Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RP 1742. Experimental Methodology and Results For Heat Gains From Various Office Equipment
RP 1742. Experimental Methodology and Results For Heat Gains From Various Office Equipment
To cite this article: Omer Sarfraz & Christian K. Bach (2017): Experimental methodology and
results for heat gains from various office equipment (ASHRAE RP-1742), Science and Technology
for the Built Environment, DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2017.1365766
Article views: 46
Download by: [Australian Catholic University] Date: 21 October 2017, At: 02:19
Science and Technology for the Built Environment (2017) 0, 1–13
Copyright C 2017 ASHRAE.
ISSN: 2374-4731 print / 2374-474X online
DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2017.1365766
Recent advances in building envelope systems and fenestration have resulted in improved building envelopes, reducing both the air
leakage and the heat transfer with the surroundings. At the same time, the power consumption of the heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning systems is reduced due to the improvement in their energy efficiency. This leaves plug and miscellaneous loads as one
of the main contributors to the overall energy consumption of buildings, accounting for up to 50% of the building’s total energy
consumption (NBI 2012). As a result of this, it is important to accurately assess the energy consumed by plug loads as overestima-
tion can result in oversized HVAC systems increasing capital and operating cost while undersized systems result in thermal comfort
problems for occupants. The ASHRAE Fundamental Handbook heat gain tables were last updated in 2009. Since then, equipment’s
power management capabilities improved tremendously and many new types of office equipment were introduced. ASHRAE, there-
fore, funded research project RP-1742 to update heat gain tables. The current article outlines the experimental methodology used in
RP-1742 to measure heat gain values for different office equipment. The peak heat gain values for various office equipment are listed
in different tables in the result section of the article and will be included in the 2017 ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook.
Introduction and literature review second, through an increase in HVAC load with associated
electricity consumption.
Advances in building envelope systems and fenestration sig- According to a study by the New Buildings Institute, plug
nificantly reduced heat transfer and envelope leakage. At the loads contribute up to 50% of the total electricity consump-
same time, energy efficiency of buildings’ HVAC systems was tion of buildings with high-efficiency HVAC systems (NBI
improved. This led to an overall reduction of energy con- 2012). Therefore, it is important to predict the energy con-
sumption of these HVAC systems. These improvements in sumed by these loads accurately to determine overall cooling
buildings and HVAC systems leave plug loads as main con- load. Overestimation can result in oversizing of HVAC
tributors to the building overall energy consumption (Kaneda systems, increasing the capital and operating cost of these
et al. 2010). Furthermore, plug loads are one of the fastest systems and underestimation results in undersized HVAC sys-
growing load categories (Frank et al. 2011) which, in a typical tems, which can result in thermal comfort issues for the occu-
office arrangement, include computers, laptops, and printers. pants (Komor 1997). Energy simulation programs are used
Plug loads are electric loads that cannot be attributed for load calculations and may require hourly average values of
to commercial building energy system loads, which include energy consumed by lights and office equipment as an input.
HVAC, refrigeration, and lighting (Roth et al. 2008). Plug It is important to note that the use of equipment name-
loads contribute to the overall building consumption in two plate values results in the oversizing of the HVAC system. This
ways: first, through their consumption of electricity, and is because nameplate values are based on the instantaneous
power measurement for the maximum working capacity of
the equipment (Hosni and Beck 2009). Wilkins et al. (1991)
reported findings of research conducted in Finland, where the
Received April 23, 2017; accepted July 11, 2017 measured load of the equipment was 20% to 30% of the name-
Omer Sarfraz, Student Member ASHRAE, is a PhD Student. plate value.
Christian K. Bach, PhD, Associate Member ASHRAE, is an Many researchers have worked on developing methods and
Assistant Professor. models for the accurate prediction of the energy consump-
∗ tion by office equipment. An office plug load field monitor-
Corresponding author e-mail: sarfraz@okstate.edu
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be ing report prepared for the California Energy Commission
found online at www.tandfonline.com/uhvc. (CEC) provides an estimation of energy consumption caused
2 Science and Technology for the Built Environment
by plug loads (Moorefield et al. 2008). Twenty-two offices 5%. No detailed information was provided on the employed
were selected for the field study with a device subset selec- energy metering method.
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017
tion that was monitored for a duration of 2 weeks. To deter- Model development in known environments can result in
mine the accuracy of prediction, billing data was obtained an accurate prediction of power consumption of equipment.
from each site. It was found that computers’ power consump- However, a single model is incapable of accurately estimat-
tion was—on average—48% of the total plug load. Lanzis- ing the equipment heat gains for different building occu-
era et al. (2013) developed a method for plug load energy pant activities. For example, Webber et al. (2006) conducted
data collection for a commercial office building with 450 a field study with 16 different types of work environments
occupants. The criterion for device selection for monitoring including 1683 computers and found that the after-hours
purpose was based on a stratified random sample, for exam- power status varied widely between different types of work
ple, based on the variability in usage and usage time. They environments.
found that increasing the sampling intervals from 10 seconds Power consumed by the equipment is equal to the total
to 1 minute did not cause any significant change in the power heat output from the equipment under steady state conditions
mode analysis results. (Hosni and Beck 2011). Therefore, accurate building heat
Wang and Ding (2015) developed a predictive model for gain estimation caused by office equipment requires accurate
office equipment energy consumption based on occupant prediction of power consumption by different office equip-
behavior. Experimental data was collected from three dif- ment. ASHRAE has recognized that need and funded several
ference office types—business, administration, and scientific research projects to determine heat gains from different office
research—using surveys for occupant behavior, visual inspec- equipment. The findings of ASHRAE projects 822-TRP
tion by cameras, and power metering. They found that error (1996), 1055-TRP (1999), and 1482-RP (2009) resulted in
between the predicted model, and actual energy consumption heat gain data available for practitioners and building energy
based on electricity bills for a 2-year period was less than modelers.
Night light SL1, SL2 0.5, 4 W 0.7, 1 Low power consumption (e.g., sleep
(LED/incandescent) mode)
LED light bulbs SL3 17 W 0.99 Standby or low power modes of
large office equipment
Incandescent light bulbs SL4, SL5, SL6 40, 60, 500 W 1 Medium and high power
consumption (e.g., idle and active
mode)
4 Science and Technology for the Built Environment
1 Desktop computer 9 9 24 42
2 Screen 11 1 15 27
3 Laptop docking station 0 0 18 18
4 Laptop 3 0 1 4
5 Tablet PC 2 1 1 4
6 Interactive display system 1 0 0 1
7 Speakers 1 0 1 2
8 Copier/ Multifunction 7 0 6 13
printer
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017
Figure 3 shows the comparison of rated accuracy of ref- to one when operating, while they have a power factor of less
erence power meter and plug load loggers with Standard 203 than one when in standby mode.
minimum accuracy requirement for plug load testing. It can Standardized load testing is performed for plug load log-
be seen that the reference power meter meets the ASHRAE gers after each round of testing using standardized loads to
standard 203 accuracy requirement when the load is ࣙ66 W. check the loggers for any drift produced during the testing.
Most of the office equipment active mode power consump- Field testing of an equipment using plug load logger is shown
tion is ࣙ66 W, therefore, reference power meter satisfies the in the flowchart in Figure 5.
Standard 203 minimum accuracy requirement for most plug After the field testing, an analysis is performed to find
loads active mode power consumption. the equipment power levels and peak heat gains. Additional
Plug load loggers are compared against reference power details on this will be given in a future publication.
meters using a different set of standardized loads that rep-
resents the range of power consumption and power factors as
shown in Figure 4. The different standardized loads used for Office equipment heat gain results
comparison purpose are provided in Table 4. Power consumption was measured for different types of
The selected loads were chosen to behave similar to mod- office equipment both within the university campus and at
ern switching power supplies that have a power factor close external partner sites for a duration of two weeks. The
Volume 0, Number 0, XXXX 2017 5
Table 7. Recommended heat gain for typical laptops and laptop docking station.
∗∗ ∗∗
Equipment Description Nameplate power , W Peak heat gain , W
does not provide any information on power consumption, where NA→ not available.
For the equipment peak heat gain value, the highest 15-minute interval of the recorded data is listed.
6 Science and Technology for the Built Environment
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017
Fig. 2. Flow chart for experimental approach (Power demand profiles and load factors will be discussed in future publication).
100.00%
10.00%
Accuracy, %
66, 3.00%
1.00%
Refernce power meter
3% Limit (ASHRAE 203)
Plug load logger
0.10%
1 10 100 1000
Active Power, W
Start
Standardized load
Step 2 testing of plug
load logger (check drift)
Comparison of plug
Step 3 load logger with
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017
short-term power peaks in each plot that lasted for few sec- consumption of desktop computers varies from 26 to 151 W.
onds and, therefore, need to be smoothed using a 15-minute The variation in peak heat gains between different equipment
average. For printers and coffee machines, Figures 7 and 8 is due to different system configuration and equipment usage.
