Welcome to the Title 24: ASHRAE 90.1- Related Topics Webex

05/10/2010CA Utilities 2011 Title 24 Stakeholder Meeting for Proposed Code Changes

1CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM

Welcome to the Title 24: ASHRAE 90.1-

Related Topics Webex

Call in Number: 1-702-835-5019

Participant Access Code: 76523#

Please do not use audio from Webex

2

California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program

IntroductionASHRAE 90.1-Related Topics #1

Energy Solutions

Taylor Engineering

May 10, 2010



Agenda

● 10:00–10:15 Introductions

● 10:15–11:15 Chiller Efficiency

● 11:15-12:00 Cooling Towers12:00–12:45 Lunch

● 12:45–1:30 Small ECM Motors

● 1:30–2:15 Kitchen Ventilation2:15–2:30 Break

● 2:30–3:15 Garage CO DCV

● 3:15–4:00 VAV Labs

● 4:00–4:15 Closing Comments



IOU Support for 2011 Title 24

● The California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) are actively supporting the California Energy Commission (CEC) in developing the state’s building energy efficiency code (Title 24)

● Their joint intent is to achieve significant energy savings through the development of reasonable, responsible, and cost-effective code change proposals for the 2011 code update and beyond

● As part of the IOU effort, at the request of the CEC, we are hosting stakeholder meetings to get industry input and feedback on our code change proposals



Code Change Activity

● 2011 T-24 Base Code (Part 6 of Title 24)

● 2011 Reach Standard (Part 11 of Title 24)

● Green Building Standard – i.e. CalGreen

● Voluntary standards that local governments can

adopt

● Future Codes

● 2014 T-24

● Future Reach Codes



Requirements for a Successful Code Change

● To be included in the base code, a measure must:● Be cost-effective

● based on the standards-induced additional first cost, maintenance costs, measure life, and energy cost savings

● according to the Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) life-cycle costing methodology and weather data to be provided by the California Energy Commission

● Be possible to implement using equipment that is readily available from multiple providers

● Or that is reasonably expected to be available following the code change



ASHRAE 90.1- Related CASE Topics for 2011 Title 24 Cycle

● Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Topics

● Chiller Efficiency and Chiller k Factor Equation

● Cooling Tower Efficiency (For process loads and

high usage applications)

● Small ECM motors

● Kitchen ventilation

● Garage Carbon Monoxide (CO) Demand

Controlled Ventilation (DCV)

● Variable air volume (VAV) labs and fume exhaust



Stakeholder Meetings Process

● Minimum of three meetings:

● First: present scope, request data

● Code change direction and possible options

● Methodology

● Best practices, market data

● Second: present findings

● Results of data collection and analysis

● Cost effectiveness

● “Strawman” proposed code language

● Third/final: present proposed code language

● All meetings can be attended remotely



99

Outline For Measure Presentations

● Summary of current code requirements

● Typical practice

● Summary of potential code change

proposals

● Initial data/findings

● Potential code change proposals

● Planned data collection and analysis

● Specific stakeholder requests



Submitting Comments

● Informal Comment Process

● Comments can be submitted to CASE authors,

substantive comments will be receive responses.

● Questions and responses will not be posted

online, but common or frequent questions will

be communicated as necessary between

stakeholders

● The team will work with stakeholders to resolve

issues as best we can.

● The CEC has a formal comment process during

later stages of the official rulemaking process



Types of Code Change

● Mandatory Measure: The change would add or modify a mandatory measure

● Mandatory measures must be satisfied whether the prescriptive or performance method is used to show compliance

● Prescriptive Requirement: The change would add or modify a prescriptive requirement that must be met when using prescriptive compliance approach

● When using performance compliance (computer modeling), prescriptive requirements define a standard design (which sets the energy budget) and are not mandatory



Types of Code Change – Ctd.

● Compliance Option: The change would add or modify a new measure to the list of existing compliance options for meeting the Standards using the performance approach.

● Modeling: The change would modify the calculation procedures or assumptions used in making performance calculations.

● This change would not add a compliance option or a new requirement, but would affect the way that trade-offs are made.



