues, warm-up issues, ventilation
1
One leading program, DOE 2.1 & 2.2, incorrectly provides a low economizer mixed-air temperature for single stage dX units
when typical controls will reduce the economizer airflow to avoid very low discharge air temperatures.
WS #1608 Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1 – Draft v10c April 26, 2010
Page 2
issues, damper seals, economizer effectiveness, and control sequence effectiveness. The testing procedures would
give utility and efficiency planners the confidence needed to promote technology in a consistent regional approach
and increase the marketability of such accessories and increase the adoption of successful energy saving
technologies in this difficult to reach market. There is strong potential for a new ASHRAE testing standard to result,
and significant potential energy savings in the light commercial market.
Objectives:
Ultimately the goal is to develop a testing and performance projection procedure for unitary HVAC equipment
operating as a system with accessories or control strategies to determine the performance in terms of return air to
supply air temperature and enthalpy difference vs. system energy input.
It is anticipated that the full development of a testing method and energy performance protocol would be developed
in four phases as described below. The current research project is for phase 1. The four phases include:
1. Develop method of test for unitary systems in a constant load condition using an environmental lab;
develop inverse models for unitary system performance based on such tests and a simplified annual
performance projection.
2. Develop a protocol for using the testing, model, and projection developed in phase 1 to reflect the load
profiles and climatic conditions encountered on a regional basis that may form the basis for a system
comprehensive performance rating (CPR).
3. Expand the method of test developed in phase 1 to include transient load impacting parameters such as
changes in indoor maintained temperature and occupant loading relative to ventilation control. Use the
inverse models developed from such testing to develop or adapt a software unitary system emulator that
can be used for testing real-time controls performance impact.
4. Further test the method and procedure developed in phase 3 to verify its repeatability at multiple labs.
Develop a protocol for using the testing, model, and emulators to project annual system performance.
Develop load profiles and climatic conditions to allow annual regional performance projection.
Once the first phase is complete, possible future phases would likely include:
• Developing a comprehensive list of accessories, controls, and measures that could be tested by the method,
• Refining testing and rating procedures to include broader range of technologies,
• Conduct sensitivity analysis in conjunction with expected value analysis or other probability based methods
to reasonably project regional comprehensive performance ratings for a mix of field conditions based on
existing building characteristic studies.
• Other related research that may be necessary to support development of a new consensus standard.
The figure below shows the process flow for phases 1 & 2 of the project, resulting in a simplified rating.
WS #1608 Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1 – Draft v10c April 26, 2010
Page 3
Phase 1 will develop a method to:
• Test comprehensive performance of an RTU including cycling issues, fan energy during non-heating or
cooling, economizer operation including damper effectiveness and return bypass effects, direct, indirect,
and evaporative condenser assist strategies, static control impacts such as economizer changeover and
cycling differentials or other temperature control algorithms.
• Develop a method to determine both sensible and total effective hourly load on the RTU vs. its energy
input at various outside conditions and various indoor loading (rather than entering temperature and
humidity) conditions.
• Evaluate climatic data to determine reasonable ranges and increments of OAT(WB) to test at various
OAT(DB) conditions and the minimal test points to allow for interpolation with reasonable energy
performance results based on a bin analysis using MCWB.
• Use multiple lab tests to develop an inverse model method for the RTU tested, with energy input and water
input as the dependent variable based on independent variables of OAT(DB), OAT(WB), internal load
(total h/hr) and internal load (sensible).
• Develop a simplified projection of annual energy and water use for regions based on the inverse model
developed.
Phase 2 will develop a protocol to:
• Use the method of test developed in Phase 1 and computer simulation to investigate an efficient set of
testing conditions necessary to develop a reasonably accurate inverse model, including reasonable
characterization of ambient humidity impacts for national climate regions. Determine where interpolation
is adequate for reasonable accuracy.
• Use an expert committee relying on known regional building load characteristics and building type
distributions to develop expected load profile probabilities for sensible and latent loading.
• Develop an appropriate model projection method and input profiles that can be used to project energy
performance for a reasonable set of building types using the inverse model and temperature bin data with
MCWB.
Phase 3 will develop a method to:
• Test comprehensive performance of an RTU including phase 1 elements plus control algorithms that
require dynamic conditions over time for testing, such as DCV, optimum start, occupancy-based standby
setback and demand response setpoint adjustments.
• Use multiple lab tests to develop an inverse model method for the RTU tested, expanding independent
variables to occupancy (CO2) and indoor temperature and humidity.
