Adoption and Compliance with Canadian Energy Codes - Lessons from BC - Presentation from RCIC conference in Edmonton Alberta

1. Lessons Learned from British Columbia
Adoption and Compliance with Energy
Codes: ASHRAE 90.1 and NECB
Graham Finch, MASc, P.Eng
Principal, Building Science Research Engineer
RDH Building Engineering Ltd.
Vancouver, BC
RCIC 2013 Edmonton – May 1, 2013

2. Presentation Outline
Energy Efficiency Requirements for Part 3
Buildings in BC
Enforcement & Compliance
ASHRAE 90.1 Overview & Lessons Learned
NECB 2011 Similarities & Differences

3. In the Past:
City of Vancouver (VBBL 2007), ASHRAE 90.1-2007
• ASHRAE in code for more than a decade
• Enforcement boosted in past few years (checklists)
Rest of BC (BCBC 2006), ASHRAE 90.1-2004
• ASHRAE added in 2008
• Enforcement up to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ)
Window Performance – BC Energy Efficiency Act (2009)
LEED – ASHRAE 90.1-2007 PRM or MNECB 1997
Upcoming:
City of Vancouver (VBBL 2013), ASHRAE 90.1-2010 or NECB 2011
Rest of BC (BCBC 2012+), ASHRAE 90.1-2010 or NECB 2011
Window Performance – BC Energy Efficiency Act & Within Code
Overview of Energy Efficiency Requirements in BC

4. City of Vancouver released new
building permit & occupancy
documentation process to
improve compliance with
ASHRAE 90.1
Checklists signed off by each
registered professional
(mechanical, electrical,
enclosure/architect) and
coordinating professional
Effective R-values on drawings/
“Insulation schedules”
Energy model outputs
Enforcement & Compliance

5. ASHRAE 90.1 “Energy Standard
for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings”
Compliance involves meeting
energy efficiency requirements
in all sections:
5 – Building Envelope (Enclosure)
6 – Heating, Ventilating, and Air
Conditioning
7 – Service Water Heating
8 – Power
9 – Lighting
10 – Other Equipment
ASHRAE 90.1 Overview

6. Alternate compliance options within
each section
Prescriptive
Trade-offs
Energy Simulation
Involves several disciplines with
professional engineers coordinating
their efforts plus one coordinating
professional taking overall
responsibility
Chosen compliance path has
implications for building design
ASHRAE 90.1 Overview

7. Mandatory Provisions (Section 5.4)
Insulation
• Protection, Rating, Labeling, Installation
Fenestration & Doors
• NFRC certification, airtightness, labels
Air Leakage
• “continuous air barrier”, prescriptive sealing, Vestibules, weather seals
Prescriptive Compliance Path (Section 5.5)
All components must meet prescriptive tables, maximum 40%
glazing area
Building Envelope Trade-off Compliance Path (Section 5.6)
Trade-off enclosure components using ASHRAE ENVStd software
Energy Cost Budget (ECB) Path (Section 11)
Whole building energy cost simulation & tradeoffs ($ not kWh)
ASHRAE 90.1 Building Enclosure Compliance

8. Compliance pathway is heavily influenced by building
enclosure design :
Window to wall ratio
• Maximum 40% for Prescriptive Option
• No limit for BE Trade-off option or ECB
Minimum assembly and component R-values
• Prescriptive Option - difficult to comply with thermal bridging
• BE Trade-off Option – detailed area weighted U-value calculations input
into ENVStd software
• Energy Cost Budget (ECB) - detailed area weighted U-value calculations
input into energy model
Changes to design during tendering and construction can erode
final compliance – need for “factor of safety”
ASHRAE 90.1 Building Enclosure Compliance

9. All building envelope assemblies (including details) must
meet Table 5.5 thermal requirements (by climate zone)
Opaque Walls/Roof: Assembly Maximum U-value (Minimum
effective R-value) or Insulation Minimum R-value (nominal
insulation)
Windows/Doors/Skylights: Maximum U-value and SHGC restrictions
Maximum of 40% window to wall ratio
Maximum of 5% skylight to roof ratio
Basic area take-offs only necessary to verify window-wall
ratio (and skylight to roof ratio)
Can be difficult to comply with for many common building
designs
Prescriptive Building Envelope Option

