Search

We simulated the energy performance of smart ventilation controls based on outdoor temperature in homes located in California climate regions, designed to comply with the 2016 Title 24, Part 6 California Energy Code prescriptive requirements. The smart controls shift ventilation rates in time, but ensure an annual occupant pollutant exposure equal to, or less than, what would be experienced in a home with a constant ventilation rate equal to the whole house target airflow in the ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2016. Annual simulations of previously developed prototype homes with validated ventilation models were conducted via co-simulation of EnergyPlus with CONTAM. Controller performance varied substantially by climate zone, airtightness and house prototype. Smart controls were generally ineffective in Climate Zone 1 (Arcata) due to its lack of a cooling season and low diurnal temperature swings. The most successful smart controls used parameters pre-calculated using an optimization routine. In order to better inform state energy policy, we also determined savings weighted by the amount of new home construction in each climate. The best controls averaged about one-third of ventilation-related energy savings that increased to about 48–55% when weighted. Annual average savings were about 650–700 kWh/year for the best controllers. The vast majority of site energy savings were for heating end-uses (>90% of total savings). Whole house ventilation rates increased between 0% and 42%, with typical increases in the 15–20% range. The best-performing control strategies shifted ventilation rates seasonally and modulated flows within each season. Peak concentrations during low ventilation times were kept below an exposure level of 3, well below the maximum of 5 required to avoid acute exposure issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abundance of research has been performed to understand the physics of latent thermal energy storage with phase change material. Some analytical and numerical findings have been validated by experiments, but there are few free and open-source models available to the general public for use in systems simulation and analysis. The Modelica programming language is a good avenue to make such models available, because it is object-oriented, equation-based, declarative, and acausal. These characteristics have enabling the creation of component model libraries that can be used to build larger system simulations for design analysis. The authors have previously developed a numerical framework to model phase change thermal storage and have validated model predictions with experiments. The objectives of this paper are to describe the transfer of the numerical framework to an implementation in a Modelica component model and to validate the Modelica model with data from the experiment and the original numerical framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peak power demand strains electrical grids and increases cost of electricity generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure. Many studies have examined ways of reducing peak power demand, including modification of room air temperature setpoints or reduction of lighting levels. However, very few or no studies have examined the peak power reduction resource offered by temporary curtailment of building ventilation systems. For this reason, we conducted a simulation campaign in which we examined the resource offered by temporary ventilation curtailment in commercial buildings of different use types across the United States and in residences in the state of California, with the essential constraint that any changes resulted in air quality acceptable to occupants through additional ventilation to compensate for the curtailment. To do this, we employed previously validated building models implemented in the airflow and contaminant transport tool CONTAM and building thermal and systems modeling tool EnergyPlus, in some cases co-simulated. Results show savings are highly dependent on building type and climate but range from 0–2 W/ft2 and up to 40% of total peak building power demand. Depending on building type, this power shed can be conducted for 1.5–8 h before acute exposure or odor concerns are expected, assuming a safety factor of 2. This reduction is of the same magnitude as that offered by thermal control strategies such as setpoint increase, or from lighting reduction strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]