• Develop a calibrated RTU emulator based on the lab-test-based inverse model and link to a building model
designed to operate in real time, passing space and climate conditions to real controls and receiving control
inputs from real controls.
• Develop or adapt a dynamic sensor emulator based on time-response sensor tests.
• Complete Lab testing of multiple units and compare sample days with emulator results.
Phase 4 will develop a protocol to:
• Use the method of test and simulation engine developed in Phase 3 to investigate an efficient set of sample
day real time conditions necessary to develop a reasonably accurate dynamic inverse model that can
characterize load and ambient climate impacts for national climate regions. Determine where interpolation
is adequate for reasonable accuracy.
• Test 3 market leader RTUs with economizers and develop “typical RTU” calibrated emulator for controls
testing to arrive at standard controls rating.
• Develop an appropriate regional model projection method and input profiles that can be used to project
energy performance for a reasonable set of building types (based on characteristic data and an expert
committee) using the dynamic inverse model and TMY climate data.
WS #1608 Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1 – Draft v10c April 26, 2010
Page 4
The anticipated overall process resulting from all 4 phases is shown in the diagram below.
The objectives of phase 1 of the research would be threefold:
• Develop an indoor load driven testing procedure that can use existing environmental chambers and conduct
review with an advisory committee;
• Run two technologies (economizer and variable fan speed during idle) through the proposed testing
procedures at a limited number of outside conditions and inside loads to verify the accuracy and
repeatability of the proposed ‘load based’ testing; and
• Develop a preliminary analytical method, likely based on a temperature bin approach that will form the
basis for extrapolation of a set number of tests to regional annual energy impacts.
To maintain an incremental approach and reasonable budget, the goal of this phase of research will be to develop
and validate the load based testing approach and analytical method. The new rating is not intended to replace basic
equipment rating standards since most of the items tested are separate accessories, options, or related controls and
not part of the basic unitary equipment.
Scope/Technical Approach:
Preliminary Proposed Testing Method. A Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for unitary HVAC
equipment and accessories and controls is suggested that would apply to commercial unitary equipment up to 25
tons. Such a test would provide a commercial regional energy use indicator. While there is a high variability in
commercial building loads, a standardized set of parameters would allow utility efficiency program managers and
commercial customers to compare different units in relation to how they operate under standardized regional
conditions. Units incorporating the measures discussed earlier could have their effectiveness tested as a
WS #1608 Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1 – Draft v10c April 26, 2010
Page 5
comprehensive system. The testing research would support an industry-wide consensus process to develop a
protocol for annual energy use projection in phase 2. It would likely be similar to the current protocols, with the
following suggested modifications:
• The testing apparatus would be similar to the ones specified in ASHRAE Standard 116-1995, except that it
would allow for operation of a pre-cooler on the condenser and it would allow interior air to be exchanged
with the outdoor side test room to simulate an economizer and ventilation and relief damper effectiveness.
• An alternative to condition based testing would be developed, where constant loads rather than conditions
are maintained in the indoor space to simulate zone loading and put controls through actual cycles. For the
process to work effectively in different labs, the method would focus on measuring the maintained
condition and using that condition in an inverse model rather than attempting to maintain the same load
condition in each lab.
• The external fan static pressures would be changed to more typical commercial values. It is likely that
reasonable values developed after review of field data would be double the current test specification.
• Typical schedules would need to be developed for cycling patterns and thermostat staging at various bin
temperatures to allow capture of variable speed fan, continuous fan, and resistance heat lockout impacts.
• Making available single-condition results and compiling regional CPR results will be important to making
the new standard flexible (Kavanaugh 2002).
• The testing method developed in phase 1 would be limited to single zone systems, where the system
variation and control cycles are relatively short (less than 15 minutes) and the impact of variation can be
measured at a steady load and outside condition over the course of a 30 to 90 minute test period.
Tasks required to complete phase 1 of this research project:
1.
2.
Develop the comprehensive test method, load measurement, and verify lab-to-lab accuracy.
o Develop a method to test comprehensive performance of an RTU including cycling issues, fan
energy during non-heating or cooling, economizer operation including damper effectiveness and
return bypass effects, direct, indirect, and evaporative condenser assist strategies, static control
impacts such as economizer changeover and cycling differentials or other temperature control
algorithms.
o Evaluate impacts on accuracy of such issues as exchange of air from indoor to outdoor space
through relief dampers, application of evaporative condenser assist strategies, temperature control
strategies used for unit control, etc.
o Develop a method to determine both sensible and total effective hourly load on the RTU vs. its
energy input at various outside conditions and various indoor loading (rather than entering
temperature and humidity) conditions.
o Test a typical rooftop unit in two lab settings to verify the accuracy of the load method with a
limited number of load and outside condition points. Test a unit with an outside air economizer
and a unit with a variable speed fan that reduces speed when heating or cooling is not on.
o Evaluate testing results to determine repeatability of tests with cycling. For example are results
improved if rather than a set testing period (30,45,60 min., etc.), a minimum test period was used
and the test period always started in the middle of the first off cycle and ended during the middle
of the next off cycle after the minimum time or minimum number of cycles had elapsed.
o Deliverable: Draft testing method and comparative limited testing results.
Refine the test method and develop an inverse model method.
o Meet with review committee and agree to any needed testing method revisions.
o Evaluate climatic data to determine reasonable ranges and increments of OAT (WB) to test at
various OAT (DB) conditions and the minimal test points to allow for interpolation with
reasonable energy performance results based on a bin analysis using MCWB.
o Use multiple lab tests to develop an inverse model method for the RTU tested, with energy input
and water input as the dependent variable based on independent variables of OAT (DB), OAT
(WB), internal load (total h/hr) and internal load (sensible).
o Evaluate the accuracy of an inverse model that includes extrapolation with one that does not.
o Develop a simplified projection of annual energy and water use for regions based on the inverse
model developed, and provide performance projections for at least four (4) varied ASHRAE
climate regions.
WS #1608 Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1 – Draft v10c April 26, 2010
Page 6
Complete a report on the results, method of test, and write up the testing method in standard
language.
o Deliverable: Draft testing method, inverse model method, and bin-based regional testing results.
Finalize project reporting and present results
o Meet with review committee and agree to and make any needed revisions.
o Prepare, review, finalize and present technical paper for ASHRAE conference, journal article, and
other final deliverables.
o
3.
Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published:
Progress, Financial, Interim, and Final Reports, Technical Paper(s), and Data shall constitute required deliverables
(“Deliverables”) under this Agreement and shall be provided as follows:
a. Progress and Financial Reports
Progress and Financial Reports, in a form approved by the Society, shall be made to the Society through its
Manager of Research and Technical Services at quarterly intervals; specifically on or before each January 1,
April 1, June 1, and October 1 of the contract period.
Furthermore, the Institution’s Principal Investigator, subject to the Society’s approval, shall, during the period
of performance and after the Final Report has been submitted, report in person to the sponsoring Technical
Committee/Task Group (TC/TG) at the annual and winter meetings, and be available to answer such questions
regarding the research as may arise.
b. Interim Report
An interim report with the draft testing method and comparative limited testing results shall be submitted to
document the feasibility of the testing procedure.
c. Final Report
A written report, design guide, or manual, (collectively, “Final Report”), in a form approved by the Society,
shall be prepared by the Institution and submitted to the Society’s Manager of Research and Technical
Services by the end of the Agreement term, containing complete details of all research carried out under this
Agreement. Unless otherwise specified, six copies of the final report shall be furnished for review by the
Society’s Project Monitoring Subcommittee (PMS).
Following approval by the PMS and the TC/TG, in their sole discretion, final copies of the Final Report will
be furnished by the Institution as follows:
d.
An executive summary in a form suitable for wide distribution to the industry and to the public.
Two bound copies
One unbound copy, printed on one side only, suitable for reproduction.
Two copies on CD-ROM; one in PDF format and one in Microsoft Word.
Technical Paper
One or more papers shall be submitted first to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and Technical Services
(MORTS) and then to the “ASHRAE Manuscript Central” website-based manuscript review system in a form
and containing such information as designated by the Society suitable for presentation at a Society meeting.
The Technical Paper(s) shall conform to the instructions posted in “Manuscript Central” for a technical paper.
The technical paper title shall contain the research project number (XXXX-RP) at the end of the title in
parentheses, e.g., (XXXX-RP).
Note: A technical paper describing the research project must be submitted after the TC has approved the
Final Report. Technical papers may also be prepared before the project’s completion, if it is desired to
WS #1608 Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1 – Draft v10c April 26, 2010
Page 7
disseminate interim results of the project. Contractor shall submit any interim papers to MORTS and the
PMS for review and approval before the papers are submitted to ASHRAE Manuscript Central for review by
the Society Program Committee.
e.
Data
The Institution agrees to maintain true and complete books and records, including but not limited to
notebooks, reports, charts, graphs, analyses, computer programs, visual representations etc., (collectively, the
“Data”), generated in connection with the Services. Society representatives shall have access to all such Data
for examination and review at reasonable times. The Data shall be held in strict confidence by the Institution
and shall not be released to third parties without prior authorization from the Society, except as provided by
GENERAL CONDITION VII, PUBLICATION. The original Data shall be kept on file by the Institution for
a period of two years after receipt of the final payment and upon request the Institution will make a copy
available to the Society upon the Society’s request.
f.
Project Synopsis
A written synopsis totaling approximately 100 words in length and written for a broad technical audience, which
documents 1. Main findings of research project, 2. Why findings are significant, and 3. How the findings benefit
ASHRAE membership and/or society in general shall be submitted to the Manager of Research and Technical
Services by the end of the Agreement term for publication in ASHRAE Insights
The Society may request the Institution submit a technical article suitable for publication in the Society’s
ASHRAE JOURNAL. This is considered a voluntary submission and not a Deliverable.
All Deliverables under this Agreement and voluntary technical articles shall be prepared using dual units; e.g.,
rational inch-pound with equivalent SI units shown parenthetically. SI usage shall be in accordance with
IEEE/ASTM Standard SI-10.
The above deliverables are necessary, but not sufficient, to monitor a research project. The PMS and the sponsoring
TC have the responsibility to review the contractor’s on-going activities and intermediate results, to ensure that the
methods used and results obtained will be valid and well-enough substantiated to be labeled as “ASHRAE-approved
findings.” Proper oversight cannot wait until the final report, when most of the budget has already been expended.
Level of Effort:
The estimated cost is $185,000 and the project is expected to take 18 months. The project anticipates the following
level of effort:
- Principal investigator: 4 professional-months
- Research Assistant:
9 professional-months
- Research Technician: 8 professional-months
- Equipment & materials: $15,000 to $30,000
Other Information for Bidders:
Describe clearly the labs that will be used for the project, and the project approach to the research objectives.
Proposal Evaluation Criteria:
1.
2.
3.
Contractor's understanding of Work Statement as revealed in proposal.
a)
Logistical problems associated
b)
Technical problems associated
Quality of methodology proposed for conducting research.
a)
Organization of project
b)
Management plan
Contractor's capability in terms of facilities.
a)
Managerial support
b)
Data collection
WS #1608 Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1 – Draft v10c April 26, 2010
15%
20%
15%
Page 8
4.
5.
6.
7.
c)
Technical expertise
d)
Environmental lab testing facilities
Qualifications of personnel for this project.
a)
Project team 'well rounded' in terms of qualifications
and experience in related work
b)
Project manager person directly responsible;
experience and corporate position
c)
Team members' qualifications and experience
d)
Time commitment of Principal Investigator
Student involvement
a)
Extent of student participation on contractor's team
b)
Likelihood that involvement in project will encourage entry
into HVAC&R industry
Probability of contractor's research plan meeting the objectives of the Work Statement.
a)
Detailed and logical work plan with major tasks and key milestones
b)
All technical and logistic factors considered
c)
Reasonableness of project schedule
Performance of contractor on prior ASHRAE or other projects.
(No penalty for new contractors to ASHRAE.)
20%
5%
20%
5%
References:
[AEC] Architectural Energy Corporation. 2007. “Project 4: Advanced Rooftop Unit Deliverable D4.3d – DRAFT
3 ARTU Cost Benefit Analysis.” Advanced Automated HVAC Fault Detection and Diagnostics
Commercialization Program.
August 28, 2007. Sacramento, Calif.: California Energy Commission.
www.newbuildings.org/mechanical.htm
[ARI] Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute. ARI Statistical Profile. October 7, 2004. Arlington, Virg.: ARI.
www.ari.org
Cowan, A. 2004. Review of Recent Commercial Roof Top Unit Field Studies in The Pacific Northwest and
California. October 8, 2004. White Salmon, Wash.: New Buildings Institute.
Hart, R., D. Morehouse and W. Price. 2006. “A Premium Economizer – An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” In
Proceedings of the ACEEE 2006 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 3:103-115. Washington,
D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
Hart, R., D. Morehouse and W. Price, J. Taylor, H. Reichmuth and M. Cherniack. 2008. “Up on the Roof: From the
Past to the Future.” In Proceedings of the ACEEE 2008 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 3:.
Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Included here:
C:\_PapersPresent\
ACEEE\2008Rooftop\
Jacobs, P., V. Smith, C. Higgins, and M. Brost. 2003. “Small Commercial Rooftops: Field Problems, Solutions and
the Role of Manufacturers.” In Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Building Commissioning: May
20-22, 2003. Portland, Oreg.: Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.
