Clifford Federspiel, Research Specialist, Center for the Built Environment
Qiang Zhang, Graduate Student, Department of Architecture
Edward Arens, Professor of Architecture

Sponsor: CIEE

Laboratory buildings consume considerably more energy per square foot than other kinds of commercial buildings, and they are becoming increasingly energy intensive. Mills et al.(1996) estimate that energy intensities (e.g., kWh/ft2/year) in laboratory buildings are four to five times higher than those found in non-laboratory buildings, such as offices, and that energy consumption in laboratory buildings in California is growing exponentially at a rate of 3.9% per year. Huizenga et al. (1998) show that the energy intensity of laboratory buildings on the UC Berkeley campus is three times greater than that of non-laboratory buildings. For laboratory buildings constructed after 1980 it is six times that of non-laboratory buildings.

One of the reasons that the energy intensity of laboratories is so high is because of the HVAC requirements that are specific to laboratories. Due to the nature of work in laboratories, the air change rate must be higher than in other kinds of commercial buildings, and they are usually supplied with 100% outside air. Large quantities of air are exhausted from the laboratory either through the exhaust from the occupied space or from fume hoods or other local exhaust devices. The movement of large quantities of air causes the fan power used by laboratory buildings to be high. Conditioning large quantities of air causes the chiller power to be high.

Concerns for occupant safety and reliable process operation combined with considerable uncertainty about the magnitude and variation of heating and cooling loads often leads to decisions which result in the inefficient operation of laboratory buildings. This problem is amplified by the fact that the energy intensity of laboratory buildings is high and the energy consumption is growing exponentially. Consequently, there is a need for tools that will allow operations staff to determine how well laboratory buildings are operating sothat design and operational problems can be addressed.

In an earlier phase of this project, protocols for assessing the performance of building subsystems such as chiller, boilers, lighting, and plug and process loads were developed and documented (Huizenga et al., 1998). One motivation for that work was the desire to document actual loads in laboratory buildings so that designers could make more accurate decisions about the necessary capacity of mechanical equipment such as chillers. Huizenga et al. (1998) used the protocols to show that cooling loads and plug and process loads in a building on the UC Berkeley campus were significantly lower than that indicated by the design documentation.

The objectives of this phase of the project are as follows:

1. to develop a benchmarking protocol for whole-building energy usage,
2. to develop a database for implementing the benchmarking calculations and comparing the performance of buildings,
3. to develop a reporting tool for conveying the results of the benchmarking process to the design community, and
4. to test the benchmarking protocol, database, and reporting tool.

Mills, E., G. Bell, D. Sartor, A. Chen, D. Avery, M. Siminovitch, S. Greenberg, G. Marton, 
     A.  de Almeida, L. E. Lock, 1996, "Energy Efficiency in California Laboratory-Type
     Facilities," LBNL report no. LBNL-39061.

Huizenga, C. W. Van Liere, and F. Bauman, 1998, "Development of Low-Cost Monitoring
     Protocols for Evaluating Energy Use in Laboratory Buildings" Center for Environmental
     Design Research, UC Berkeley, report no. CEDR-02-98.