Schedule: Key Dates

● Mar 2010 - Dec 2010● CEC develop foundation /methodology

● IOUs:● Conduct research, and cost effectiveness analysis

● Present results at stakeholder meetings

● Dec 2010● IOUs finalize code change proposals for submittal to CEC

● Feb 2011● CEC opens Rulemaking for Title 24, develop 45-day

language

● June 15, 2011● Title 24 Adoption date

● Jan. 1, 2013● Title 24 Implementation date



Ground Rules

● For those attending by telephone/web● Please DO NOT place your phone on HOLD

● We do not want to hear your hold music● Please mute your microphone, unless you want to speak● Ask questions/comment by “chat” or by voice● Call will drop at 12:30 – please hang up and re-dial in

● We want to hear your concerns● Opposing viewpoints are encouraged● We are seeking information, not resolution

● Time is limited● Raise your hand and be acknowledged by presenter● Clearly state your name and affiliation prior to speaking● Speak loudly for the people on the phone

● Minutes and presentation material will be available online – we will distribute link

15


Chiller Efficiency CASE Stakeholder Meeting #1

Jeff Stein

Taylor Engineering, LLC

May 10, 2010



16

ASHRAE 2 – Chiller Efficiency




proposals








Current Code Requirements

● Chiller efficiency unchanged since 2001

● Only centrifugal chillers designed for 40ºF - 48ºF chilled water and 75ºF to 85ºF condenser water

● ~50% of centrifugal chillers are outside this range

● Chillers not federally pre-empted but T24 has always followed 90.1




90.1-2007 Addenda M, BL, BT

● Higher efficiencies● Absorption chillers unchanged

● Two options for chiller compliance:● Path A (intended for constant speed chillers)

● Higher COP (full load) and Higher IPLV (part load) than now

● Path B (intended for variable speed chillers)● Lower COP but much higher IPLV than now

● Greater range of non-standard operating conditions over which the chiller efficiency requirements apply

● Replaced non-standard tables with an equation

● 52% more chillers now covered

● Air-cooled chillers without condensers must be rated with matching condensers and comply with the air-cooled chiller efficiency requirements

● Reciprocating units must comply with water cooled positive displacement efficiency requirements

● Energy savings: 500 GWH/yr




90.1-2010 – New Efficiencies




90.1-2010 – Covered Chillers

Current T-24

and Old 90.1 New 90.1

Leaving chilled

water40 F to 48 F > 36 F

Entering

condenser

water

75 to 85 F< 115 F

>LCHWT+20 F




90.1-2010 – Covered Chillers

● Adjusted kW/ton = full-load kW/ton from Table Kadj

● Adjusted NPLV = IPLV from Table/Kadj

● Kadj = A * B

● A = 0.00000014592 * (LIFT)4 – 0.0000346496 * (LIFT)3 + 0.00314196 * (LIFT)2 –

0.147199 * (LIFT) + 3.9302

● B = 0.0015 * LvgEvap + 0.934

● LIFT = LvgCond – LvgEvap (°F)

● Software Available




Typical Practice

● Many chillers exceed the current T24 minimums

● Many chillers probably exceed the new 90.1 minimums

● Chillers are often more expensive than packaged DX and used on projects striving for efficiency.




Potential Code Change Proposals

● Option 1: Adopt 90.1 chiller changes

● Option 2: Adopt 90.1changes but

delete Path A.

● Either option: delete non-standard

tables 112-H, I, J, K, L, M




Planned Energy Analysis

● We have developed custom DOE-2 chiller curves

that exactly match the current T24 minimum

efficiencies and the Path A and Path B chillers.

● Prototype Buildings (1)

● Typical large office building

● Airside economizer on all systems – e.g. no 24/7

chilled water loads

● Chiller categories (10)

● Path A and Path B (2)

● Climate Zones (6) – Start with most populous




Planned Incremental Cost Analysis

● First Costs

● AHRI data

● Other Incremental Costs?




AHRI Cost Data

Full Ld IPLV Full Ld IPLVIncr.

$/tonFull Ld IPLV

Incr.

