<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
All;
<br>Unfortunately, new PC CPUs have increased significantly in power consumption
recently after holding relatively steady for many years. By CPU, I mean
the box sans monitor, not just the chip. For the past few years, I've measured
PC workstations (CPUs and monitors) with a nice Fluke as we install them.
For years 130W (60W CPU, 70W monitor) was pretty standard for a PC workstation.
<p>However, a recent purchase at our office included a number of 100W CPUs
(some AMD, some Intel), and a 95W 19" monitor. A 17" flat panel display
came in at 41W. So even with a flat panel display, the new workstation
used more power than 1999 models. Also a larger fraction of the workstation
total, the 100W CPU, comprises the continuous(typically) load fraction.
Suns and Macs with the RISC chips can be much less (40W), but are far less
common.
<p>The most recent LBNL report assumes 560 kWh/year for a server. This
corresponds to 63W average. The last server I Fluked here clocked in at
150W, and certainly never turns off. The newest main copier here seems
to generate far more heat without any greater output, even with all Estar
features enabled.
<p>In simulations, I usually assumed 150-200 W/employee was a typical overall
average occupied power density accounting for all office equipment, fridges,
coffee makers and a few task lights and occasional absences. This was borne
out by some floor-wide measurements. For sizing purposes, it's important
to note that employees and office equipment are very unevenly distributed
in most buildings. We've seen large open plan areas with occupant densities
of 70sf/person yielding 3 W/sf-conditioned in a zone. This is within buildings
with average overall densities of 250 sf/employee; note these actual average
builiding-wide occupant densities are typically 50% or less than design
occupancies.
<p>Energy analysts need to clearly differentiate <i>design</i> equipment
power densities from <i>average overall occupied</i> equipment densities.
While designers may have good reason to worry about 3W/sf equipment loads
for office zone airflow sizing, this does not mean the chillers or central
AHUs need to be sized for 3W/sf over the entire building. Designers have
long recognized that the sun does not shine on the E & W at the same
time, they could recognize the diversity in equipment also. And if arguing
this point isn't worth the brain damage, we can take comfort in the fact
that slight oversizing (given good VSD-driven fans, pumps, chillers etc.)
can reduce peak HVAC energy use. For example, the AHU designed for 550
fpm never sees more than 400 fpm. The real trick becomes assuring that
flows, particularly zone airflows, can successfully modulate down with
stability and to avoid unwanted reheat.
<p>One minor request for those engaged in these types of surveys: A square
foot is a pretty squishy number in the buildings world. We've got gross,
GBA, GMA, net, NUSF, rentable, occupied, conditioned, etc., and people
interpret these numbers in divergent ways unless they are specifically
defined by the owner or a code. These quantities can diverge by 40%. So
please define which sf is used to normalize the power or energy. That's
one reason I started using W/employee for offices, in addition to the smaller
deviations of that metric.
<br>
<p>Fred W. Porter
<br>Senior Engineer
<br>Architectural Energy Corp.
<br>2540 Frontier Ave. Suite 201
<br>Boulder CO 80301
<br>email: fporter@archenergy.com
<p> </html>
======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM