Dean’s Cabinet April, 2008

Center for Energy Efficient

Dean’s Design
Cabinet April 17, 2008

•  Integrated Building Systems

•  Energy Efficiency in Transportation
•  Energy Storage
•  Energy Harvesting and Micropower
(off-grid) Generation
•  Data Center Cooling
•  Smart Grid
Interdisciplinary. Unifying theme:

Dynamics. Control. Computation.

Bamieh, Chong, Bullo, El Abbadi,

Gibou, Hespanha, Khammash, Homsy, Yuen, Matthys,
Mezic, Moehlis, Pennathur, Wolsky, Yang, Madhow
 Why
Dean’s Buildings?
Cabinet April 17, 2008

U.S. Buildings Produce

•  48 % of carbon emissions

•  U.S. Buildings Consume

•  39 % of total U.S. energy
•  71% of U.S. electricity
•  54% of U.S. natural gas

Jeff Moehlis, I.M.

Sources: High Performance Commercial Buildings: A Technology Roadmap, U.S. DOE., US GBC, DOE EIA CBECS Database, Table C2A and 5B.
What are we trying to do? Why does it ma2er? 
     Energy Breakdown by Sector     
What are we trying to do? Why does it ma2er? 
     Energy Breakdown by Sector     

Sensor Work: 
Prof. Francesco Bullo,  
Prof. Madhow Upamanyu 
 What are we trying to do? Why does it ma2er? 
     Energy Breakdown by Sector     

Can we do 70% be5er in NEW buildings? 90% be5er? 

                      50% be5er in RETROFITS? 

Sensor Work: 
Prof. Francesco Bullo,  
Prof. Madhow Upamanyu 
How is it done today, and what are the limitaDons of current pracDce? 
2("%&'#"%3(3%4#*%&#*0(#)(&5.(6787(9.:%*&;."&(#)(-".*/0
+))'<.(#)(-".*/0(-))'<'."<0(=(>.".?%43.(-".*/0 • “Properly applied offtheshelf or state‐of‐the‐shelf technologies are available to  
! !"#$%&"'()*&*+",'*(-&*./0(1",%."#%.0(
!""#$%&'#"()#*(+,*(-".*/0(1,&,*.( achieve low‐energy buildings. However, these strategies must be applied together 
 and properly integrated in the design, installaDon, and operaDon to realize 
1*22%&2(1*".&*4(H.%I(( @.<5"'<%3(>.:#*&(
!)-1NOM>PPF>@GPQR(
 energy savings. There is no single efficiency measure or checklist of measures 
;"2*(J#94$*2(%H(J$K(( S9&*(RFFA(  to achieve low‐energy buildings.”      
L$/7>M*.H%.I"&6*(:9$'4$&/2(
      ‐NEED FOR INTEGRATION OF BEST‐In‐CLAS COMPONENTS 
!"#$%&'())*+*,#-"#!)(..,#/"#0(&1,#2"#3&*44*56,##
7"#8%+9,#:+;#<"#=1;>%44# • “‐There was oNen a lack of control soNware or appropriate control logic to allow the 
 technologies to work well together.  
  ‐Design teams were too opDmisDc about the behavior of the occupants and their  
   acceptance of systems.  
  ‐Energy savings from daylighDng were substanDal, but were generally less than 
   expected.  
  ‐Plug loads were oNen greater than design predicDons.  
  ‐EffecDve insulaDon values are oNen inflated when comparing the actual building  
     to the asdesigned building.  
  ‐PV systems experienced a range of operaDonal performance degradaDons.  
   Common degradaDon sources included snow, inverter faults, shading, and parasiDc  
   standby losses. “ 
!)-1($2(%3*."#*4(,0(5$4+*2#()*2*".67(8&2#$#9#*(!(:"##*''*(((((;%&#."6#(!%<(=->?;@A>BB>CDEF@@G(
        ‐NEED INTEGRATED CONTROL SOFTWARE AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS 
• Each of these buildings saved energy, with energy  use 25% to 70% lower than code.  
Although each building is a good energy performer, addiDonal energy efficiency  
and on‐site generaDon is required for these buildings to reach DOE’s ZEB goal.      
       ‐NEED FOR FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN BLUEPRINTS 

Faculty in CCDC 
How is it done today, and what are the limitaDons of current pracDce? 
2("%&'#"%3(3%4#*%&#*0(#)(&5.(6787(9.:%*&;."&(#)(-".*/0
+))'<.(#)(-".*/0(-))'<'."<0(=(>.".?%43.(-".*/0 • “Properly applied offtheshelf or state‐of‐the‐shelf technologies are available to  
! !"#$%&"'()*&*+",'*(-&*./0(1",%."#%.0(
!""#$%&'#"()#*(+,*(-".*/0(1,&,*.( achieve low‐energy buildings. However, these strategies must be applied together 
 and properly integrated in the design, installaDon, and operaDon to realize 

What does the    energy savings. There is no single efficiency measure or checklist of measures 
@.<5"'<%3(>.:#*&(
1*22%&2(1*".&*4(H.%I(( !)-1NOM>PPF>@GPQR(
;"2*(J#94$*2(%H(J$K(( S9&*(RFFA(  to achieve low‐energy buildings.”      
L$/7>M*.H%.I"&6*(:9$'4$&/2(
      ‐NEED FOR INTEGRATION OF BEST‐In‐CLAS COMPONENTS 

         DNA of a Zero Energy Building  
!"#$%&'())*+*,#-"#!)(..,#/"#0(&1,#2"#3&*44*56,##
7"#8%+9,#:+;#<"#=1;>%44# • “‐There was oNen a lack of control soNware or appropriate control logic to allow the 
 technologies to work well together.  
  ‐Design teams were too opDmisDc about the behavior of the occupants and their  
   acceptance of systems.  