Kavanaugh, S. 2002. “Limitations of SEER for Measuring Efficiency.” ASHRAE Journal. July 2002. Atlanta Ga.:
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
TIAX LLC. 2003. Field testing report to National Energy Technology Laboratory, USDOE. Energy Efficient
Rooftop Air-Conditioner: Design, Development and Field Testing. Cambridge, Mass.
Authors:
Reid Hart, PE, Associate Director Technical Research, PECI
If any of the Work Statement authors plan to bid on the project, care must be taken to avoid actual or perceived conflict of interest. In particular,
the requirements of the Work Statement should not be tailored to a unique Work Statement author’s facility, equipment, or capability that is not
reasonably available to other bidders. If WS authors bid on the project, they must identify themselves as such in their proposals, and the
evaluators must satisfy themselves that these preparers did not gain an unfair advantage before their proposal may be considered. If it is
determined that a submitted proposal does exhibit a conflict of interest, then that proposal should be identified, not evaluated, and written
reasons given along with evaluations of the other proposals.
WS #1608 Develop Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Unitary HVAC, Phase 1 – Draft v10c April 26, 2010
Page 9
ASHRAE
Technology for a Better Environment
1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, GA 30329-2305 USA Tel 404.636.8400, Ext. 1211 Fax 678.539.2211
http://www.ashrae.org
Michael Vaughn, PE
Manager of Research & Technical Services
email: mvaughn@ashrae.org
TO:
Don Schuster, Chair TC 8.11, don.schuster@carrier.utc.com
FROM:
Mike Vaughn
Manager of Research and Technical Service
CC:
Richard Hermans, Research Liaison 8.0, rick.herman@mcquay.com
Raymond Rite, Research Subcommittee Chair, ray.rite@trane.com
Reid Hart, RTAR Author, rhart@peci.org
DATE:
November 2, 2009
SUBJECT:
1608-RTAR, “Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Light Commercial Unitary
HVAC, Phase 1;”
During their recent Tech Weekend teleconference meeting, the Research Administration Committee
(RAC) reviewed the subject Research Topic Acceptance Request (RTAR) and voted to conditionally
accept it for further development into a work statement (WS) provided that RAC approval
condition(s) are addressed to the satisfaction of your Research Liaison in a revision to the RTAR.
See the bottom of the attached RTAR review summary for the approval condition(s).
The RTAR review summary also contains comments from individual members of RAC that the TC
may or may not choose to also consider when revising the RTAR or developing the WS; some of these
comments may indicate areas of the RTAR and subsequent WS where readers require additional
information or rewording for clarification.
Please coordinate changes to the RTAR with the help of your Research Liaison Rick Hermans,
rick.hermans@mcquay.com, in response to the approval condition(s) only so that it can submitted to
the Manager of Research and Technical Services and posted by ASHRAE as part of the Society’s
Research Implementation Plan.
Once the revised RTAR is posted, please develop a work statement also with the help of your
Research Liaison prior to submitting it to the Manager of Research and Technical Services for
consideration by RAC. The work statement must be approved by the Research Liaison prior to
submitting it to RAC. The first draft of the work statement should be submitted to RAC no later than
August 15, 2011 or it will be dropped from display on the Society’s Research Implementation Plan.
The next submission deadline for work statements is December 15th 2009 for consideration at the
Society’s 2010 winter meeting; the submission deadline after that is May 15th, 2010.
Project ID
1608
Project Title
Sponsoring TC
Cost
Submission History
Classification: Research or Technology Transfer
Tech Weekend 2009 Meeting Review
Check List Criteria
Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Light Commercial Unitary HVAC, Phase 1
TC 8.11
$185K - 18M
1st Submission
Applied Research
Voted NO
#4
Is there a well-established need? The RTAR should include
some level of literature review that documents the
importance/magnitude of a problem. If not, then the RTAR
should be returned for revision.
Is this appropriate for ASHRAE funding? If not, then the
RTAR should be rejected. Examples of projects that are not
appropriate for ASHRAE funding would include: 1) research
that is more appropriately performed by industry, 2) topics
outside the scope of ASHRAE activities.
#10 - Co-sponsoring expected? The TC should consider securing some outside funding to move this
project forward. #4 - The purpose of rating procedures are to compare the relative performance of
different products, not predict performance of integrated systems.
#15 - This is a good "System efficiency" metric for unitary equipment to be rated against. The RTAR
states in the Application of Results section that this research can lead to an AHRI Rating Standard.
However, AHRI has concerns with the complexity of the Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) and
its possible use as a performance rating descriptor or requirement for AHRI certification. Concerns are
that it may not be possible to test all the situations described in the RTAR and that rating and
certification procedures would become overly complicated with the inclusion of these items. AHRI is
already internally examining other issues to address components and provisions in its current unitary
testing and rating standards.
Is there an adequate description of the approach in order
for RAC to be able to evaluate the appropriateness of the
budget? If not, then the RTAR should be returned for revision.
#8
#4 - Will the RTAR author be a potential bidder? #8 - Budget seems high considering only two
technologies would be tested. #15 - The RTAR indicates that AHRI is a potential co-funder. However, at
this time AHRI is not likely to provide co-funding for this project.
Have the proper administrative procedures been followed?
This includes recording of the TC vote, coordination with other
TCs, proper citing of the Research Strategic Plan, etc. If not,
then the RTAR could be returned for revision or possibly
conditionally accepted based on adequately resolving these
issues.
Decision Options
#15 - Should ASHRAE go forward with this project, the members of the AHRI Unitary Large Equipment
Engineering Committee would like to participate on the project monitoring committee.
Initial
Decision?
ACCEPT
X
COND. ACCEPT
RETURN
REJECT
#4 - I believe the concept of load-based laboratory tests is flawed. Laboratory test are good for
measuring specific performance parameters (damper leakage, off-cycle fan power, etc). Dynamic tests
in the laboratory will have no meaning, not be repeatable, and have no application in real buildings. No
rating standard can represent what happens in all climates and all buildings -- that's why we use building
simulation models - Please respond to this concern.
#4
#10
Is the budget reasonable for the project scope? If not, then
RTAR could be returned for revision or conditionally accepted
with a note that the budget should be revised for the WS.
RTAR SUMMARY SCORES & COMMENTS
Comments & Suggestions
Additional Comments or Approval Conditions
Approval Conditions: 1) Would like to see more structure on how systems will be classified or
categorized in order to scope the overall research effort. Perhaps this could be a task in the work
statement. The contractor could propose how to develop a more comprehensive test procedure for
systems containing more elements than the one in this project. Preferably the TC should define what
equipment, accessories and controls are to be to be included in the initial phase of the project. However,
if left as a task for the contractor to recommend, then the project should have a go or no-go decision
after that task. The concern is that the TC should define the scope/boundaries of the project and not the
contractor after the project is underway.
2) Its seems tests should focus on more tangible steady-state performance issues. For instance instead
of looking and simulating economizer load response dynamics determine that the (enthalpy) set points
for changeover are repeatable and accurate, , etc.
3) It seems that the scope of a compressive test rating procedure should be limited to features that are
sold as part of a packaged unit from the manufacturer and should not include features that are typically
installed in the field, particularly when the features can come from different manufacturers. The work
statement should clearly address the features that will be considered and the availability of complete
system packages that include the features that will be considered.
4) The RTAR states in the Application of Results can lead to an AHRI Rating Standard. However, AHRI
has concerns with the complexity of the Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) and its possible use
as a performance rating descriptor or requirement for AHRI certification. Concerns are that it may not be
possible to test all the situations described in the RTAR and that rating and certification procedures
would become overly complicated with the inclusion of these items. AHRI is already internally examining
other issues to address components and provisions in its current unitary testing and rating standards.
5) At this time AHRI is not likely to provide co-funding for this project, per Steve Szymurski.
6) If ASHRAE goes forward with this project, the members of the AHRI Unitary Large Equipment
Engineering Committee are willing to participate on the project monitoring committee.
7) TC should secure outside funding.
1608-RTAR
Research Topic Acceptance Requests (RTARs)
Unique Tracking Number Assigned by MORTS ____________________________
RESEARCH TOPIC ACCEPTANCE REQUEST (RTAR) FORM
(Sponsoring TC/TG/SSPC: TC 8.11)
Title: Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for Light Commercial Unitary HVAC, Phase 1
Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan:
Development of the proposed testing procedure and comprehensive performance rating (CPR) system would support
multiple goals in ASHRAE’s strategic research plan, including A2, A7, B4, D1, and D5. The main impact would be
to give credibility to energy saving improvements beyond steady-state efficiency improvements in light commercial
unitary HVAC systems. In some cases this research supports the cited research goal by providing a testing platform
for improved technology to be developed.
Research Classification: Applied Research
TC/TG/SSPC Vote:
9-0-2
and one vote not returned.
Estimated Cost:
$185,000
Reasons for Negative Votes and Abstentions: E-mail ballot
Estimated Duration: 18-24 months
RTAR Lead Author Reid Hart, PE (rhart@peci.org) Expected Work Statement Lead Author Reid Hart, PE
Co-sponsoring TC/TG/SSPCs and votes:
TC 7.6: 10-0-2
Possible Co-funding Organizations:
Not yet approached: (AHRI, CEC, USDOE, EPA)
Proposal in to CEC for similar testing research of economizer – received favorable results in preliminary ranking
Application of Results:
•
•
•
•
Development of new testing and rating procedures that can lead to an ASHRAE Method of Test standard
for Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) of Unitary Equipment systems and an AHRI Ratings
standard.
Provide marketing benefit to member control and equipment manufacturers though certification of product
performance.
Support ASHRAE green building goals in light commercial market.
Allow utility and other energy efficient organizations to more readily support advances in rooftop operation
beyond full load efficiency as indicated by EER, SEER, IEER.
State-of-the-Art (Background):
There are multiple technologies that function outside the realm of steady-state efficiency that have the potential to
save much more energy than incremental improvements that impact SEER, IEER or EER. An advanced rooftop unit
(ARTU) has been developed with efficiency improvements in areas other than steady-state efficiency. At this time
there are no recognized testing and rating procedures for unitary equipment systems operating in conjunction with
accessories and improved controls. Such untested features include economizer effectiveness, variable speed fans,
night flush, optimum start, demand controlled ventilation, condenser pre-cooling and other system enhancements.
Packaged unitary equipment serves 40% of commercial floor area. Potential HVAC energy savings for a package of
non-steady-state efficiency improvements ranged regionally from 30% to 48%, comparing favorably with a 1.5% to
6.7% savings from upgrading 13- to 15-SEER (see attached reference: Hart et al. 2008). There is a large potential
for savings not covered by current test standards. This package of measures results in a range of regional savings
that is 5 to 25 times the savings of an upgrade from SEER 13 to 15. There have been attempts to field test such
technologies; however, due to variability and small sample sizes, field tests have not provided conclusive results.
There is a need on the part of users, energy efficiency agencies, and utilities to have a standard test procedure similar
to the miles per gallon estimates provided for automobiles that will provide reliable energy estimates for unitary
1608-RTAR
equipment systems, including upgrades beyond basic efficiency.
Advancement to the State-of-the-Art:
The research would adapt existing lab-based performance testing procedures to allow a range of control and other
technologies to be tested and system performance rated for multiple climates using temperature bin projection and
expected value analysis. Current testing tests steady-state operation at fixed indoor and outdoor conditions. The
proposed testing will test at fixed outdoor conditions with a fixed load on the indoor test chamber to allow the
complete unitary equipment system to cycle through various states and simulate actual in-building operation. The
focus would be on light commercial applications and technologies like economizer cooling, optimum start, and night
flush or integrated unit thermal storage. It is not anticipated that these new tests would form the basis for equipment
rating standards since most of the items tested are separate accessories, options, or related controls and not part of
the basic equipment package.
Establishing a laboratory testing and comprehensive performance rating procedure that recognizes the efficiency
potential of non-steady-state technologies would be a rational first step and is the focus of the proposed research.
The testing procedure will allow testing and rating of specific solutions and equipment configurations operating as a
system to solve the many problems found with rooftop units in the field, and provide support for a large potential of
savings that exists beyond steady-state efficiency improvement.
Justification and Value to ASHRAE:
There is a need to provide optional full system testing procedures and rating for unitary HVAC equipment for
commercial facilities to recognize total system efficiency, including cycling issues, warm-up issues, ventilation
issues, damper seals and economizer effectiveness. The testing procedures would give utility and efficiency
planners the confidence needed to promote technology in a consistent regional approach and increase the
marketability of such accessories and increase the adoption of successful energy saving technologies in this difficult
to reach market. There is strong potential for a new ASHRAE testing standard to result, and significant potential
energy savings in the light commercial market.
Objectives:
Ultimately the goal is to develop a testing procedure for unitary HVAC equipment operating as a system with
accessories or control strategies to determine the performance in terms of return air to supply air temperature and
enthalpy difference vs. system energy input.
The objectives of phase 1 of the research would be threefold:
• Develop an indoor load driven testing procedure that can use existing environmental chambers and conduct
review with an advisory committee;
• Run two technologies (economizer and variable fan speed during idle) through the proposed testing
procedures at a limited number of outside conditions and inside loads to verify the accuracy and
repeatability of the proposed ‘load based’ testing; and
• Develop a preliminary analytical method, likely based on a temperature bin approach, that will form the
basis for extrapolation of a set number of tests to regional annual energy impacts.
To maintain an incremental approach and reasonable budget, the goal of this phase of research will be to develop
and validate the load based testing approach and analytical method. The new rating is not intended to replace basic
equipment rating standards since most of the items tested are separate accessories, options, or related controls and
not part of the basic unitary equipment.
Once this proof of concept phase is complete, future phases would likely include:
• Developing a comprehensive list of accessories, controls, and measures that could be tested by the method,
• Refining testing and rating procedures to include broader range of technologies,
• Develop and test acceleration strategies to reduce lab test time for dynamic real-time sequences such as
optimum warm-up and night flush,
• Analyze climate zone TMY data to determine likely indoor and outdoor testing conditions required for
regional results with the aim of reducing the actual test point requirements through smart interpolation, and
• Conduct sensitivity analysis in conjunction with expected value analysis or other probability based methods
to reasonably project regional comprehensive performance ratings for a mix of field conditions based on
existing building characteristic studies.
• Other related research that may be necessary to support development of a new consensus standard.
1608-RTAR
Key References:
[AEC] Architectural Energy Corporation. 2007. “Project 4: Advanced Rooftop Unit Deliverable D4.3d – DRAFT
3 ARTU Cost Benefit Analysis.” Advanced Automated HVAC Fault Detection and Diagnostics
Commercialization Program.
August 28, 2007. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.
www.newbuildings.org/mechanical.htm
[ARI] Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute. ARI Statistical Profile. October 7, 2004. Arlington, VA: ARI.
www.ari.org
Cowan, A. 2004. Review of Recent Commercial Roof Top Unit Field Studies in The Pacific Northwest and
California. October 8, 2004. White Salmon, WA.: New Buildings Institute.
Hart, R., D. Morehouse and W. Price. 2006. “A Premium Economizer – An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” In
Proceedings of the ACEEE 2006 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 3:103-115. Washington,
D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
Hart, R., D. Morehouse and W. Price, J. Taylor, H. Reichmuth and M. Cherniack. 2008. “Up on the Roof: From the
Past to the Future.” In Proceedings of the ACEEE 2008 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 3:.
Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
Jacobs, P., V. Smith, C. Higgins, and M. Brost. 2003. “Small Commercial Rooftops: Field Problems, Solutions and
the Role of Manufacturers.” In Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Building Commissioning: May
20-22, 2003. Portland, OR: Portland Energy Conservation, Inc.
Kavanaugh, S. 2002. “Limitations of SEER for Measuring Efficiency.” ASHRAE Journal. July 2002. Atlanta Ga.:
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
TIAX LLC. 2003. Field testing report to National Energy Technology Laboratory, USDOE. Energy Efficient
Rooftop Air-Conditioner: Design, Development and Field Testing. Cambridge, MA.
Additional Information
Preliminary Proposed Testing Protocol. A Comprehensive Performance Rating (CPR) for unitary HVAC
equipment and accessories and controls is suggested that would apply to commercial unitary equipment up to 25
tons. Such a test would provide a commercial regional energy use indicator. While there is a high variability in
commercial buildings, a standardized set of parameters would allow utility efficiency program managers and
commercial customers to compare different units in relation to how they operate under standardized regional
conditions. Units incorporating the measures discussed earlier could have their effectiveness tested as a
comprehensive system. The protocol would need to be developed through an industry-wide consensus process. It
would likely be similar to the current protocols, with the following suggested modifications:
• The testing apparatus would be similar to the ones specified in ASHRAE Standard 116-1995, except that it
would allow for operation of a pre-cooler on the condenser and it would allow interior air to be exchanged
with the outdoor side test room to simulate an economizer and ventilation and relief damper effectiveness.
• An alternative to condition based testing would be developed, where constant loads rather than conditions
are maintained in the indoor space to simulate zone loading and put controls through actual cycles.
• Simulation of warm-up and night flush issues would require a warm-up period be simulated in real (or
accelerated) time with a schedule of heat load at various temperature bins. It may be possible to reduce the
number of warm-up bins simulated and extrapolate for full seasonal information.
• The external fan static pressures would be changed to more typical commercial values. It is likely that
reasonable values developed after review of field data would be double the current test specification.
• Typical schedules would need to be developed for cycling patterns, thermostat staging, and carbon dioxide
loading at various bin temperatures to allow capture of variable speed fan, resistance heat lockout, and
DCV control operation with continuous ventilation.
• Making available single-condition results and compiling regional CPR results will be important to making
the new standard flexible (Kavanaugh 2002).
© Copyright 2024