SBEED Validation Against ASHRAE Standard 140-2014: June 2017
SBEED Validation Against ASHRAE Standard 140-2014: June 2017
SBEED Validation Against ASHRAE Standard 140-2014: June 2017
June 2017
Murray Milne
UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design
Professor Murray Milne
INTRODUCTION
SBEED (Small Building Energy Efficient Design) is an easy-to-use day-one design tool that
helps owners, builders, and architects create a more energy efficient non-residential building.
ASHRAE Standard 140-2014 is a method for evaluating a building energy analysis computer
program by running 35 variations of a small building design then comparing the results of using
eight different energy performance programs. The current release of SBEED 1.0 (Build 4) could
run 27 of these cases and the heating and cooling loads were reported and compared for each.
BACKGROUND
SBEED uses the Solar-5 computation engine, developed at UCLA beginning in 1978 for its
thermal analysis kernel. Solar-5 calculates an hourly heat balance similar to the method used in
EnergyPlus. It finds the heat gain or heat loss for each of the 8760 hours in a year using standard
ASHRAE algorithms, the Mackey and Wright time lag and decrement factor method of
accounting for heat flow through external mass walls, the Admittance Factor Method to account
for internal thermal mass, and the California Energy Commission’s ACM method to calculate the
performance of basements. To find the hourly heat balance it uses a successive approximation
method to calculate the indoor air temperature. Thus it can integrate loads and energy
calculations at each hourly time step, which means that the HVAC system only adds heating or
cooling energy if the indoor air temperature has floated beyond the upper or lower comfort
limits.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140: Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy
Analysis Computer Programs was developed by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE). This standard is updated periodically, and the version from 2014 has been used to
test the recently released version of SBEED 1.0 Build 4.
Test Procedures:
Standard 140 specifies test procedures to evaluate the results produced by software designed to
calculate the thermal performance of a building and its environmental control systems. The tests
are based on the principle of comparing the performance of one program against the performance
of other programs, and while the tests are not intended to evaluate all aspects of the software,
they are designed to indicate any serious flaws or limitations.
Standard 140 uses a small reference building of 48 square meters (26.25 by 19.69 feet) that has
35 variations of envelope, windows, internal loads, and infiltration. For each case its
performance was reported for eight simulation programs: ESP, BLAST, DOE2, SRES/SUN,
SERIRES, S3PAS, TRANSYS, and TASE. For each case the overall minimum and maximum
value is reported for heating load and for cooling load among these eight programs. The annual
heating and cooling load was also calculated for each case using SBEED, and whether it falls
within the minimum and maximum acceptance range of all the other eight simulation programs.
SBEED, like most U.S. energy simulation programs, uses Inch-Pound units, while Standard 140
is reported in SI (metric) units of MWh per year, which in this report is converted to MBTU per
year. The annual performance of SBEED is reported in MBTU/year on the Building Energy
Performance (BEPS) screen and is reported here in Table 1 and 2. These results are also plotted
graphically in Figures 1 and 2.
The 35 cases in Standard 140 range from quite realistic to extremely abstract. Eight cases are not
included here because using SBEED some test variables can not be changed: interior infrared
emittance, interior shortwave absorption, exterior combined radiative and convective surface
coefficients, cavity albedo, solid opaque windows, and adding a sunspace. The results of the
remaining 27 cases are plotted graphically in Figure 1 for Annual Heating Loads and in Figure 2
for Annual Cooling Loads, and are reported numerically in Table 1 and Table 2.
RESULTS
It is important to emphasize that in Standard 140 no formal validation criteria are established to
determine the range of acceptable results (ANSI/ASHRAE 2007, Section 4.4.1). Thus while this
study does not demonstrate official acceptance ranges, it does show that SBEED closely follows
the same pattern of performance as these other eight simulation programs (Fig. 1 and 2).
Standard 140 is used here in part because it was also used previously in the development of our
earlier design tool HEED (Home Energy Efficient Design) which also uses the Solar-5
computation engine, but for residential buildings. Comparing the performance reported for both
SBEED and HEED also shows that they both closely follow the same pattern of performance
(Henkhaus, 2012).
SBEED fell within the normative range on 33 of the 54 cases that it ran. This includes 18 of the
27 heating load comparisons (Figure 1), and 15 of 27 cooling load comparisons (Figure 2). Note
that in all cases SBEED tends to be conservative, in that it estimates that a higher heating or
cooling load is needed compared to the average of the other eight programs. Thus, an actual
building would likely use less annual energy than SBEED predicted. This means that when
designing a Zero Net Energy building SBEED will have a higher probability of meeting that
goal.
Compared to the eight reference programs, SBEED showed the same magnitude and direction of
performance of in each successive case. This implies that when SBEED is used as a design tool,
each incremental design change to a building should produce changes in heating and cooling
energy that are of the correct magnitude and direction.
TESTCASE
40.000
35.000
30.000
25.000
Mbtu/year
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000
TEST CASE
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Reference Programs:
Note that Standard 140 is based on results of eight reference computer programs that are now
20 or more years old, most of which are no longer considered state of the art in building
simulation. Missing from this list is EnergyPlus, which is now considered by many in the
U.S. to be the standard of the industry. In 2006 and 2010 EnergyPlus was run against these
same eight reference simulation programs, plus three more that were added (BLAST 3.0,
DOE2.1E, and DOE2.1E-RevWindow). In the 2010 test series using EnergyPlus 6.0.0.023
the test files generate results which lay outside bounds for eight the 62 cases. To date
Standard 140 has not been revised to include these three new versions of the original eight
programs or to include EnergyPlus or to include SBEED or HEED..