show that a simple 15-minute average tends to underestimate For the purpose of load calculation for desktop computers, an
the actual 15-minute peak calculated by 15-minute moving average peak heat gain value of 82 W can be used. Equipment
average. The difference between the peak 15-minute simple power consumption is negligible (<1 W) during the sleep or
and moving average is small in case of microwave oven. This is standby mode.
because microwave oven operates close to its rated nameplate Nameplate power and peak heat gain values for differ-
power with little variation in power usage during the normal ent tested laptops and laptop docking stations are given
operation for up to about 15 minutes. in Table 7. The peak heat gain for laptops is within the
range of 46 to 59 W while for laptop docking stations; it
varies from 35 to 128 W. However, an average peak heat
Recommended heat gain from typical computer equipment
gain value of 53 and 61 W can be used for the laptop
Table 6 lists the nameplate and peak heat gain values for the and laptop docking station, respectively. Note that laptops
tested desktop computers. In the operational mode, the power
Fig. 9. Time series plot of a microwave oven during working Fig. 11. Screen heat gain as a function of surface area. Aspect
hours on a working day (Monday, nonacademic location). ratio 21:9 is a curved monitor and, therefore, not included into
the correlation.
and laptop docking station power consumption was mea-
sured during normal, in-field operation without removing the typical office use with desktop or laptop computers, screens
battery. ranging in size from 546 mm to 686 mm (21.5” to 27”) are
Table 8 lists the recommended heat gain values for screens used. Their average peak heat gain varies from 14 to 26 W;
ranging in size from 21.5” (546 mm) to 55” (1397 mm). The however, an average peak heat gain value of 21 W can be
power consumption of screens is a function of size, resolu- used.
tion, usage, and age. It was found that older screens (man-
ufactured before 2010) tend to consume approximately 2.5 Correlation for screen power consumption
times more power than newer screens (see Figure 10). There- Currently, screens with several different screen diagonals are
fore, Table 8 only includes the screens manufactured after available for purchase. Screen area can be used to obtain an
the year 2010. In order to calculate the power consumption estimate for future screens that use aspect ratios different from
for older screens, power consumption data from the previ- the screens tested in this study. Screen area is a function of
ous handbook (ASHRAE Handbook 2013) can be used. For diagonal and aspect ratio,
w · h · d2
A= , (1)
w 2 + h2
where
Fig. 10. Fifteen minute peak power consumption for flat screen qsc = (1.02 · d − 3.69) , R2 = 96%, (3)
screens (aspect ratio of 16:9) manufactured before and after year
2010. where qSC = sensible heat gain from monitor (W).
Volume 0, Number 0, XXXX 2017 9
Monitors of other aspect ratios (e.g., a tested 21:9 curved for optimizing their energy efficiency exists. Their energy con-
monitor) are currently excluded from the previous equations sumption might substantially decrease if following a similar
since insufficient test data is available. Additionally, their rel- trend as regular flat screen monitors in the past as previously
atively new design requires new manufacturing processes to shown in Figure 10.
obtain a curved surface and it is unclear how much potential
Recommended heat gain from printers, plotters, and fax table have different average peak heat gain values. The varia-
machines tion in power consumption is due to printer model, capacity,
and speed.
Table 9 lists the nameplate and peak heat gain as defined at the
Plotters’ peak heat gain is within range of 173 to 571 W,
beginning of this document for different tested printers. For
based on their model, capacity, size, and resolution. An aver-
small multi-function printers, average peak heat gain is 56 W,
age peak heat gain value of 372 W can be used. Small sized
while for medium size 35 pages per minute (ppm) office type
fax machine consumes about 46 W while medium size fax
multifunction printer, it is 732 W. For large multi-function
machine consumes the twice of the medium sized ones, for
printers, an average peak heat gain value of 425 W can be used
example, 92 W.
for load calculation purposes. Similarly, other printers in the
Table 11. Comparison of equipment average peak heat gains of current research with 2013 ASHRAE Handbook.
Equipment peak heat gain
Table 12. Comparison of plug load loggers with reference power meter.
Plug load logger active power (1 minute average) normalized by power of reference power meter [%]
All
Standardized loads/ Plug load loggers B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 loglog
SL1 (0.5 W) L 1.7 − 0.2 − 2.0 − 1.5 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 2.1 − 0.2 − 1.8 − 2.2 − 0.3 − 0.7 0.5 − 0.4 − 2.0 − 2.0 − 2.2
A 1.8 0.8 0.1 − 1.0 − 0.3 1.7 0.9 1.2 − 0.7 0.1 0.7 1.3 0.5 1.5 − 0.1 0.0 0.5
H 1.9 2.0 2.0 0.2 − 0.3 3.5 3.4 3.3 0.4 2.2 3.5 2.0 0.5 2.1 1.9 1.6 3.5
SL2 (4 W) L − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.7 − 0.6 0.1 − 0.6 − 0.7 − 0.7 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.7
A − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.6 − 0.5 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.3
H − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.2 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.2 0.1
SL3 (17 W) L − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.5 − 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.5
A − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.3
H − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.1 − 0.1
SL4 (40 W) L − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.5
A − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.3
H − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.1 − 0.1
SL5 (60 W) L − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.5
A − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.3
H − 0.1 − 0.1 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.1
SL6 (500 W) L − 0.6 − 0.5 − 0.5 − 0.6 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.5 − 0.6 − 0.6 − 0.5 − 0.5 − 0.6 − 0.6 − 0.6 − 0.5 − 0.5 − 0.6
A − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.6 − 0.6 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.5
H − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.1 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.2 − 0.3 − 0.6 − 0.5 − 0.4 − 0.1 − 0.1
H→ highest, A→ average, L→ lowest, B#→ plug load logger (e.g., B1→ plug load logger no. 1).
11
12 Science and Technology for the Built Environment
Fig. 12. Peak heat gain versus nameplate rating for different office
Sixteen plug load loggers were used for equipment power
equipment. consumption measurements. Comparison of plug load log-
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017
equipment, in part due to improved power management capa- Hosni, M.H., and B.T. Beck. 2011. Updated experimental results for
bilities. However, power consumption was found to be greater heat gain from office equipment in buildings. ASHRAE Transac-
for some equipment, including laptops and computers due tions 117:811–6.
Kaneda, D., B. Jacobson, P. Rumsey, and R. Engineers. 2010. Plug load
to the increased equipment usage and computing capabilities.
reduction: The next big hurdle for net zero energy building design.
This study also includes measurement of miscellaneous equip- ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficient Buildings, Pacific Grove,
ment, including thermal binding machine, projector, solder- CA, pp. 120–30.
ing station, battery and cell phone charger, tea kettle, ice Komor, P. 1997. Space cooling demands from office plug loads.
maker, and touch screen computer being new types of equip- ASHRAE Journal 39:41.
ment that were not included in previous ASHRAE handbook Lanzisera, S., S. Dawson-Haggerty, H.Y. Cheung, J. Taneja, D. Culler,
revisions. and R. Brown. 2013. Methods for detailed energy data collection of
miscellaneous and electronic loads in a commercial office building.
It is important to note that the office equipment’s peak Building and Environment 65:170–7.
power does not occur at identical times, especially when Moorefield, L., B. Frazer, and P. Bendt. 2008. Office plug load field mon-
comparing computers to kitchen equipment. Future research itoring report. White Paper. Durango, CO: Ecos Consulting.
should be done on how this affects the diversity factors at the New Buildings Institute (NBI). 2012. Plug load best practices
air handling unit level. guide: Managing your office equipment plug load. https://new-
Downloaded by [Australian Catholic University] at 02:19 21 October 2017
buildings.org/resource/plug-load-best-practices-guide/ (accessed
04/04/2017)
Roth, K., K. Mckenney, C. Paetsch, and R. Ponoum. 2008. US resi-
References dential miscellaneous electric loads electricity consumption. 2008
ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific
ANSI/ASHRAE. 2014. Standard 203: Method of Test for Determin- Grove, CA, August 17–22.
ing Heat Gain of Office Equipment Used in Buildings. Atlanta: Wang, Z., and Y. Ding. 2015. An occupant-based energy consump-
ASHRAE. tion prediction model for office equipment. Energy and Buildings
ASHRAE. 2009. Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta: ASHRAE. 109:12–22.
ASHRAE. 2013. Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta: ASHRAE. Webber, C.A., J.A. Roberson, M.C. McWhinney, R.E. Brown, M.J.
Frank, S., L.G. Polese, E. Rader, M. Sheppy, and J. Smith. 2011. Extract- Pinckard, and J.F. Busch. 2006. After-hours power status of office
ing operating modes from building electrical load data. 2011 IEEE equipment in the USA. Energy 31:2823–38.
Green Technologies Conference (IEEE-Green), Baton Rouge, LA, Wilkins, C.K., R. Kosonen, and T. Laine. 1991. An analysis
April 14–15, pp. 1–6. of office equipment load factors. ASHRAE Journal 33:38–
Hosni, M.H., and B.T. Beck. 2009. Update to Measurements of Office 44.
Equipment Heat Gain Data. ASHRAE Final Report for Research Wilkins, C.K., and M.H. Hosni. 2011. Plug load design factors.
Project, 1482-RP. Atlanta: ASHRAE. ASHRAE Journal 53(5):30–4.