$/ton

<150 tons EER 9.56 10.42 9.56 12.5 $33.01 NA NA -$

>150 tons EER 9.56 10.42 9.56 12.8 $17.18 NA NA -$

<75 tons kw/ton 0.790 0.676 0.78 0.63 $47.34 0.800 0.600 52.98$

>75 and <150 kw/ton 0.790 0.676 0.775 0.615 $35.45 0.790 0.586 39.23$

>150 and <300 kw/ton 0.717 0.627 0.68 0.58 $30.74 0.718 0.540 36.31$

>300 tons kw/ton 0.639 0.571 0.62 0.54 $13.38 0.639 0.490 26.07$

<150 tons kw/ton 0.703 0.669 0.634 0.596 $31.56 0.639 0.450 47.60$

>150 and <300 kw/ton 0.633 0.596 0.634 0.596 $ - 0.639 0.450 57.28$

>300 and <600 kw/ton 0.576 0.549 0.576 0.549 $ - 0.600 0.400 52.80$

>600 tons kw/ton 0.576 0.549 0.57 0.539 $ 5.77 0.590 0.400 44.83$

Water Cooled

Positive

Displacement

Path A Path B

Size Category Units

before 1/1/2010

Air Cooled

Water Cooled

Centrifugal

$- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70

Air Cooled <150 tons

Air Cooled >150 tons

WCPD <75 tons

WCPD >75 and <150

WCPD >150 and <300

WCPD >300 tons

Centr. <150 tons

Centr. >150 and <300

Centr. >300 and <600

Centr. >600 tons

Incremental $/ton

Path A Path B




Specific Stakeholder Requests

● Incremental Cost Data




QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

??



30

Cooling Towers CASE Stakeholder Meeting #1

Mark Hydeman, PE, Principal


[email protected]

510-263-1543

May 10, 2010



05/10/2010

3131

Cooling Towers




proposals







05/10/2010

32

Cooling Towers

Current Code Requirements – Title 24

● Existing cooling tower efficiencies (Table 112 G)

● These were made up for Standard 90.1-1999. They merely cut out the bottom 5% of the market.

● §144(h) heat rejection systems

● 144(h)2: VSDs or 2-speed motors to 7.5hp

● 144(h)3: 33% tower flow turndown (or gpm of smallest pump)

● 144(h)4: Limitation on centrifugal fan towers ≥900 gpm at 95°F/85°F/75°F



05/10/2010

33

Cooling Towers


● §144(i) Limitation on Air-Cooled Chillers

● ≤300 tons per plant or project

● Exceptions for TES and areas with poor water quality

● Air-cooled chillers approved by the CEC as equivalent using §10-109(d)



05/10/2010

34

Cooling Towers

Current Code Requirements – 90.1 2010

● Addendum L added minimum efficiencies for closed circuit fluid coolers that are not in Title 24.

● Addendum U limits centrifugal fan cooling towers



05/10/2010

35

Cooling Towers

Typical Practice

● Tower Selection

● 7°F to 10°F approach

● Code minimum efficiency

● VSDs on fans

● Propeller fans?

● Minimum flow 50% on average



05/10/2010

36

Cooling Towers


● Reduce VSD threshold using LCCA

● Redo Table 112 G

● Add closed circuit fluid coolers per 90.1

● Do LCCA on open towers (centrifugal and

propeller fan)

● Provide prescriptive minimum

approach based on minimum

efficiency, hours of use and climate



05/10/2010

37

Cooling Towers

Initial Data / Findings

● None yet



05/10/2010

38

Cooling Towers

Planned Data Collection and Analysis

● Get contractor’s costs for different towers

by approach and efficiency.

● Use our TOPP model across office, retail and

24X7 facilities in all CA climates.

● Survey manufactures on minimum flow

capabilities of tower.

● We need exceptions where space is limited

in existing buildlings.



05/10/2010

39

Cooling Towers


● Stakeholders

● Building owners

● Architects

● Building operators

● Tower manufacturers

● Mechanical engineers and contractors

● Who else should we engage?

● We need data on where water-cooled plants

are not justified based on water quality.



05/10/2010

40

Cooling Towers


??

Mark Hydeman, PE, PrincipalTaylor Engineering, [email protected] 10, 2010



Small ECM Motors CASE Stakeholder Meeting #1

Allan Daly, PE, Principal


[email protected]

510-263-1541

May 10, 2010



5/10/2010

4242

ASHRAE 6 – Small ECM Motors




proposals







5/10/2010

43



● New Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requirements for “small motors”

● Ruling Effective: April 8, 2010

● New Standards Applied Starting: March 9, 2015

● Sets Efficiency Requirements for Certain Classes of Motors

● Capacitor-Start Capacitor-Run (CSCR)

● Capacitor-Start Induction-Run (CSIR)

● Polyphase

● But Not Others● Permanent-Split Capacitor (PSC)

● Electronically Commutated (ECM)



5/10/2010

44



● New Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requirements for “small motors”

● Does not cover motors that are part of equipment that is covered under other efficiency requirements



5/10/2010

45



● Large Motors (1 HP to 200 HP) already

covered (premium efficiency motors

required by Title 20 1605.1(s) )



5/10/2010

46



● For “fractional” motors below 1 HP there are no

California standards in place except for in series

fan-powered VAV boxes

(T24-2008 144.c.4)

● Refrigerated warehouses require ECM motors (T24-

2008 126.c.1)



5/10/2010

47


Typical Practice

● Small Variable-Speed Motors are PSC Class –not covered by new EPCA requirements

● ECM Motors More Efficient for both variable speed and single speed applications



5/10/2010

48



● Extend ECM requirements to all

fractional motors in HVAC duty

● If justified, require everywhere then

set exception for motors below run-

time threshold



5/10/2010

49



What is an ECM Motor?

● Electronically Commutated Motor

● DC brushless motor with permanent magnet rotor and built-in inverter

● DC motors more efficient than AC, easier to control

● Typical HVAC-duty efficiencies: 65% - 72%

What is a PSC Motor?

● Permanent Split Capacitor induction motor

● Typical HVAC-duty efficiencies: 12% - 45%



5/10/2010

50



Recent DOE Ruling on “Small Motors”

contains detailed cost data and

economic analysis



5/10/2010

51



● Collect data on types of motors used in

California

● Collect cost data for appropriate classes of

motors

● Analyze cost effectiveness for higher-

efficiency motors based on run-time



5/10/2010

52



● Incremental Cost Data

● Application areas where ECM motors may

not be applicable and justification

● Please identify groups or individuals who

may be able to provide this data



5/10/2010

53



??

Allan Daly, PE, PrincipalTaylor Engineering, [email protected]

54


Kitchen Ventilation ProposalsStakeholder Meeting #1

Jeff Stein


May 10, 2010



55

ASHRAE Measures – Kitchen Ventilation

Agenda

● Current Code – T24, 90.1

● Proposal 1 – Definitions

● Proposal 2 – No Short Circuit Hoods

● Proposal 3 – Must Use Available Transfer Air

● Proposal 4 – Maximum Hood CFMs

● Proposal 5 – Required Energy Features: DCV, or ERV, or…

● Proposal 6 – Acceptance Testing



56



● No Current Kitchen Ventilation Requirements in T24

● ASHRAE 90.1-2007:

● Kitchen Hoods. Individual kitchen exhaust hoods larger

than 5000 cfm shall be provided with makeup air sized

for at least 50% of exhaust air volume that is

● unheated or heated to no more than 60°F and

● uncooled or cooled without the use of mechanical

cooling.

● ASHRAE 90.1-2010:

● Major changes from 90.1-2007

● The proposed requirements on the following slides are

the same as 90.1-2010 with minor changes



57


Proposal 1 – NR Section 3.2 Definitions

Nonresidential Standard Section 3.2

Definitions

Add new terms:

● Makeup Air

● Replacement Air

● Transfer Air

● Other necessary terms listed in ASHRAE

Standard 154




Proposal 2 – Direct Replacement of Hood Exhaust Air Limitation: Code Statement

Proposed Code Statement:

Replacement air introduced directly into the hood cavity of kitchen exhaust hoods shall not exceed 10% of the hood exhaust airflow rate.




Proposal 2 – Direct Replacement of Hood Exhaust Air Limitation: Rationale

● AGA and CEC have shown direct supply greater than 10% of hood exhaust in Short-circuit Hoods significantly reduces Capture and Containment (C&C)

● Poor C&C does not remove cooking heat and smoke from kitchen

● Exhaust rates generally higher to offset poor C&C

● Higher exhaust fan energy

● Higher Exhaust rates increase Room Makeup Air rates

● Higher MUA fan and conditioning energy




Proposal 2 – Direct Replacement of Hood Exhaust Air Limitation: Planned Analysis

● Lifecycle Cost Analysis Comparing

A. Short-circuit exhaust system

B. Equally effective C&C Non-short-circuiting hood system

● Data Required● Exhaust and Makeup Air Fan Energy

● Makeup Air Conditioning Energy

● AGA/CEC data from reports

● Installation Costs estimated by local contractors




Proposal 2 – Direct Replacement of Hood Exhaust Air Limitation: Statewide Savings

● Short-circuit Hoods represent

approximately:

● 20% of U.S. Market

● 1% of California Market




Proposal 3 – Conditioned Makeup Air Limitations: Code Statement

Mechanically cooled or heated makeup air delivered

to any space with a kitchen hood shall not exceed the

hood exhaust flow minus the available transfer air

from adjacent spaces.

− Available transfer air is that portion of outdoor ventilation

air serving adjacent spaces not required to satisfy other

exhaust needs, such as restrooms, not required to

maintain pressurization of adjacent spaces, and that would

otherwise be relieved from the building.




Proposal 3 – Conditioned Makeup Air Limitations: Rationale

● Supplying conditioned makeup air when transfer air is available is a wasteful design practice and should be prohibited.

● Using available transfer air saves energy and reduces the first cost of the kitchen makeup unit and the exhaust system in the adjacent spaces.

● This version differs from the 90.1 version in that it may require a recirculating heat/cool unit rather

than a 100% OA heat/cool MAU




Proposal 3 – Conditioned Makeup Air Limitations: Planned Analysis

● Lifecycle Cost Analysis Comparing● Base case 1(old ASHRAE): A system with 100% OA evap

cooling/mechanical heating

● Base case 2 (new ASHRAE): A system with 80% transfer

air and 20% makeup air that is mechanically heated and

cooled.

● Proposed case: A system with 100% transfer air and 20%

recirculating mechanically heated cooled air.

● Data Required● Exhaust and Makeup Air Fan Energy

● Makeup Air Conditioning Energy

● Installation Costs estimated by local contractors




Proposal 3 – Conditioned Makeup Air Limitations: Statewide Savings

● Current estimated number of restaurants in California

by type:

● 30,000 quick serve restaurants (e.g. McDonalds)

● 30,000 full serve restaurants (e.g. Applebee’s)

● 30,000 institutional kitchens (e.g. school cafeterias)

● Estimated that 2.75 million square feet of kitchen is

being built per year

● Estimated 15% savings in makeup fan electrical usage

and demand using available transfer air

● Estimated savings of 50% when heating and cooling

energy savings are included




Proposal 4 – Exhaust Hood Airflow Limitations: Code Statement


A kitchen/dining facility having a total kitchen hood exhaust airflow rate greater than 5,000 cfmshall be equipped with hoods with exhaust rate that complies with Table 4.1.

● Single hoods or hood sections installed over appliances of different duty ratings shall have maximum allowable flow rates not exceeding the Table 4.1 values for the highest appliance duty rating under that hood or hood section. Refer to ASHRAE Standard 154 for definitions of hood type, appliance duty, and net exhaust flow rate.




Proposal 4 – Exhaust Hood Airflow Limitations: Code Statement


Table 4: Maximum Net Exhaust Flow Rate, CFM per Linear Foot of Hood Length

Not Allowed280210210Backshelf/

Pass-over

Not AllowedNot Allowed175175Eyebrow

385280210175Double Island

490420350280Single Island

385280210140Wall-mounted

Canopy

Extra Heavy Duty

Equipment

Heavy Duty

Equipment

Medium Duty

Equipment

Light Duty

Equipment

Type of Hood

●Exceptions:

At least 75% of all the replacement air is transfer air that would otherwise be exhausted.




Proposal 4 – Exhaust Hood Airflow Limitations: Rationale

● Exhaust airflow rates in Table 4 are 30% below the minimum airflow rates in ASHRAE Standard 154-2003, which are for unlisted hoods

● Values in Table 4 are supported by ASHRAE RP-1202 for listedhoods

● Intended to eliminate wasteful common practice of specifying excessive exhaust airflow by selecting hoods that are not listedor have not been subjected to a recognized performance test

● Should not increase first cost and in many cases will reduce first cost through downsizing of exhaust, supply and cooling equipment




Proposal 4 – Exhaust Hood Airflow Limitations: Planned Analysis

● Lifecycle Cost Analysis Comparing

● Base case: A kitchen design using an unlisted

hood and code minimum exhaust rates for

unlisted hoods (Std 154 rates)

● Proposed case: A kitchen design using a listed

hood and Table 4 exhaust rates

● Data Required● Cost data for unlisted hoods will be solicited from

hood manufacturers and mechanical contractors.

● Cost and performance data for listed hoods will be

solicited from hood manufacturers.




Proposal 5 – Makeup Airflow Limitations: Code Statement


A kitchen/dining facility with a total kitchen hood exhaust airflow rate greater than 5,000 cfm shall incorporate a combination of the following strategies such that A+B+C+D > 80%

Where:

● A = percentage of all replacement air that is transfer air that would otherwise be exhausted

● B = percentage of total exhaust volume with demand ventilation systems. Such systems shall be capable of at least 50% reduction in exhaust and replacement air system airflow rates, including controls necessary to modulate airflow in response to appliance operation and to maintain full capture and containment of smoke, effluent and combustion products during cooking and idle.

● C = percentage of total exhaust volume with listed energy recovery devices with a sensible heat recovery effectiveness of not less than 40%

● D = percentage of total makeup air volume that is heated to no more than 60ºF and cooled without the use of mechanical cooling (evaporative cooling is allowed).




Proposal 5 – Makeup Airflow Limitations: Code Statement

ASHRAE 90.1-2010 VERSION:

A kitchen/dining facility with a total kitchen hood exhaust airflow rate greater than 5,000 cfm shall incorporate a combination of the following strategies such that A+B+C+D > 80%have one of the following:

● A = percentage of all replacement air that is transfer air that would otherwise be exhausted = 50%

OR

● B = percentage of total exhaust volume with demand ventilation systems. Such systems shall be capable of at least 50% reduction in exhaust and replacement air system airflow rates, including controls necessary to modulate airflow in response to appliance operation and to maintain full capture and containment of smoke, effluent and combustion products during cooking and idle. = 75%

OR

C = percentage of total exhaust volume with listed energy recovery devices with a sensible heat recovery effectiveness of not less than 40% = 50%

● D = percentage of total makeup air volume that is heated to no more than 60ºF and cooled without the use of mechanical cooling (evaporative cooling is allowed).




Proposal 5 – Makeup Airflow Limitations: Rationale

● Kitchen designers can maximize environmental comfort and energy savings by conditioning makeup air while using a combination of available energy reducing strategies




Proposal 5 – Makeup Airflow Limitations: Planned Analysis

● Lifecycle Cost Analysis Comparing● Base case: A kitchen system based on a non-

modulating exhaust airflow and non-modulating makeup airflow

● Proposed case: A kitchen system based on a modulating demand control exhaust airflow and modulating makeup airflow

● Data Required● A model comparing the energy savings

between each case

● Obtain the equipment and installation costs for each case




Proposal 6 – Performance Testing: Code Statement


A field test method, such as ASTM Standard F-1704, shall be used to evaluate design air flow rates and demonstrate proper capture and containment

1. This field test shall be conducted with all the appliances under the hood at operating temperatures, with all sources of ventilation and exhaust air functioning and containment visually observed with smoke or steam produced by actual or simulated cooking.

2. Tests shall be performed in the presence of the code official.

3. Systems that do not pass initially shall be modified (e.g. by adding side panels or rear ledges, reducing makeup air velocity, etc.) and retested.

4. Flow rates may be reduced below the design flow rates as long as proper capture and containment is demonstrated.

5. Where demand ventilation systems are utilized to meet Measure 5,additional performance/acceptance testing shall be required to demonstrate proper capture and containment at minimum airflow conditions.




Proposal 6 – Performance Testing: Code Statement

ASHRAE VERSION:

A field test method, such as ASTM Standard F-1704, shall be used to evaluate design air flow rates and demonstrate proper capture and containment

1. This field test shall be conducted with all the appliances under the hood at operating temperatures, with all sources of ventilation and exhaust air functioning and containment visually observed with smoke or steam produced by actual or simulated cooking.

2. Tests shall be performed in the presence of the code official.

3. Systems that do not pass initially shall be modified (e.g. by adding side panels or rear ledges, reducing makeup air velocity, etc.) and retested.

4. Flow rates may be reduced below the design flow rates as long as proper capture and containment is demonstrated.

5. Where demand ventilation systems are utilized to meet Measure 5,additional performance/acceptance testing shall be required to demonstrate proper capture and containment at minimum airflow conditions.




Proposal 6 – Performance Testing: Rationale

● This section is fundamental to the kitchen exhaust system commissioning and performance verification which protects public health and safety.

● Hood systems are a field assembly of various components including hoods, fans, replacement air systems, duct and distribution systems and require testing once installed to assure specified system performance is met.

● This section requires verification of hood system performance and operation, and supports Title 24 Acceptance Test purpose and scope.




Proposal 6 – Performance Testing: Planned Analysis

● No planned analysis proposed




● Cost and performance data for:

● Unlisted hoods

● Demand ventilation

● Energy recovery



ASHRAE Measures –Kitchen Ventilation


??

80


Garage Ventilation Stakeholder Meeting #1

Jeff Stein


May 10, 2010



81

ASHRAE 8 – Garage Ventilation




proposals









● No requirements in Title 24

● 2001 CA Building Code – explicitly allowed Garage DCV

● 8 hr average CO < 50 ppm

● In 2007 CA switched building codes and Garage DCV not explicitly allowed

● We are working with IAPMO to allow in UMC

● It is explicitly allowed in IMC (used in other states)

● Garage DCV required in Oregon, Washington, etc.

● ASHRAE 90.1 Proposal:

● DCV required except in large, unconditioned garages




Typical Practice

● Most new garages have DCV with CO

● Generally sold with a maintenance program

● Some sensors turn themselves off after 2 years if not calibrated

● Many existing garages are constant volume

● Many of these have arbitrary fan schedules

● e.g. fans operate from 7am to 9am and from 4pm to 6pm

● Note that when garage fans are turned off stack effect sucks garage air into the building above




Potential Code Change Proposal

● Enclosed parking garages having ventilation exhaust rates >

8,000 cfm shall employ pollutant sensing devices. These

devices shall modulate the ventilation system to maintain a

maximum average concentration of carbon monoxide of

35ppm. Failure of such devices shall cause the exhaust fans

to operate in the ON position.

● Oregon says 50 ppm, Washington says 35 ppm

● US OSHA requires 8 hr average exposure < 50 ppm

● Cal OSHA requires 8 hr average exposure < 25 ppm




Initial Data/Findings

Trend review of several sites to determine actual

performance





● 80-90% fan energy savings





● Highly Cost Effective – including VFD, sensors,

controls ,etc.





● Sensor Accuracy

● CO sensors use electrochemical and solid state sensors that have

been used in critical life safety and industrial applications for

over 60 years (e.g. mines)

● Not same technology as CO2 sensors

● Recent study of 26 sensors in garages showed ~5% drift/yr after

2 years

● UL conducted a study on residential sensors over a period of four

years. Overall they found the sensors to be very reliable

(residential sensors must meet UL Std 2034)

● Garages use an array of sensors and control to the highest signal

so failure of a single sensor has little risk

● Sensor failure defaults to full ventilation mode





● Statewide Savings

● Roughly $10 million in fan energy

savings in 10 years

● based on 1 million ft2 of new garages

annually




Non-Gasoline Engines

● Diesel engines do not produce CO but do produce NO, NO2 and Hexane

● T24 Options

1. No exceptions (like Oregon)

2. Exempt garages expected to house more than 25% non-gasoline engines

3. Require “fuel-appropriate sensors” (like Washington) > 25% non-gasoline

4. Require NO2 and/or CO2 in garages > 25% non-gasoline

5. Require CO and NO2 and/or CO2 in all garages




Non-Gasoline Engines

● US Bureau of Mines suggests that 1,300 ppm of

CO2 is a good control level for diesel equipment

in mines



5/10/2010

92


Planned Analysis

● More energy and cost analysis

● More CO sensor accuracy research

● More diesel emissions research

● Field study of CO sensor accuracy





● Incremental cost data

● Sensor accuracy data





??