10. Two alternate ways to meet prescriptive requirements
Assembly Maximum U-value (Minimum R-value)
• Accounts for all materials in assembly including air-films
• Easiest method to comply with and greatest flexibility in design
Insulation Minimum R-value
• Prescriptive rated R-value of installed insulation (nominal minimum)
• Many assemblies prescriptively require continuous insulation (ci)
Prescriptive Building Envelope R-value Tables

11. Only screws/nails are considered “fasteners” (or adhesives)
Where any continuous or discontinuous framing (girts,
studs, clips, brick ties, shelf angles, slab edges) penetrate
through the insulation – it is not considered c.i.
Note: Continuous insulation is not necessarily a mandatory
requirement for prescriptive compliance (high enough R-
values can be achieved without true ci)
Continuous Insulation (ci)

12. Nominal R-values = Rated R-values of
insulation which do not include
impacts of how they are installed
For example R-20 batt insulation or
R-10 foam insulation
Effective R-values or Real R-values =
Calculated R-values of
assemblies/details which include
impacts of installation and thermal
bridges
For example nominal R-20 batts
within steel studs becoming ~R-9
effective, or in wood studs ~R-15
Nominal vs Effective R-values

13. Thermal bridging occurs when a more conductive
material (e.g. aluminum, steel, concrete, wood
etc.) provides a path for heat to flow such that it
bypasses a less conductive material (insulation)
The bypassing “bridging” of the less conductive
material significantly reduces its effectiveness as
an insulator
Examples:
Wood framing (studs, plates) in insulated wall
Steel framing in insulated wall
Conductive cladding attachments through insulation
(metal girts, clips, anchors, screws etc)
Concrete slab edge (balcony, exposed slab edge)
through a wall
Window frames and windows themselves
Thermal Bridging

14. Effective R-values account for thermal bridges
and represent actual heat flow through
enclosure assemblies and details
Heat flow finds the path of least resistance
Disproportionate amount of heat flow
occurs through thermal bridges
Often adding more/thicker insulation can’t
help
Required for almost all energy and building
code calculations
Energy code compliance has historically
focused on assembly R-values – however
more importance is being placed on details
and interfaces & whole building impacts of
thermal bridges
Why Thermal Bridging is Important

15. ASHRAE/NECB/NBC Climate Zone Divisions
• >7000 HDD
• 6000 to 6999 HDD
• 5000 to 5999 HDD
• 4000 to 4999 HDD
• 3000 to 3999 HDD
• < 3000 HDD

16. Wall, Roof & Window Requirements for Alberta (Part 3)
Climate
Zone
Wall – Above
Grade: Minimum
R-value (IP)
Roof – Flat or
Sloped: Minimum
R-value (IP)
Window:
Max. U-
value (IP)
8 31.0 40.0 0.28
7B 27.0 35.0 0.39
7A 27.0 35.0 0.39
6 23.0 31.0 0.39
NECB2011
ASHRAE90.1-2010–
ResidentialBuilding
Climate
Zone
Wall (Mass,
Wood, Steel):
Min R-value
Roof (Attic,
Cathedral/Flat)
: Min R-value
Window (Alum,
PVC/FG):Max.
U-value
8 19.2, 27.8, 27.0 47.6, 20.8 0.45, 0.35
7B 14.1, 19.6, 23.8 37.0, 20.8 0.45, 0.35
7A 14.1, 19.6, 23.8 37.0, 20.8 0.45, 0.35
6 12.5, 19.6, 15.6 37,0, 20.8 0.55, 0.35
*7A/7B combined
in ASHRAE 90.1

17. Wall, Roof & Window Requirements for Alberta (Part 9)
Climate
Zone
Wall - Above
Grade:
Minimum
R-value (IP)
Roof –
Flat/Cathedral
: Minimum R-
value (IP)
Roof –
Attic:
Minimum
R-value (IP)
Window:
Max. U-
value (IP) /
Min. ER
8 21.9 28.5 59.2 0.25 / 29
7B 21.9 28.5 59.2 0.25 / 29
7A 17.5 28.5 59.2 0.28 / 25
6 17.5 26.5 49.2 0.28 / 25
WithoutaHRV
Climate
Zone
Wall - Above
Grade:
Minimum
R-value (IP)
Roof –
Flat/Cathedral
: Minimum R-
value (IP)
Roof –
Attic:
Minimum
R-value (IP)
Window:
Max. U-
value (IP) /
Min. ER
8 17.5 28.5 59.2 0.25 / 29
7B 17.5 28.5 59.2 0.25 / 29
7A 16.9 28.5 49.2 0.28 / 25
6 16.9 26.5 49.2 0.28 / 25
WithaHRV
For Comparison to NBC 2010 (2012 Update) Section 9.36

