Evaluation of ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1-2009

Long, Nicholas; Bonnema, Eric; Field, K.; Torcellini, P.

doi:10.2172/984670

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ASHRAE 189.1 uses ASHRAE 90.1 40 as the baseline case, targeting 30% additional energy savings compared to the baseline. 41 ASHRAE 189.1 codes consist of mandatory provisions and prescriptive recommendations over six topical areas, which correspond well with those in LEED.…”

Section: ■ Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 92%

“…ASHRAE 189.1 was developed jointly by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES), and the US Green Building Council (USGBC). ASHRAE 189.1 uses ASHRAE 90.1 as the baseline case, targeting 30% additional energy savings compared to the baseline . ASHRAE 189.1 codes consist of mandatory provisions and prescriptive recommendations over six topical areas, which correspond well with those in LEED.…”

Section: Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Environmental Performance of Green Building Code and Certification Systems

Suh

Tomar²,

Leighton³

et al. 2014

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the potential life-cycle environmental impact reduction of three green building code and certification (GBCC) systems: LEED, ASHRAE 189.1, and IgCC. A recently completed whole-building life cycle assessment (LCA) database of NIST was applied to a prototype building model specification by NREL. TRACI 2.0 of EPA was used for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). The results showed that the baseline building model generates about 18 thousand metric tons CO2-equiv. of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and consumes 6 terajoule (TJ) of primary energy and 328 million liter of water over its life-cycle. Overall, GBCC-compliant building models generated 0% to 25% less environmental impacts than the baseline case (average 14% reduction). The largest reductions were associated with acidification (25%), human health-respiratory (24%), and global warming (GW) (22%), while no reductions were observed for ozone layer depletion (OD) and land use (LU). The performances of the three GBCC-compliant building models measured in life-cycle impact reduction were comparable. A sensitivity analysis showed that the comparative results were reasonably robust, although some results were relatively sensitive to the behavioral parameters, including employee transportation and purchased electricity during the occupancy phase (average sensitivity coefficients 0.26-0.29).

show abstract

Section: ■ Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Performance of Green Building Code and Certification Systems

Suh

Tomar²,

Leighton³

et al. 2014

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Building energy efficiency has increased by more than 10% since the 1980s (US Department of Energy, 2008). The structure model used for our EnergyPlus simulations applied the recent thermal specification ASHRAE Standard 189.1, which is a high efficiency benchmark (Long et al, 2010); in contrast, i-Tree Design used a "post-1980" construct as their most recent structure"s vintage, which would likely be less energy efficient than the ASHRAE specification, and thus more heavily influenced by shade trees. In this regard, i-Tree design may overstate the energy conservation benefit of trees around structures built in the last decade or more.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To simplify the energy simulations, a fixed-sized residential structure was employed for all sampled parcels across the study areas (Table 3). This Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) (Long, Bonnema, Field, & Torcellini, 2010). For the existing trees on the sampled parcels, because we could not identify tree species or measure crown dimensions using remote sensing data, we simulated each tree using four models: (1) a small-stature deciduous tree, (2) a large-stature deciduous tree, (3) a small-stature broadleaf evergreen tree, and (4) a large-stature broadleaf evergreen tree ( Figure 1).…”

Section: Simulation Of Building Energy Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the energy conservation benefits of shade trees in dense residential developments using an alternative tree placement strategy

Hwang

Wiseman

Thomas

2017

Landscape and Urban Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern residential land development has trended toward densification, resulting in limited greenspace on individual parcels. As a result, land developers and homeowners are often constrained for space to plant shade trees. This can result in suboptimal placement of shade trees for the provision of energy conservation benefits. Using a simulation program called EnergyPlus, we examined the effects of existing trees on the energy consumption of recently constructed homes in three U.S. cities with distinctly different climates: Metro Minneapolis, MN, Charlotte, NC, and Metro Orlando, FL. Remote sensing was used to identify placement of existing trees around the homes, revealing that there were 1.5 to 2.9 trees within 15 m of the homes on average. These existing trees, when modeled as large-stature deciduous trees in the simulator, provided average annual energy conservation benefits per parcel of 14 kWh (MN), 25 kWh (NC), and 44 kWh (FL). We then developed an alternative tree placement strategy that spatially reconfigured the existing trees to both minimize space conflicts and maximize energy savings. This alternative strategy significantly improved annual energy savings per parcel to 57 kWh (MN), 47 kWh (NC), and 103 kWh (FL). Our alternative tree placement strategy was equally effective as the conventional strategy (always plant a shade tree on the west aspect) in MN and NC, but not in FL. However, the alternative strategy was more responsive to space constraints and therefore could be used to maximize energy savings while concurrently minimizing space conflicts between trees and site uses.

show abstract