Energy & Buildings 183 (2019) 151–160

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Case study of the upgrade of an existing office building for low energy
consumption and low carbon emissions
Alexandra Charles, Wahid Maref, Claudiane M. Ouellet-Plamondon∗
École de technologie supérieure, Montreal (ÉTS-Montreal), Université du Québec, 1100 Notre-Dame West, Montreal, Quebec H3C 1K3, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This case study evaluates the best energy efficiency measures of an existing two-story office building
Received 20 March 2018 from the late 1960s located in Vancouver. Natural gas was used for heating and electricity was used for
Revised 1 October 2018
lighting, cooling and other needs. The building was simulated to match both metered data and bills. The
Accepted 8 October 2018
energy model allowed identifying the parameters to reduce the energy consumption and mitigate the
Available online 24 October 2018
impact on CO2- eq emissions. On-site renewable energy supply was simulated. The return on investment
(ROI) of the retrofit strategies (building envelope and renewable energy) was calculated to determine the
profitability. From the parametric study, the insulation of the wall and roof, the airtightness and window
replacement have the most impact on energy saving and allowed reducing 45% of the total annual energy
consumed. These improvements can save more than 70 tons of CO2- eq per year from reducing the natural
gas consumption. The return on investment of upgrading the building envelope was 7.7 years in Vancou-
ver. Net zero energy building performance was possible with the addition of photovoltaic solar panel and
solar heating to supply the total energy needs of the building, with an ROI of 11.6 years. If we changed
the building location to Montreal, the same optimized building envelope reduces the energy consumption
by 39%, and the energy saving increases to 56% when using the electric heating system usually already in
place. Overall, building envelope upgrades are solutions to consider to improve energy saving in northern
climate.
Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction building in Germany, the reduction in operational energy reached

a plateau at one-third reduction of operational energy [23]. Retrofit
Building upgrades is an excellent opportunity to reduce energy of office buildings in Italy was found to reduce the primary energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions [1–4]. In recent years, by at least 40% [24]. Retrofit energy saving in four existing class A
improving the energy efficiency of a building is a research topic of commercial office building downtown Toronto in Canada reached
high interest [5–8]. Most studies focus reduction of the operational 0.9% to 18% energy saving with LEED and BOMA certification [25].
energy [9–11]. Building retrofit targets selected building compo- Energy retrofit measures allowed 29–31% electricity saving and 19–
nents, such as the heating ventilation and air-conditioning system 32% natural gas saving in low-rise office building in Edmonton, Ot-
(HVAC) [9,12–15]; the energy management systems [2]; the build- tawa and Vancouver [12].
ing envelope [1,9,15] and specific building envelope elements, such As there are many retrofit options available, energy simulations
as the wall [16–19], the thermal mass [20], the airtightness [21], are required and different tools are available to analyze scenarios.
the insulation [12,21], the lighting of the building [2,12,22]. Eco- The key to success in a case study is having a confidence in those
nomic benefits, especially reduction in energy costs and attractive simulation tools by calibrating or validating them. Several studies
return on energy retrofit investment, are the main driver for en- focus of the validation of models [26,27], but surprisingly, there
ergy retrofits decision [2]. Thus the economic analysis is an impor- are not many complete cases studied with a validation of an
tant part of a building upgrade study. energy model, improvement of the model and with an economic
The energy saving from the office building retrofits varies on analysis of the improvement. The validation of a model can be
a case-by-case basis. In a multi-objective optimization of an office done through three processes i) inter-model comparison or ii)
empirical and iii) analytical. Model validation is a necessity, but a
complex process and it is important to gain confidence in a model
∗
Corresponding author. that leads you to a parametric study for retrofitting strategies
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.M. Ouellet- [28], meaning having the possibility to change model input [29].
Plamondon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.10.008
0378-7788/Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
152 A. Charles, W. Maref and C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon / Energy & Buildings 183 (2019) 151–160

Table 1
Architectural input of the office building [34].