Weather Data:
All the eight original reference programs were run using an 8760 hour climate data file called
DRYCOLD.TMY, but since then the weather data formats have been revised, corrected, and
updated to TMY2 and now to TMY3. This file apparently originally used the Denver-Stapleton
Airport, Colorado TMY data.
SBEED could not use the original DRYCOLD.TMY file because it is not in EPW format, so
instead used the Denver-Stapleton Airport, Colorado TMY data in its currently published EPW
format (USA_CO_Denver-Stapleton.724690_TMY) available from the EnergyPlus Weather site.
(https://energyplus.net/weather). Thus weather data used in this current SBEED study may be
slightly revised from what was used in the original eight simulation programs.
EnergyPlus validation analysis was originally done using a BLAST weather file which in turn
had been converted into EnergyPlus format using the EnergyPlus weather converter. Since then,
the DRYCOLD.TMY weather file provided with Standard 140 has been directly converted into
the EnergyPlus format using the EnergyPlus weather converter. This produced significant
changes in results for some test cases using EnergyPlus with both the originally converted
weather file and results with the new weather file.
The EnergyPlus validation study reported that a comparison of the two weather files shows
several differences. First, the BLAST version has Daylight Savings Time option turned on while
the EnergyPlus version of the BESTEST weather file has the Daylight Savings Time option
turned off. This created differences in results for those test cases which have schedules which
change throughout the day, i.e. thermostat setback and nighttime ventilation cases (Cases 640,
650). Secondly, there were differences in the hourly outdoor wet-bulb temperature, sky
temperature, and diffuse and direct solar radiation. These changes are undoubtedly due to
differences in the psychrometric and solar radiation routines between the BLAST and the
EnergyPlus weather conversion programs.
Modeling Issues:
The specifications for Case 220 say that the opaque surface radiation properties should be
applied to all exterior opaque surface solar and infrared absorptances, and infrared emittances.
However the SOLAR5 engine in HEED and in SBEED applies these to the roof only.
Also in ASHRAE standard 140 the thermostat specifications say that heat shall be on when the
indoor temperature is less than 68 degrees, but SBEED turns heat on when interior temperature is
less than or equal to 68 degrees, so this will add a small amount of energy consumption to
Heating Energy.
CONCLUSIONS
SBEED (Small Building Energy Efficient Design) Version 1.0 Build 4 was used to model a
range of buildings as specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2014, Standard Method of Test
for the Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs. The ability of SBEED to
predict heating and cooling loads was tested using a test suite of 54 cases which included
buildings with both low mass and high mass construction, without windows and with windows
on various exposures, with and without exterior window shading, with and without temperature
setback, with and without night ventilation, and with and without free floating space
temperatures. The annual heating and cooling loads predicted by SBEED were compared to
results from eight other whole building energy simulation programs. SBEED was within the
normative range for 18 of the 27 annual heating load cases and within the normative range for 15
of the 27 annual cooling load cases. The nine heating cases that were out of range averaged less
than 6.5% overheating. The twelve cooling cases that were out of range averaged less than
10.4% overcooling. Thus 61% of the test cases were within the normative range, and all cases
that fell outside the range were on the safe side. This means that an actual building analyzed
using SBEED would likely use slightly less heating energy and slightly less cooling energy than
predicted.
Acknowledgements:
SBEED (Small Building Energy Efficient Design) was developed under contract with the
California Energy Commission by Murray Milne and Robin Liggett, Principal Investigators, with
Carlos Francisco Gomez, Senior Research Associate, and Donald Leeper, Senior Systems
Specialist. Testing and Evaluation was by Tim Kohut and Pablo LaRoche plus dozens of
colleagues around the country.
References:
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2014, Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building
Energy Analysis Computer Programs, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers. Atlanta, GA., 2014
HEED Validation Against the ASHRAE/BESTEST Standard (ASHRAE Standard 140), Grace
Tsai and Murray Milne, UCLA Department of Architecture and Urban Design,
http://www.energy-design-tools.aud.ucla.edu/HEED, 2003
HEED Validated Using HERS Bestest Tier 1 and 2: 2008, Murray Milne, UCLA Department of
Architecture and Urban Design, http://www.energy-design-tools.aud.ucla.edu/HEED,
2008
HEED Validation Reports: HEED 4.0, Build 27 and Build 29, Alicyn Henkhaus, EIT, UCLA
Department of Architecture and Urban Design, October 2012, HEED Summary
Validation Report 2012 includes the following validation reports:
HEED Validation Against ASHRAE /BESTEST Standard 140, 2012
HEED Validation Against HERS BESTEST Standard, 2012
Comparison of HEED and EnergyPlus, 2012
Validation Results Validation of PV Power Simulation in HEED, 2012
HERS BESTEST 1995. Home Energy Rating System Building Energy Simulation Test., R
Judkoff and J Neymark, National Renewable Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd, Golden
Colorado, 80401, 1995
EnergyPlus Testing with Building Thermal Envelope and Fabric Load Tests from
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2004. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies, 2006
EnergyPlus Testing with Building Thermal Envelope and Fabric Load Tests from
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2007. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies, 2010
Eight cases are not included in this table because SBEED does not allow changes in the variables
being tested: Solid Opaque Windows, Surface Convection Coefficient, Interior Surface
Radiation, Cavity Albedo, and Added Sunspace.
Table 2: SBEED Annual Sensible Cooling Loads Using ASHRAE Standard 140-2014
ASHRAE Note: The statistics in the tables below are based on the Standard 140 Informative example results. These
statistics do not have any substantial importance and are not to be interpreted as acceptance criteria.
Eight cases are not included in this table because SBEED does not allow changes in the variables
being tested: Solid Opaque Windows, Surface Convection Coefficient, Interior Surface
Radiation, Cavity Albedo, and Added Sunspace.