95

Laboratory Exhaust CASE Stakeholder Meeting #1

Mark Hydeman, PE, Principal


[email protected]

510-263-1543

May 10, 2010



05/10/2010

9696

Laboratory Exhaust




proposals







05/10/2010

97

Laboratory Exhaust


● Process loads are excluded in Title 24 2008

● Definition§100:PROCESS is an activity or treatment that is not related to the space conditioning, lighting, service water heating, or ventilating of a building as it relates to human occupancy.

● Laboratory exhaust is dilution and containment for toxicity, flammability and explosion



05/10/2010

98

Laboratory Exhaust


● Process loads are excluded in Title 24 2008

● Scope §100(e) 2 C excludes:● Section 112 HVAC equipment efficiencies

● Section 121 ventilation

● Section 122 HVAC controls

● Section 123 Pipe Insulation

● Section 124 Duct Insulation

● Section 125 HVAC Acceptance Tests

● Section 144 HVAC Prescriptive Requirements

● PROCESS is an activity or treatment that is not related to the space conditioning, lighting, service water heating, or ventilating of a building as it relates to human occupancy.



05/10/2010

99

Laboratory Exhaust

Current Code Requirements - 90.1 2010

● Addendum AQ gets rid of the process exclusion.

● The existing 90.1-2007 Standard requires either VAV fume exhaust or energy recovery in 6.5.7.2.

● Adopted Addendum P provides fan power calculations for fume exhaust systems.

● Proposed Addendum AS expands the requirements for VAV or heat recovery.



05/10/2010

100

Laboratory Exhaust

Typical Practice

● Typical practice:

● 6-12 ACH ventilation

● 100% OSA constant volume reheat systems

● 3,000 fpm exhaust at the stack

● 4”-6” pressure on the supply and exhaust fans

● Supply air temperature reset?

● Constant volume fume hoods



05/10/2010

101

Laboratory Exhaust


● Either VAV fume exhaust or heat

recovery.

● Limitations on fan power.

● Supply pressure reset by demand.

● Supply temperature reset by demand.

● Dual-maximum controls for VAV

supply.



05/10/2010

102

Laboratory Exhaust


● Retrofits have shown typically ~50%-

65% energy cost reductions with 5-10

year paybacks.



05/10/2010

103

Laboratory Exhaust


● VAV fume exhaust

● Standard off the shelf technologies

● Saves fan energy (supply and exhaust)

● Reduces reheat, heating and cooling

● Improves comfort

● Safer during remodels and retrofits

● Not possible on all hoods



05/10/2010

104

Laboratory Exhaust


● Heat recovery

● Standard off the shelf technologies

● Increases fan energy (supply and exhaust)

● Reduces reheat, heating and cooling

● Improves comfort

● Not practical on all fume exhaust

systems?

● Less likely to concern AHJs



05/10/2010

105

Laboratory Exhaust


● We plan to build off of the work already

performed by the ASHRAE/IESNA SSPC 90.1,

Labs21 and ASHRAE TC9.10.

● eQuest modeling of different systems (CV,

VAV and CV w/Heat Recovery) over the CA

climate zones.



Stakeholders

● Owners

● Facility operators

● The EH&S community

● The design community

● The regulatory community (CalOSHA and

ARB)

● Control and equipment manufacturers

● ASHRAE TC 9.10 Laboratory Systems

● Labs21

05/10/2010

106



05/10/2010

107

Laboratory Exhaust


● We need help with identifying exceptions to

the requirements.

● We are looking for LCCA studies.

● We would like feedback on the current state

of practice.

● Who else should we engage?



05/10/2010

108

Laboratory Exhaust


??

Mark Hydeman, PE, PrincipalTaylor Engineering, [email protected] 10, 2010

Welcome to the Title 24: ASHRAE 90.1- Related Topics Webex

Documents

Transcript of Welcome to the Title 24: ASHRAE 90.1- Related Topics Webex