18. Excerpt from 90.1-2010 Table 5.5-7 (Edmonton, AB)
Building Enclosure Component
Climate Zone 7 – Residential Buildings
Minimum Assembly
R-value
ft2 ⋅°F⋅ h/Btu
Minimum Insulation
R-value
ft2 ⋅°F⋅ h/Btu
Roof – Insulation Above Deck R-20.8 R-20 c.i.
Roof – Attic R-37.0 R-38
Above Grade Wall – Wood-Frame R-19.6 R-13 + 7.5 c.i.
Above Grade Wall – Steel Frame R-23.8 R-13 + 15.6 c.i.
Above Grade Wall – Mass R-14.1 R-15.2 c.i.
Below Grade Wall – Concrete R-10.9 R-10.0 c.i.
Windows Maximum Window U-value Btu/h∙ft2∙°F
Non Metal Frame (Vinyl,
Fibreglass and Wood)
U-0.35 (no SHGC requirement)
Metal Framed Windows
(Aluminum, Window Wall)
U-0.45 (no SHGC requirement)
Metal frames (Curtainwall &
Storefront)
U-0.40 (no SHGC requirement)
* c.i. = continuous insulation

19. Window-wall ratios >40%
Curtain-wall or window-wall
spandrel panels
Balconies & exposed slab
edge projections
Mass concrete walls with
interior insulation
Roof parapet, overhang
details, canopies
Insulation placed between
steel studs or z-girts
Best suited for simple
buildings
Common Difficulties in Meeting Prescriptive Compliance

20. Structural Stud Framing in Taller Multi-Unit Residential Buildings
Common Difficulties in Meeting Prescriptive Compliance

21. Spandrel Panels
Common Difficulties in Meeting Prescriptive Compliance
verticals

22. Cladding Attachment through Exterior Insulation – Minimize
Thermal Bridging
Solutions for Meeting Prescriptive Compliance

23. Alternate Cladding Support Comparison

24. Cast-in-Place Concrete Balcony & Slab Edge Thermal Breaks
Solutions for Meeting Prescriptive Compliance

25. Allows for greater flexibility in architectural design
Common path for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings where more
complex enclosure designs are utilized
Necessary where window-wall ratios exceed 40% and
enclosure assemblies/details may not meet minimum
prescriptive requirements
Requires determination of effective thermal performance of
all enclosure assemblies, details, and components
Trade-offs made between any enclosure component (i.e.
between walls and windows, or walls and roofs etc.)
Building Envelope Trade-off Option

26. Compliance is assessed by calculation of Envelope
Performance Factor (EPF) calculated using ASHRAE EnvStd
software
EPF approximates the total heating and cooling energy associated
with a single square foot of surface. A lower EPF is better than a
high EPF
Overall U-value of building enclosure driving factor in EPF plus day-
lighting and solar-heat gain through windows
Proposed building enclosure is compared to a minimally
prescriptively compliant baseline building enclosure
Baseline building construction is identical except that all building
enclosure assemblies meet maximum U-value (minimum R-value)
requirements within each class of construction and a 40%
window-wall ratio is assumed
Building Envelope Trade-off Option

27. Step 1: Identify Building “Spaces”
Step 2: Define “Surfaces” within each Space
Step 3: Coordinate Surfaces & Assemblies
Step 4: Summarize Windows/Doors for each surface
Step 5: Summarize Data and Calculate Areas
Step 6: Enter Data and run EnvStd Program
Building Envelope Trade-off Option Process

28. Wall and Roof Areas
and U-values input
into ENVStd
Software by
construction type,
orientation and
occupancy
Window/door areas
entered within each
of the assemblies
Output from ENVStd
shows Pass/Fail &
No. of EPF Points
Building Envelope Trade-off Option

29. Assessing Reasons for Non-Compliance
Lower EPF is better
Current Design
Proposed Base Margin % Difference
Roof 981 1011 30 -3%
Skylight 0 0 0
Exterior Walls and Windows 6552 5753 -799 14%
Floor 873 779 -95 12%
Slab 0 0 0
Below Grade Wall 0 0 0
Daylighting Potential 3478 4140 663 -16%
Total 11884 11683 -201 1.7%
FAILS
Component Area UxA % of Heat Loss
Windows 10,884 4,898 55.7%
Doors 1,093 492 5.6%
Wall EW1 8,479 1,495 17.0%
Wall EW2 894 147 1.7%
Wall EW3 168 26 0.3%
Curb and slab edge details 1,585 652 7.4%
Floor and Soffit Areas 7,466 622 7.1%
Roof and Deck Areas 7,474 460 5.2%
TOTAL 38,043 8,791
Overall Effective U-Value 0.23
Overall Effective R-Value 4.33

30. Impact of Window to Wall Ratio on Overall Performance

31. Value of High Performance Windows on ASHRAE Compliance
ASHRAE, Maximum 40% Glazing Area
Non-Compliant
Compliant
1. Allows for Higher
Window-Wall Ratios
Improve Enclosure
R-value

32. Whole building energy simulation considers building
envelope plus HVAC, DHW, lighting and power.
Trade-offs allowed between BE and mechanical systems
Energy cost ($) of proposed building compared to baseline
building (with minimally compliant enclosure and baseline HVAC
system)
Used where building envelope performance cannot meet BE
Trade-off or prescriptive requirements
Requires detailed building envelope R-value calculations for
energy model input – same level of detail as required for BE
Trade-off with overall R-values
ECB energy model is different the LEED PRM energy model
Energy Cost Budget Option

33. Energy Cost Budget – depends on $ savings, not necessarily
energy
Bigger benefit to addressing higher cost fuel (often electricity)
rather than higher energy use (ie gas heating)
Common approach for compliance for buildings undergoing
LEED or other energy modeling
Mechanical systems often make-up for poor enclosure
choices – not great from long-term or passive approach
Allows for most flexibility in design, higher window to wall
ratio, more thermal bridging (to a point)
Trends with Energy Cost Budget Option

34. ASHRAE Mandatory
Provisions Checklist
City of Vancouver
Submission Checklist
“Insulation Schedule”
and Effective R-
values on Drawings
Comparison of actual
vs prescriptive R-
values
Energy Modeling
outputs
Compliance Documentation

35. National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (NECB) 2011
replaces MNECB 1997
Similar compliance paths to ASHRAE 90.1 – Prescriptive,
Trade-offs, and Energy Modeling
3 – Building Envelope
4 – Lighting
5 – HVAC
6 – Service Water Heating
7 – Electrical Power Systems and Motors
8 – Building Energy Performance Compliance Path
Building Envelope: Maximum window to wall ratio from
40% (HDD <4000) down to 20% (HDD >7000)
Energy Consumption vs Energy Cost
NECB 2011 Similarities & Differences

36. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 vs NECB 2011
Climate
Zone
Wall – Above
Grade: Minimum
R-value (IP)
Roof – Flat or
Sloped: Minimum
R-value (IP)
Window:
Max. U-
value (IP)
8 31.0 40.0 0.28
7B 27.0 35.0 0.39
7A 27.0 35.0 0.39
6 23.0 31.0 0.39
NECB2011
ASHRAE90.1-2010–
ResidentialBuilding
Climate
Zone
Wall (Mass,
Wood, Steel):
Min R-value
Roof (Attic,
Cathedral/Flat)
: Min R-value
Window (Alum,
PVC/FG):Max.
U-value
8 19.2, 27.8, 27.0 47.6, 20.8 0.45, 0.35
7B 14.1, 19.6, 23.8 37.0, 20.8 0.45, 0.35
7A 14.1, 19.6, 23.8 37.0, 20.8 0.45, 0.35
6 12.5, 19.6, 15.6 37,0, 20.8 0.55, 0.35
*7A/7B combined
in ASHRAE 90.1

37. Builder Insight Bulletins &
Building Enclosure Design
Guides
www.hpo.bc.ca
City of Vancouver
Checklists
ASHRAE 90.1 User Guides
NECB 2011 Presentations
For More Information & Assistance

38. Graham Finch, MASc, P.Eng
gfinch@rdhbe.com
604-873-1181
Discussion