B08_140P1424R0004_Attachment_2_100_Final_CD_s_Energy_Model_Compairson.pdf
PDF 181 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BICA - ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING REMODEL Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140P1424R0004
About this file
This energy analysis compares the energy and cost impacts of proposed renovations to an administrative building at Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area against an ASHRAE 90.1-2013 baseline. The analysis was conducted using Trace 700 energy modeling software and found that the preferred alternative of additional envelope insulation and upgraded windows with lower U-values would reduce annual energy costs by 40.4% compared to the baseline, from $25,164 to $14,986. Electric consumption would decrease by 65.8%, propane consumption by 32.9%, and total building energy use by 38.9%. The energy usage intensity would also fall by 38.9%, and equivalent carbon dioxide emissions by 65.8%. The analysis demonstrates that the proposed renovations would exceed the 20% improvement requirement over the ASHRAE baseline for major federal renovation projects.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 19
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
360 Engineering, Inc. | 751 Pine Ridge Rd, Suite 360, Golden, CO 80403 | (303) 940-2050 | www.360eng.com
March 15, 2023
Rehabilitate Fort Smith Administrative Building
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, MT
Energy Model Results The purpose of this energy analysis is to quantify the benefits of the improvements to the envelope and glass of the current building compared to the ASHRAE 90.1-2013 baseline. Federal Guiding Principles for a major renovation require that the building systems improve upon the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline system by at least 20%. Based on the assumptions of utility pricing, the proposed building envelope and glass selections outperform the baseline building by approximately 40%.
These pricing assumptions are an electricity cost of $0.1074/kWh, sourced from local commercial energy bill and a propane cost of $2.34/therm, sourced from a local propane distributor. Referring to Table 1, below, the proposed alternative improves upon the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline energy cost by 40.4%, bringing down the annual utility cost of $25,164 to $14,986. With regards to the environmental impact, the anticipated energy usage intensity and equivalent tons of CO2 are also included in the table to show the reduction from the ASHRAE baseline for the alternative.
The energy model was conducted using Trace 700 Energy Modeling Software. The model compared the preferred alternative to the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline. The preferred alternative model assumes additional insulation to the envelope of the building as well as upgraded windows with lower U-Values. These values are based on the Architectural CD drawings provided. The model was then compared to ASHRAE 90.1-2013 standard systems for the building baseline.
Table 1. Energy Analysis Summary
Preferred
Alternative
ASHRAE 90.1
Percent
Improvement on Baseline
Electric
Consumption 18,338 kWh 53,595 kWh 65.8%
Propane
Consumption 556,279 kBTU 829,382 kBTU 32.9%
Total Building
Energy 618,866 kBTU/yr
1,012,303 kBTU/yr 38.9%
Energy Usage
Intensity
84.8 kBTU/ft2/yr 138.7 kBTU/ft2/yr 38.9%
Equivalent CO2 14.8 Tons/year CO2
43.26 Tons/year
CO2
65.8%
Estimated Yearly
Energy Costs $14,986 $25,164 40.4%
The designed system beats the baseline Energy Usage Intensity by 38.9%
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .