Engagement Platform Workshop:
Focus Group on Simulation Platform
Workshop Date: September 6th, 2013
Workshop Location: Navy Yards
Report Date: October 2nd, 2013
Submitted by: Valerie Patrick, Leslie Billhymer, Marissa Rosen
2
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
EEB Hub Report on September 6th, 2013 Market Workshop on Simulation Platform:
Focus Group on Suite of Web Tools Supporting Energy-Smart Building Retrofit Decisions
Location: Building 101 Philadelphia Navy Yards
Date of Report: October 2nd, 2013
Submitted by: Valerie Patrick, Bayer MaterialScience
Leslie Billhymer, University of Pennsylvania
Marissa Rosen, University of Pennsylvania
Table of Contents
Overview
1. Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......3
2. Key Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….....…3
3. Recommendations………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………….......5
Details
4. Participants……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………….….7
5. Agenda……………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………..………….……..8
6. Platforms Overview (Leslie Billhymer)……………………………………………………………………………………….....8
7. Overview of Simulation Platform (Jelena Srebric)………………………………………………………………………....9
8. Demonstration for Light Retrofit Tool: Energy Asset Rating (Josh Wentz)……………………………………10
9. Demonstration of Partial Retrofit Tool: Design Advisor (Leon Glicksman)..……..............................12
10. Demonstration of Substantial Retrofit Tool: Parametric Analysis (Ali Malkawi) ……..…………………..12
11. Demonstration of Comprehensive Retrofit Tool: Retrofit Manager (Josh Wentz)………………………..13
12. Group Input on Simulation Platform and Select Tools…..................................................................14
13. Highlights from Field Notes…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20
Appendices
14. Group Task Summary………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………….22
15. Simulation Platform Information Sheet………………………………………………………………………………………..23
16. Feedback Survey Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25
3
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Overview
1. Executive Summary
Six building energy auditors/engineers, four building designers, and two regional building owners/operators
together with 18 members of the EEB (Energy Efficient Building) Hub participated in a focus group on energy
audits at the Navy Yards on Friday September 16th 2013. The overall purpose of this workshop was to engage
building engineers, designers, and owners/operators for small (less than 250,000 ft2) commercial buildings in
order to build a web platform that supports energy-smart building retrofit decisions so that the EEB Hub can
help catalyze more advanced energy retrofits for commercial buildings in the region and beyond.
This workshop had multiple objectives. First, for EEB Hub researchers to understand what benefits building
engineers, designers, and owners/operators see to using the web simulation tools demonstrated. Second,
for EEB Hub researchers to understand what limitations building engineers, designers, and
owners/operators see to using the web simulation tools demonstrated. Third, for the EEB Hub to impact the
thinking and behavior of participants in ways that benefit their affiliations and business relationships following the
focus group as a result of participating in this focus group.
To meet these objectives, the workshop began with a welcome from Task 9 Leader Leslie Billhymer who also
level-set the participants’ understanding of their importance to the EEB Hub, described the purpose and
agenda for the focus group, and led a round of introductions for everyone in the room. Next, Jelena Srebric
provided context to describe the market gap that the Web simulation tools platform has been designed to
address. Then there was a series of demonstrations by different EEB Hub researchers of tools from each the
light, partial, substantial, and comprehensive retrofit sections of the platform. Finally, the demonstrations
were followed by a group feedback session on the advantages and limitations of the Design Advisor Tool, the
advantages and limitations of the Retrofit Manager Tool, and reactions to the Simulation Platform concept.
The engagement and excellent work of the twelve focus group participants provided valuable input on select
tools and the simulation platform overall that will help guide future research in directions of most benefit to
the market. In total, 15 advantages and 23 limitations were identified for the Design Advisor Tool, 8
advantages and 10 limitations were identified for the Retrofit Manager Tool, and 6 comments were captured
on the Simulation Platform concept all of which led to the articulation of 4 next steps.
2. Key Results
The focus group participants identified 23 limitations for the Design Advisor Tool that fall under the
categories of how to increase customization capability to enable more decision-making, how to add
computational features, how to broaden applicable use cases, how to address aspects needing clarification,
and how to enhance integration features. The building owners provided the most limitations concerning
increasing the customization capability of the tool while the building engineers provided the most limitations
concerning how to add computational features and the designers provided the most limitations concerning
how to address aspects needing clarification.
All three stakeholder groups were pleased with how the framework progresses from light to comprehensive
retrofits. The engineers were also excited about the potential to engage owners and the unique features of
the Design Advisor Tool not available anywhere else.
4
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
A summary of key insights from the feedback on the Design Advisor Tool is as follows (please note that some
of the feedback applies to the entire simulation platform):
 All stakeholder perspectives represented at the focus group liked the progressive framework of the
tool (from light to comprehensive retrofits)
 Owners and operators also liked the cost information provided and the transparency in accuracy of
the results presented.
 Auditors also liked how the tool enables the engagement of the building owner or operator as well as
unique features incorporating the heat island effect and the automatic transfer of data between
multiple tools avoiding re-entry of data.
 All stakeholder perspectives represented at the focus group had suggestions to increase the level of
customization of the results to further empower single building decision-makers.
The focus group participants identified 10 limitations for the Comprehensive Retrofit Manager capabilities
that fall under the categories of how to increase sophistication to empower the decision-maker, how to
validate the tool’s performance, how to incorporate occupant impact, and how to come up with a practical
example for a comprehensive retrofit. The building engineers provided the most limitations concerning
validating the tool’s performance while the building designers provided the most limitations concerning
increasing sophistication to empower decision-makers.
Both building owners and engineers were pleased with how the Comprehensive Retrofit Manager
capabilities serves as a building data warehouse and can detect operational anomolies.
A summary of key insights from the feedback on the Comprehensive Retrofit Manager capabilities is as
follows:
 Building owners/operators and auditors like that these capabilities act like a building data warehouse
with convenient access and that operational anomalies can be detected and investigated to improve
building energy performance.
 Designers are interested in more context on how the inputs are tied to the outputs and in more input
parameters to improve the functionality provided by DAYSIM.
 There was no input on limitations for these capabilities from building owners and operators. This is
an indication they did not understand the capabilities enough to provide constructive criticism.
The focus group also provided the following input on the Simulation Framework overall:
 Like idea of dialing in level of sophistication from simple (lite) to comprehensive
 Like the stakeholders targeted in each stage (lite, partial, substantial, and comprehensive)
 The learning curve is easy
5
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
 eQuest wizards give capabilities except CONTAM and DAYSIM but doesn't support business owner
retrofit decisions
 Can illustrate process to decision-maker and give confidence to do retrofit
 Lite and partial need to be more graphic-heavy and explained more to enable decision-makers like
building owners and operators while substantial and comprehensive need to be more verbose, have
outputs that are less curated, and be cloud-based for speed
Finally, the next steps captured at the Focus Group were as follows:

Email a link to the test simulation tool website to all participants so that participants can access the
test site for the simulation tool and test it out

Clarify purpose and user of each tool (e.g., use cases) and stand-alone versus flow

Provide flow diagram of inputs and outputs for when using the tool and when making decisions

Identify the steps the building owner needs to take to make different decisions
3. Recommendations
One recommendation is to develop and implement a plan with timing and responsible people to follow-up
on the following next steps identified in the focus group meeting:
 Email a link to the test simulation tool website to all participants so that participants can access the
test site for the simulation tool and test it out

Clarify purpose and user of each tool (e.g., use cases) and stand-alone versus flow

Provide flow diagram of inputs and outputs for when using the tool and when making decisions

Identify the steps the building owner needs to take to make different decisions
The remaining recommendations are as follows:

Share the progressive framework of the tool with other groups developing tools in this space to 1recruit more tools for integration into the framework that would benefit small- and medium-sized
building owners, 2 - get their input for consideration, and 3 - get their support to promote the
framework as the go-to place for simulation tools supporting small- and medium-sized buildings.

Engage Hub performers working on building the business case for retrofits (contact Task 8 leader
Jacqui Jenkins for input) to solicit input on the cost information and make it even more valuable for
owners and operators and more compelling to do an AER.

Engage Hub performers working on finance mechanisms (contact Task 8 leader Jacqui Jenkins for
input) to provide resources on financing along with cost information.

Provide sensitivity analysis results (perhaps by building type as needed) as part of the results where
customization options are not yet (or not planned to be) available.
6
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1

Indicate the potential level of relative impact on reducing energy use (e.g., with color coding for
lowest impact, average impact, and highest impact) in inputs to help user prioritize where needs the
most reliable data.

Review all the limitations for the Design Advisor Tool and prioritize based on how difficult to
implement versus the potential benefits to the user and the mission and goals of the EEB Hub.

Need to develop at least one and preferably a couple of realistic use cases (e.g., examples) for the
comprehensive retrofit that are applicable to small- and medium-sized building owners.

Consider incorporating triple bottom line accounting results for the comprehensive and substantial
retrofit results. See Vivian Loftness' EEB Hub research report on triple bottom line accounting for
lighting as an example.

Review the limitations on validating the Retrofit Manager Tool's performance and increasing the
sophistication and prioritize work based on feasibility and difficulty to do versus benefit to users of
the tool.
7
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Details
4. Participants
The table below summarizes the participants with their perspective and affiliation.
Participants in the September 6th Engagement Platform Focus Group:
Name
Affiliation
Retrofit Market Perspective
Ibrahim Alangam
Bhaskar Ale
Jin An
Leslie Billhymer
Christopher Connock
Rob Crossett
Jason DeGraw
Payam Delgeshaei
Patrick Gurian
Gerard Hazel
Mohammad Heidarinejad
Max Kaiserman
Vera Kiselev
Khee Pho Lam
Rob Leicht
Young Lee
Ali Malkawi
Doug Miller
Richard Mistrick
Raymond Morris
Jamie Ober
Valerie Patrick
Jonathan Payne
Carol Rabinowitz
Marissa Rosen
Sheila Sagerer
David Salamon
Jelena Srebric
Tim Wagner
Rin Zhang
Penn State University
MaGrann and Associates
Penn State University
University of Pennsylvania
Kieren Timberlake
DVIRC
Penn State University
Penn State University
Drexel University
M and E Engineers
Penn State University
Kaiserman Company
WRT Design
Carnegie Mellon University
Penn State University
IBM
Harvard University
Getarp (Green Energy Technologies)
Penn State University
Dome-Tech
WRT Design
Bayer MaterialScience
Liberty Property Trust
Sera Engineering
University of Pennsylvania
Seven Group, Energy Opportunities
WRT Design
University of Maryland
United Technologies Research Center
IBM
Energy Efficient Building (EEB) Hub
Building Engineer/Auditor
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Energy Efficient Building
Building Designer
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Building Engineer/Auditor
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Owner/Operator
Building Designer
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Supplier and EEB Hub
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Building Engineer/Auditor
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Building Engineer/Auditor
Building Designer
Supplier and EEB Hub
Owner/Operator
Building Engineer/Auditor
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Building Engineer/Auditor
Building Designer
Energy Efficient Building Hub
Supplier and EEB Hub
Supplier and EEB Hub
8
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
5. Agenda
6. Platform Overview – Leslie Billhymer
Leslie Billhymer welcomed participants to this Focus Group whose purpose was to help the EEB Hub build a
simulation platform that building engineers, designers, owners and operators will adopt in the region to
catalyze the growth of advanced energy retrofits.
Leslie explained that the EEB Hub convenes the most important stakeholders along the building retrofit
value chain because the input from these stakeholders is critical to shaping EEB Hub research direction and
the delivery of content to the market. Leslie expressed appreciation for participants’ commitment of time
and explained that the event has been designed to bring the participants content that is applicable to their
responsibilities and is state-of-the-art thinking in the building energy retrofit space. Leslie described that the
simulation platform has been designed to integrate the user base and increase accuracy of results and
recommendations with respect to building energy retrofits.
Leslie also explained that in 2013 we would like to assess the impact that events like this one are having in
the market so we will be following up with participants in 4 to 6 weeks with a very brief on-line survey. This
will help us make these events even more impactful and meaningful going forward. Leslie also mentioned
that we will also ask for participants’ immediate feedback at the end of this focus group.
9
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Leslie next led a 30-Second Challenge Introduction in which each participant was asked to provide their
name, affiliation, and favorite energy modeling tool.
Leslie provided an agenda overview and then introduced Jelena Srebric to give an introduction to the
Simulation Platform.
7. Introduction to the Simulation Platform – Jelena Srebric
Jelena introduced the tool framework and explained that the purpose of the framework is to package
technology in order to support decision-making and engage multiple stakeholders when faced with a
building retrofit opportunity. The EEB Hub views a building as an entity with a lifecycle and understand the
need to involve all stakeholders from that lifecycle in all phases.
Jelena also explained that the platform has been designed to be easy-to-use by all the different stakeholders
and to provide reliable outputs given the inputs and limits of the technologies used. Jelena then presented
the data flow explaining that they had to establish a data standard in order to be able to seamlessly transfer
data from one tool to the next to avoid duplication of data entry. Jelena stipulated that a user can start at
any point in the framework as they see fit, that is, you don’t have to start from the beginning with a lite
retrofit analysis.
10
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Jelena also provided an overview of each phase of analysis before the corresponding speakers. The
overviews are provided at the start of each of the following sections for each lite, partial, substantial, and
comprehensive tool demonstrations.
8. Demonstration of Lite Retrofit Tool – Energy Asset Rating (Josh Wentz)
Josh Wentz did a live demonstration of some of the tools
connected to the Lite Retrofit phase. Specifically, the Energy Asset
Rating tool and Portfolio Manager are both linked to the Lite
Retrofit phase. Therefore, by providing the inputs for the lite
retrofit phase, the simulation platform recommends a level of
retrofit to consider and provides data for benchmarking.
The lite retrofit phase will also provide a plot of average daily
energy use versus the average temperature outside (the tool pulls
in weather data) which will show based on the slope of this curve if
the building is internal-load driven or shell driven (e.g., enclosure
dominated). This analysis requires a minimum of 12 months of
utility data.
Finally, for building owners with a large portfolio of buildings, by
entering utility data and the locations of these buildings you can get
a color-coded map of the buildings where the color coding indicates
the relative energy performance of these buildings.
Below are some examples of output from this phase.
11
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
12
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
9. Demonstration of Partial Retrofit Tool – Design Advisor (Leon Glicksman)
Leon Glicksman, who participated remotely from MIT via
telepresence, provided a live demonstration of the Design
Advisor Tool. Leo explained that this tool would be used for early
design studies before you would use tools like Energy Plus. With
Design Advisor, those not capable of using heavy tools like
Energy Plus can quickly compare different scenarios like singleglaze versus double-glaze windows and so on. The tool uses
retro-commissioning historical data and the focus is on firstorder effects in order to simplify data entry. Leo also described
the urban weather generator which maps the Energy Plus format
on weather are to a given urban area to simulate the urban heat
island effect.
A representative from CMU described an added capability that
will create regression curves from performance curves for real
products and then generate loads factoring in additional variables like occupancy, weather, and other
variables. This added capability will give good accuracy on energy consumption.
Below are examples of the types of inputs needed for this phase.
10. Demonstration of Substantial Retrofit Tool – Parametric Analysis (Ali Malkawi)
Ali Malkawi, formerly from University of Pennsylvania and now from Harvard University, described and
demonstrated a parametric analysis tool. This tool utilizes actual energy performance data from a building
rather than data from a simulation. This tool evaluates the impact of system control parameters on building
energy consumption to enable energy savings through building operation optimization. This tool is a direct
and rapid modeling method based on actual data. The hourly measured and sensor data from the building is
fed into a Gaussian training process to generate a model. Then different values of the parameter to be
13
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
investigated are fed into this model to determine the impact of that parameter on building energy
consumption.
Ali then demonstrated the model for Building 101 at the Navy Yard. The model output was in the form of a
large excel sheet that shows supply temperature, return temperature, outside air temperature, electricity
consumption, gas consumption and so on by year, month, day, and hour. The user can choose specific data
and allow the tool to calculate the accuracy of the model and
uncertainty. Next you can select the parameters to be
investigated to calculate the impact of changing those
parameters on the overall energy consumption.
The EEB Hub Energy Audit Tool is also part of the substantial
retrofit scale. The Energy Audit Tool was not demonstrated
during this focus group because it was demonstrated in its
own EEB Hub focus group on July 16th. The 47 Energy
Conservation Measures currently included in the Energy
Audit Tool are shown to the right for information purposes.
11. Demonstration of Comprehensive Retrofit Tool – Retrofit Manager (Josh Wentz)
Josh Wentz presented a live demonstration of the current version of Retrofit Manager Tool. The purpose of
this tool is to build a reliable and sophisticated energy simulation model using a high level of inputs that are
minimal requirements versus a tool like Design Builder which has higher capability. This tool automatically
brings in data from the Energy Audit Tool in the substantial scale so you start with a high fidelity model with
a good amount of data pre-populated. The tool can now be used to look at variable like changing the
building type, the building shape, and so on. The energy simulation model is designed to give data that is
consistent with the client’s utility bill.
14
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Mohammad described the zone component
load summary feature and the addition of
energy costs as well as energy efficiency
measures. In addition, the Retrofit Manager
tool shows how the timeline of energy
conservation measures impacts building
energy retrofit results. For example, you
can see how your return on investment
changes for different years or months.
Rick discussed the integration of DAYSIM
into the Retrofit Manager Tool. Some of the
inputs for the DAYSIM model include the
type of shades, orientation to the sun,
shade position, shade operation schedule,
lighting power fraction, and so on. DAYSIM
runs a sample room for each façade and
looks at the potential energy savings for
different types of shading.
Jason discussed the integration of CONTAM into the Retrofit Manager Tool. CONTAM is a general purpose
air flow simulation program. CONTAM capabilities are part of a complete energy modeling package. Some
of the planned applications of CONTAM results include energy savings calculations from envelope
measurements, material emission effects, dynamic ventilation controls, and general indoor air quality (IAQ)
technology assessment. All these standalone applications will be integrated into the Retrofit Manager tool
so the energy model informs the airflow simulation model.
12. Group Input on Simulation Platform and Select Tools
Valerie Patrick began with an overview of the facilitated feedback session for the focus group. Valerie began
sharing the good news that as of the last 4 weeks she is now a Certified Professional Facilitator. Valerie also
explained that the group work planned for this focus group is based on the creative problem solving
techniques of the Creative Problem Solving Group of Buffalo.
Valerie explained that the process technique she will be using is called ALUo. This is a process technique that
based on research has been shown to lead to the most productive feedback for a concept or approach. The
Energy Audit tool is an approach. ALUo is an acronym for Advantages, Limitations, Unique Attributes, and
Overcoming Limitations. ALUo provides a structured approach for participants to be able to formulate
reactions to and feedback on the energy audit tool in as effective a way as possible and for the subjectmatter experts to then be able to use that input and incorporate it going forward. The proverbial “win-win”.
Valerie explained that participants will start with identifying advantages. This is challenging as we all are
wired as human beings to find fault and to critique. In order to identify advantages, Valerie suggested that
15
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
participants put on their rose-colored glasses. Valerie shared that identifying advantages is an important
part of the process to put the limitations in perspective.
Next are the limitations which will come relatively easy. The challenging part is participants need to phrase
their limitation as a “How to” statement so that they are identifying the issue or problem without getting
into how to address the issue or problem. Valerie said that we will not have time today to identify unique
attributes or developing ways to overcome the limitations of the energy audit tool. Instead, we will ask you
to select which are the limitations that if addressed satisfactorily, will most favorably impact a decision by
your firm, auditor, or building owner to use the energy audit tool.
Val used the first couple of minutes to review the group task summary and handout and see if the group had
any questions (see Appendices 13 and 14). Val used the next couple of minute to go over best practices for
generating (defer judgment, freewheel, seek combinations, strive for quantity over quality). Val then asked
the group’s input on both advantages and limitations for the Design Advisor Tool which is summarized in the
tables below.
Advantages for the Design Advisor Tool:
Energy Auditor Perspective
 The layout easily leads the
"auditor" through the data
needed to be collected at
each level
Owner/Operator Perspective
 Being able to dive in for as much
as you like
 Prioritize retrofit strategies with
life cycle cost analysis
Designer Perspective
 Organization of tool as light,
partial, substantial, and
comprehensive is nice with clear
boundaries
 How the tool progresses
 Error bars nice way to represent
uncertainty
 Certainty or confidence factor is
nice in regards to transparency
 Tool is progressive
 Way to bring the owner into
the process and get owner
engaged
 The primary energy usage
graphics are good for
presentation of information
to clients
 Good quick overview to
illustrate the analytical
process to the owner on
what elements to consider
 The ability to incorporate
heat island effect for a given
city by entering data once for
many buildings
16
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Energy Auditor Perspective
 The weather generator is
nice feature
Owner/Operator Perspective
Designer Perspective
 Not having to transfer data
from tool to tool
 Estimate of costs for retrocommissioning
Limitations for the Design Advisor Tool:
Energy Auditor Perspective
 How to have more selection
for envelop for enough
sophistication to base
decisions
Owner/Operator Perspective
 How to incorporate life cycle
modeling: any reduction of
efficiency over the baseline and
replacement schedule
Designer Perspective
 How to make the graphics which
are clear and engaging to us
designers and engineers work for
non-architects and non-engineers
 How to have more selection
on floors
 How to input cost data for ECMs
(energy conservation measure)
 How to incorporate life cycle
costs
 How to incorporate specific
products and specific
performance
 How to include assessment of
mechanical system changes and
not just envelop changes
 How to have lighting power
versus lighting intensity
 How to normalize postretrofit performance to
occupancy and weather.
 How to get data in English
and metric units
 How to choose the units of
input and output individually
and how do the units transfer
between IS versus IP
 How to get BTU's per square
foot and cost per square foot
 How to handle additional
fuels beyond electricity and
gas including district heating
and cooling.
 How to address multi-use

How to verify strategies used post-retrofit and auditing ability
 How to audit with regard to
occupancy, degree-days, control
setting changes and so far so an
"apples to apples" comparison.
 How to model a campus with a
central heating and cooling
arrangement
 How to have these tools work
with other industry tools
 How to clarify what stands behind
"average e-value"

How to understand what "average
R-value" is and how it is calculated
17
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Energy Auditor Perspective
buildings such as retail below
with office above or
residential on upper floors of
an office building
Owner/Operator Perspective
Designer Perspective
 How to have guidance to
determine existing conditions
 How to import data from
Portfolio Manager into this
tool
Next Val shifted the group’s attention to the Comprehensive Retrofit Manager capabilities and asked the
group’s input on both advantages and limitations for this tool which is summarized in the tables below.
Advantages for the Comprehensive Retrofit Manager capabilities:
Energy Auditor Perspective
 Functionality is great
 Useful to identify faults in
system where applicable
Owner/Operator Perspective
 Having a diverse range of building
data in one place in a usable
format
 Useful as measurement and
verification where applicable

 Energy savings from
daylighting is one of the
weaknesses of Energy Plus
 Auditing tool for building
management system
Designer Perspective
Can access via multiple devices
since on the Internet
 Physics-based approach to
CONTAM is unique compared
to other tools (e.g., direction
the wind blows)
Limitations for the Comprehensive Retrofit Manager capabilities:
Energy Auditor Perspective
Owner/Operator Perspective
 How to handle confidentiality
of data
 How to convey the tool
validation to give users
confidence in using the
output
Designer Perspective
 How to provide context of how
inputs are tied to outputs to make
tool more usable (bracket options,
dive deeper, etc.)
 How to have flexibility to
incorporate complexities of
18
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Energy Auditor Perspective
 How to prove the
performance of the tools
versus real world to give
users confidence
Owner/Operator Perspective
Designer Perspective
building for DAYSIM
 How to incorporate exterior
orientation of the facades to the
sun for DAYSIM
 How to manage trade-off of
complaints versus optimized
operations
 How to incorporate
productivity benefits of
improved indoor air quality
and increased daylighting
 How to find a building with
level of sensing and
instrumentation to be able to
use comprehensive tool
 How to have opportunity for
savings if have a heavily
instrumented building which
takes a lot of investment to
install and maintain
Finally, Val asked for group feedback on the simulation platform framework which was as follows:

Like idea of dialing in level of sophistication from simple (lite) to comprehensive

Like the stakeholders targeted in each stage (lite, partial, substantial, and comprehensive)

The learning curve is easy

eQuest wizards give capabilities except CONTAM and DAYSIM but doesn't support business owner
retrofit decisions

Can illustrate process to decision-maker and give confidence to do retrofit

Lite and partial need to be more graphic-heavy and explained more to enable decision-makers like
building owners and operators while substantial and comprehensive need to be more verbose,
have outputs that are less curated, and be cloud-based for speed
Another view on the focus group input is categorized which is shown in the tables below.
Categorized Advantages for Design Advisor Tool
Categorized Limitations for Design Advisor Tool
19
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Categorized Advantages for Design Advisor Tool
Categorized Limitations for Design Advisor Tool
Categorized Advantages for Retrofit Manager
Categorized Limitations for Retrofit Manager
20
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Categorized Advantages for Retrofit Manager
Categorized Limitations for Retrofit Manager
13. Highlights from Field Notes
Field Notes on Introduction and Context:
















There’s a large group of researchers (about 30) that stand behind what you’ll see here.
We’ve had roughly 6 months of R&D; some tools have had longer term development
Engineers are reusing what’s already available
What we’re developing is the way we package technology for engagement of stakeholders to support
decision making in the retrofit process
So many tools exist and many are cumbersome and not always accurate
In the Hub we believe we should involve all stakeholders – from design to delivery and maintenance
and operations which is a diverse group.
Some tools are specific to benchmarking
We strongly believe that the owners should have some decision-making power or understanding of
their building from the beginning of the process
Our goals are tools in a framework that is easy to use, accurate, applicable to you, has the features
the market prefers, and responds to market needs
The EEB Hub Integrated Design AER Roadmap has stages from lite to partial, substantial, and
comprehensive
This simulation framework has these same stages with an increase in fidelity and capability as you
progress through these stages
Some easy things owners can do, some are true integration, and some require real monitoring of
your building
We have private corporations (IBM, UTC), National Labs, and Universities (CMU,Penn, PSU)
developing the tools
We recommend stakeholder types for each phase of the simulation platform from lite to
comprehensive to provide context
Users can jump into any of the stages, or can follow your building step by step going forward through
the stages
Josh, Ying, Ke, and Payam are working on the interface itself which can be found at: Tools.eebhub.org
Field Notes on Partial Retrofit Stage:

The necessities are building name, function, climate and year built
21
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1








Utility data can be imported
Also added tools such as ASHRAE and IBM modeling engine
Can click on outputs – can simulate… show industry average plus your average
Tool provides temperature-related consumption and regression analysis
Regression shows temperature versus energy usage
Can use this with EPA Portfolio Manager Score and DOE Asset Rating Score – so can recommend
what level of retrofit you might consider as a building owner based on analysis against peer group on
how your building energy performance compares
Payam presented the inverse modeling toolkit to assess if you have a shell-driven building OR
internal-load-driven building. So for example, if you have a lot of glass and are a shell-driven building,
then should consider shading devices, insulation, and weatherization. All that’s needed to generate
this inverse modeling toolkit data is at least 12 months of utility information.
Young Lee from IBM discussed another inverse modeling tool they have developed. This tool also
mines and analyzes utility data to determine where to investigate further. This depends on utility
data, electricity simulation, and then benchmarking all buildings in a portfolio. If your data is in the
database, then you can find it… or you can load it. Calculates site, base energy, heating load, cooling
load, and two parameters – overall envelope heat resistance and overall air change rate… then can
do simulation. Shows energy savings before and after, month by month. Shown in both a graph and a
table. With this, then can Benchmark your building against others in the portfolio… map it out by
color and size – red is intense / green is low intensity (orange, yellow). The color scheme depends on
R Value which is ASHRAE standard. Can see a particular buildings data. Using this tool – can screen
buildings that’d be good candidate for retrofit. Identify, filter, screen – by year built, floor area, R
value and filter. Ideal for a mayor, school building to compare, or a hotel chain to compare.
22
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Appendix 14
14. Group Task Summary
Task Statement: The EEB Hub needs the perspective of regional building designers, service providers, and
decision-makers on the value and usefulness of a suite of web tools designed to support energy-smart
building retrofit decisions in order to help unleash the competitiveness of the region’s buildings.
Key Background:
1. The EEB Hub held a stakeholder engagement meeting last year and learned from building owners and
operators that a high-priority need was improving the communication of integrated design results
including a view of individual contributions to energy savings to accommodate busy decision-makers.
2. Building science expertise is needed to understand and realize repeatable energy savings. For
example, to compare building energy performance between one period of time before a building
energy retrofit and another period of time after an energy retrofit, there are several variables that
must be accounted for including change in building occupancy, change in weather, equipment
changes, and changes in building control settings.
3. The EEB Hub is developing a suite of web simulation tools based on an integrated stakeholder
systems approach to decision-making. This suite of tools has built-in expertise and systems to take
into account the complex considerations dictated by building science needed for accurate output and
comparisons.
Session Outcome: A comprehensive list of how the suite of web tools designed to support energy-smart
building retrofit decisions help and do not help regional building designers, service providers, and
owners/operators improve building energy performance.
Working Statements:
A. Imagine that you have a design project to do an energy retrofit of a building or you are part of or
running a building energy retrofit project. What about the Design Advisor and Retrofit Manager tools
in the web platform works for you and your project based on your perspective/knowledge? What will
really contribute to designing and delivering a successful building energy retrofit?
B. Again, imagine that you have a design project to do an energy retrofit of a building or you are part of
or running a building energy retrofit project. What about the Design Advisor and Retrofit Manager
tools in the web platform doesn’t work for you and your project? What about the web simulation
tools will limit success or be a barrier to designing and delivering a successful building energy
retrofit? What kinds of activities are missing, or problematic for the building energy retrofit project?
Sample Options:
Advantages
 The user interface is intuitive and easy to use
 The tool enables me to easily coordinate the input of several different stakeholders
Limitations
 How to understand the benefits and trade-offs to justify the level of effort needed to inputs
 How to have transparency of default data used in the Design Advisor tool
23
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Appendix 15
15. Simulation Platform Information Sheet
The “Lite” or “Benchmark” web tool has been designed for
building owners. The inputs needed are gross square area and
utility data. The goal is to identify overall building
performance and benchmark retrofit potential based on the
following outputs:
1. Cooling EUI (based on climate, building type, temperature response)
2. Heating EUI (based on climate, building type, temperature response)
This “Lite” or “Benchmark” tool will recommend 1-5 energy efficiency measure categories for further
analysis.
The “Partial” or “Systems Benchmark” web tool has been designed for building designers.
The inputs needed beyond what is needed for the “Lite” web tool include occupancy
densities, building lighting variables, and building insulation characteristics. The goal is to
refine broad categories into components of buildings systems to be investigated which
includes identifying components that may need maintenance or operational improvements.
For example, a large discrepancy in performance of building sub-systems between IBM
(calibrated to utility bills) and DAT (forward model) indicates an operational or equipment
malfunction.
The output breaks out further sub-systems that may have lucrative savings opportunities into the following
categories: operations and maintenance, lighting and daylighting, plug and process loads, occupants, envelop
(walls, roof, and fenestration), heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.
The “Partial” or “Systems Benchmark” tool will recommend 5-15 energy efficiency measures to address
discrepancies, and 20-40 more with high likelihood for savings with several needing further analysis for
increased reliability of savings.
The “Substantial” or “Systems Audit” web tool has been designed for building auditors. The
inputs needed beyond what is needed for the “Partial” web tool include shape of the
building, zoning, economizers, building equipment capacities, and building equipment
efficiencies. The goal is to take the sub-systems analysis from the previous tools, and use
that information to target building sub-systems to further investigate. The auditor can collect
particular data for promising sub-systems such as window geometry and shading for
daylighting analysis. The tool does not account for changes in operation between days
(weekday vs. weekend) and between seasons. The categories of measures here are the same
as for the “Partial” tool.
The “Substantial” or “Systems Audit” tool will recommend 30-50 energy efficiency measures with high
likelihood for savings with some needing further analysis for increased reliability of savings.
24
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
The “Comprehensive” or “Longitudinal Systems Analysis and Integrated Planning” web
tool has been designed for building analysts. The input needed beyond what is needed for
the “Substantial” web tool is the 3D geometry for the building. The goal is to rigorously
evaluate the savings potential for several possible energy conservation measures, and to
coordinate measures into a retrofit management plan. The tool will start by asking which
measures to investigate first, rather than asking for building information. Most of the
default data should already be processed from the audit. Once ECMs are selected, the tool
will ask for further highly specific information on that sub-system or component to
improve model accuracy. For example, HVAC measures will probably need mechanical drawings and
equipment specifications, and HVAC zoning. Daylighting measures will need information on window
placement, shading, glazing type, luminance levels, room layout from a BIM model, and schedules. The tool
will provide the output capability for an “.idf” file and other files so that experienced energy auditors,
engineers, and facility energy mangers can get the full functionality of energy simulation tools. This output
uses the same categories as before with the distinction that the categories are organized by ECMs, rather than
listing building data needed for an accurate model.
25
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1
Appendix 16
16. Results of Feedback Survey
1. What about the focus group worked well for you?









