@conference {12052, title = {Measured energy performance of a US-China demonstration energy-efficient commercial building}, booktitle = {2007 ASHRAE Winter Meeting, January 27-31, 2007}, year = {2006}, month = {01/2007}, address = {Dallas, TX}, abstract = {

In July 1998, the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) and China{\textquoteright}s Ministry of Science of Technology (MOST) signed a Statement of Work (SOW) to collaborate on the design and construction of an energyefficient demonstration office building and design center to be located in Beijing. The proposed 13,000 m2 (140,000 ft2) nine-story office building would use U.S. energy-efficient materials, space-conditioning systems, controls, and design principles that were judged to be widely replicable throughout China. The SOW stated that China would contribute the land and provide for the costs of the base building, while the U.S. would be responsible for the additional (or marginal) costs associated with the package of energy efficiency andrenewable energy improvements to the building. The project was finished and the building occupied in 2004.

Using DOE-2 to analyze the energy performance of the as-built building, the building obtained 44 out of 69 possible points according to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating, including the full maximum of 10 points in the energy performance section. The building achieved a LEED Gold rating, the first such LEED-rated office building in China, and is 60\% more efficient than ASHRAE 90.1-1999. The utility data from the first year{\textquoteright}s operation match well the analysis results, providing that adjustments are made for unexpected changes in occupancy and operations. Compared with similarly equipped office buildings in Beijing, this demonstration building uses 60\% less energy per floor area. However, compared to conventional office buildings with less equipment and window air-conditioners, the building uses slightly more energy per floor area.

}, author = {Peng Xu and Yu Joe Huang and Ruidong Jin and Guoxiong Yang} } @conference {1945, title = {Using EnergyPlus for California Title-24 compliance calculations}, booktitle = {SimBuild 2006}, year = {2006}, month = {08/2006}, address = {Cambridge, MA}, abstract = {

For the past decade, the non-residential portion of California{\textquoteright}s Title-24 building energy standard has relied on DOE-2.1E as the reference computer simulation program for development as well as compliance. However, starting in 2004, the California Energy Commission has been evaluating the possible use of EnergyPlus as the reference program in future revisions of Title-24. As part of this evaluation, the authors converted the Alternate Compliance Method (ACM) certification test suite of 150 DOE-2 files to EnergyPlus, and made parallel DOE-2 and EnergyPlus runs for this extensive set of test cases. A customized version of DOE-2.1E named doe2ep was developed to automate the conversion process. This paper describes this conversion process, including the difficulties in establishing an apples-to-apples comparison between the two programs, and summarizes how the DOE-2 and EnergyPlus results compare for the ACM test cases.

}, author = {Yu Joe Huang and Norman Bourassa and Walter F. Buhl and Ender Erdem and Robert J. Hitchcock} } @proceedings {3396, title = {Using EnergyPlus for California Title-24 Compliance Calculations}, year = {2006}, month = {08/2006}, address = {Cambridge, MA, USA}, author = {Yu Joe Huang and Norman Bourassa and Walter F. Buhl and Ender Erdem and Robert J. Hitchcock} } @proceedings {2820, title = {Development of Trade-Off Equations for EnergyStar Windows}, year = {2004}, month = {08/2004}, address = {Boulder, Colorado, USA}, author = {Yu Joe Huang and Robin Mitchell and Stephen E. Selkowitz} } @proceedings {2823, title = {EnergyPlus: An Update}, year = {2004}, month = {08/2004}, address = {Boulder, Colorado, USA}, author = {Drury B. Crawley and Linda K. Lawrie and Curtis O. Pedersen and Frederick C. Winkelmann and Michael J. Witte and Richard K. Strand and Richard J. Liesen and Walter F. Buhl and Yu Joe Huang and Robert H. Henninger and Jason Glazer and Daniel E. Fisher and Don B. Shirley and Brent T. Griffith and Peter G. Ellis and Lixing Gu} } @proceedings {2824, title = {Transferred Just on Paper? Why Doesn{\textquoteright}t the Reality of Transferring/Adapting Energy Efficiency Codes and Standards Come Close to the Potential?}, year = {2004}, month = {08/2004}, address = {Pacific Grove, California, USA}, author = {Joseph J Deringer and Maithili Iyer and Yu Joe Huang} } @conference {301, title = {A Computer Simulation Appraisal of Non-Residential Low Energy Cooling Systems in California}, booktitle = {2002 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings}, year = {2002}, month = {08/2002}, address = {Asilomar, California, USA}, abstract = {

An appraisal of the potential performance of different Low Energy Cooling (LEC) systems in nonresidential buildings in California is being conducted using computer simulation. The paper presents results from the first phase of the study, which addressed the systems that can be modeled, with the DOE-2.1E simulation program.

The following LEC technologies were simulated as variants of a conventional variable-air-volume system with vapor compression cooling and mixing ventilation in the occupied spaces:

Results are presented for four populous climates, represented by Oakland, Sacramento, Pasadena and San Diego. The greatest energy savings are obtained from a combination of displacement ventilation and air-side indirect/direct evaporative pre-cooling. Cool beam systems have the lowest peak demand but do not reduce energy consumption significantly because the reduction in fan energy is offset by a reduction in air-side free cooling. Overall, the results indicate significant opportunities for LEC technologies to reduce energy consumption and demand in non-residential new construction and retrofit.

}, author = {Norman Bourassa and Philip Haves and Yu Joe Huang} }