                                                  LOOK LIKE? 
  ‐Energy savings from daylighDng were substanDal, but were generally less than 
   expected.  
  ‐Plug loads were oNen greater than design predicDons.  
  ‐EffecDve insulaDon values are oNen inflated when comparing the actual building  
     to the asdesigned building.  
  ‐PV systems experienced a range of operaDonal performance degradaDons.  
   Common degradaDon sources included snow, inverter faults, shading, and parasiDc  
   standby losses. “ 
!)-1($2(%3*."#*4(,0(5$4+*2#()*2*".67(8&2#$#9#*(!(:"##*''*(((((;%&#."6#(!%<(=->?;@A>BB>CDEF@@G(
        ‐NEED INTEGRATED CONTROL SOFTWARE AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS 
• Each of these buildings saved energy, with energy  use 25% to 70% lower than code.  
Although each building is a good energy performer, addiDonal energy efficiency  
and on‐site generaDon is required for these buildings to reach DOE’s ZEB goal.      
       ‐NEED FOR FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN BLUEPRINTS 

Faculty in CCDC 
What is new in our approach / technology, and why do we think it will be successful?  

Lucid Design Group   Agilewaves Building  
Building Dashboard  Dashboard 
 Dean’s Cabinet April 17, 2008

Uncertainty Management Tool 3: DSample

Deterministic Test Vectors for Accurate Sampling

Sharp increase in accuracy with new

Sampling tool (red) vs standard method (blue)

-Automatically produces test vectors for uncertainty analysis, beating the curse of dimensionality.
Example of use: to reduce cost of physical testing, perform model-based testing of a subsystem
whose description contains 100 to 1000s of states and physical parameters that are not
known exactly, but only within a range, such as outside temperature.
-The tool (DSample) produces a set of deterministic test vectors for such simulation.
DSAMPLE precision does not depend on the number of dimensions and it beats the
speed of the competing algorithms by orders of magnitude.
DyNARUM Program 
•  Develop analysis and design tools for Uncertainty Management in large 
Dynamical Systems 
•  Demonstrate complexity management tools in problems with 10,000+ states/
parameters. 
•  Close collaboraDon with industrial partner (United Technologies CorporaDon) 
 Dean’s Cabinet April 17, 2008

Uncertainty Management Tool 1: VERTool

Simplification Using Graphical Decompositions

Layered system decomposition

-Automatically finds chains of influences in complex systems with 1000’s of variables

Example of use: vendor change requests a small change in communication protocol
linking two components. What are the possible negative consequences
for system performance? Which other components will be affected?
-The tool (VERTool) produces a layered decomposition, that enables
efficient system analysis.
 Dean’s Cabinet April 17, 2008

Uncertainty Management Tool 2: COORTool

Simplification Using Global Modes

time

Global (emergent) mode oscillation

-Automatically finds global description variables in complex systems with 1000’s of variables
Example of use: Design of an system leads to unwanted oscillations that represent themselves
on the scale of the system (i.e. state of every component oscillates in time),
with no apparent cause from a single component. Which changes are necessary
to remove oscillatory behavior?
-The tool (COORTool) produces a description of the system in global variables that reveal
cause and effect relationships at system scale.
 A Power Grid Model

Classical

Alternative
 DOE seed project (with LBL,UTC)

Energy Efficiency in a UC Merced building

The Classroom and Office Building

at UC Merced
A small number of parameters affect energy output!
• 92000sq ft. Leed gold building
LocalCabinet
Dean’s interactions
April 17, 2008
Student Resources
Dean’s CabinetBuilding
April 17, 2008
 Dean’s Cabinet April 17, 2008

• Secured $100K/year for 2 years from SEMPRA utility.

• Looking for matching funds (total project cost: $250K/year)
 Recreation Center
Dean’s Cabinet April 17, 2008

• 50% of all Divisions of Student Affairs energy costs

• Relatively simple use of our modeling and optimization tools
can improve energy efficiency substantially (e.g. just swimming pool
thermal cover scheduling optimization can lead to up to 30% savings)
 LocalCabinet
Dean’s interactions
April 17, 2008

• Southern California Edison support for study of integrated system design:

cost-benefit, engineering/economics/sustainability study
 NaDonal laboratories 

Student Affairs 

Commercial partners  FaciliDes 

Funding agencies 

InternaDonal partnerships