Getting the word out regarding the tools development. In my daily activities, I
interface with many persons who will have interest.
Learning more about the EEB Hub products and talking through the systems.
Good review of all tools.
All good.
The ability to ask questions and express concerns.
Knowledge about different more comprehensive software for energy usage.
Well-structured, good summary of tools.
Design advisor tool could have provided a tool to demonstrate to the client the
options for better allocating their investments: glass, windows, more insulation or
different HVAC system.
Exposure to research tool being developed / exposure to wide range group.
2. What about the focus group did not work well for you?






Not enough time for each tool. Integration of metric tool – real sensor data with
models. Appear (maybe have) different approaches but could be integrated.
All good.
No issues here.
Tools in progress – just want to see thorough demo to give more constructive
feedback.
I’m an architect. The platforms presented here were more oriented towards
engineers.
Was trying to grasp over-arching picture of how the different software tie
together.
3. What did you learn that will help you contribute to the EEB Hub’s goal to grow building
energy retrofits in the region?






I’ll be able to track the development of the tools on an interactive basis.
Quick tool to sample low performing buildings and evaluate recommendations.
More involved tools to generate stronger and more detailed results.
Learning about tools. Will pass this on to clients/contacts.
I learned there are a lot of sweet people working hard to come up with new
ideas.
The different viewpoints of the business owners and how the different players
interact.
Software for more accurate weather data for location / Add a help menu.
26
EEB HUB Engagement Platform Workshop 6Sept2013 Report V1



Learning more about overall goal; coordinating multiple stakeholders and how
best to communicate to each one. Structuring of output to best advocate a
particular solution.
Interesting to learn about many platforms that geared toward various aspects of
energy model.
Plan to get on the website and look more in-depth.
4. Please advise of any business connections that you were able to make as a result of
participating in the focus group today and any other comments are also welcome.







Have identified a candidate building to use as a test facility. Will provide info to
Rob Leicht.
Would like a list of attendees and if they want to be contacted – LinkedIn.
Met some new people.
Met many interesting people all with dedication to a common goal.
WRT
Discuss with other architects how their offices address the energy modeling tool,
what programs they’re using.
Fellow architect at KTA.