Type Value

Total floor area 922 m2

Total roof area 463 m2
Gross exposed wall area, North 90 m2
Gross exposed wall area, South 90 m2
Gross exposed wall area, East 92 m2
Gross exposed wall area, West 204 m2
Window percentage, North 19.5%
Window percentage, South 16.3%
Fig. 1. Northwest elevation of the two-storey building from 3D models [34]. Window percentage, East∗ 1.5%
Window percentage, West 9.0%
Infiltration rate (0.29 cfm/ft2 ) 1.76 ACH
Overall Roof R-Value 1.97 RSI
Detailed model calibration allows a better building prediction [29]. Overall Wall R-Value 0.44 RSI
Often the software’s user, especially in absence of information on Occupancy density 0.07 people/m2
old buildings, make assumptions based on his experience, which ∗
Note that the East wall contains a shared portion with the neighboring
leads to high degree of uncertainty [30]. The calibration relies as building and is modeled as adiabatic.
well on the level of the experiment and measurement accuracy.
In order to simplify the calibration process, some researchers Table 2
[31] are trying multistage calibration, which consists in dividing Mechanical inputs [34].
the entire building into different sub-models and calibrates them
System type Direct expansion unitary system
separately to obtain an accurate model. The process depends on
the objectives of the study, each model is treated differently. Heating
Fuel Natural gas
This study investigates the retrofit of an existing office building Heating efficiency 80%
in Canada from the late 1960s to reduce the annual operational en- Setpoint temperature 20 °C
ergy, to determine the on-site energy production to reach net zero Setback temperature 17 °C
energy standard and the return of investment (ROI) for a building size factor 1.0
Cooling
located in Vancouver. In the current code requirements and pol-
Fuel Electricity
icy in Vancouver, Canada, the public policies focus on reducing the Cooling COP 3.1
operational energy from buildings [32]. Older traditional buildings Setpoint temperature 22 °C
from the 1950s to 1970s were not insulated, not airtight, which Setback temperature 26 °C
meant high energy consumption [12]. To address these issues, a Size factor 1.0
Domestic hot water
numerical approach has been adopted to simulate the energy con- Fuel Natural gas
sumption of the office building pre-retrofit conditions, based on Mains supply temperature 10 °C
both bills and metered data. A sensitivity and parametric study Delivery temperature 55 °C
was undertaken to assess and identify the most important param- Equipment efficiency 80%
Consumption rate 1.4 L/m2 .day
eters affecting the energy performance and the greenhouse gas
Ventilation
emissions, as single and combined parameters. Net zero energy is Minimum outside air 2.5 L/s.person
gaining policy attention and the government of British Columbia is Mechanical ventilation 0.22 L/s/m2
aiming to have all new construction net-zero energy ready by 2032 Natural ventilation cooling temperature 30 °C
[33]. The profitability of on-site renewable energy measures for net
zero energy building was estimated with the return on investment
(ROI). In order to see the effect of the location on energy consump- chanical parameters. Additional data given by the building science
tion, retrofit measures renewable energy production and ROI, the consulting firm is given in supplementary electronic materials.
building was hypothetically moved from Vancouver to Montreal to
assess the robustness of the upgrade measures.
2.2. Energy simulation
2. Building energy model
For building’s renovation, the choice of the building and the en-
2.1. Case study ergy simulation software is an important element in the evalua-
tion and the choice is also oriented toward data availability. There
The case study is a two-story office building built in 1969 of are several tools of energy simulation in North America and more
a building science consulting firm office located in Vancouver, in particularly in Canada. Some of the most used software are DOE-
British Columbia (Fig. 1) [34]. This building was selected because of 2, eQuest, EnergyPlus, EE4, SIMEB, Design Builder, TRNSYS and
the quantity and quality of data collected by the consulting firms RETScreen [35,36]. In this current study, the software used for the
on his own office, actually their old office and they moved loca- energy simulation of this building is SIMEB, software developed by
tion. Building energy consumption data is often sensitive and not Hydro-Quebec, the electricity provider in Quebec [37]. This soft-
easy to access. This building is a typical two-story office building ware allows estimating the energy consumption of the modeled
found in the building typology in Canada [12] and in the United building, considering the efficiency of energy economy measures,
States [15]. The energy simulation was calibrated by both histori- analyzing and comparing with consumption. The pre-retrofit office
cal energy billed and metered data, for both electricity and natural building operation was previously modeled with Design Builder by
gas [34]. The exterior wall assembly was made of painted concrete the building consulting firm [34]. The energy model for the office
block and gypsum board. The façade surrounding the windows are building was calibrated to match the metered data and the one-
made of stucco, wood sheathing, fibreglass batts in wood studs, year historical billed energy by varying the unknown mechanical
and gypsum board. It is assumed that the structure is made of con- and electrical input parameters. The calibrated model results are
crete. Table 1 presents the architectural details and Table 2 the me- very close to the metered data with only 0.5% annual difference.
 A. Charles, W. Maref and C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon / Energy & Buildings 183 (2019) 151–160 153

Fig. 2. Total energy consumption from January 1, 2006, through May 31, 2011 [34].

Table 3 the previous study. Fig. 2 presents the total energy consumption
Most important data used for the simulation, based on pre-retrofit
(i.e. gas and electricity) obtained with the Design Builder software
conditions.
from January 1, 2006, through May 31, 2011. Data analysis through
Modeling data Value that period indicates that approximately 31% of the building’s en-
Insulation of the shell ergy is from gas, and 69% from electricity.
Roof RSI = 1.97 m²K/W Fig. 3 presents the monthly gas and electricity consumption ob-
Walls RSI = 0.88 m²K/W tained with Design Builder and those obtained with SIMEB in the
Floor No value
pre-retrofit conditions. Seasonal trends are observed in both the
Windows U = 5.91 W/m²K and SHGC = 0.85
Airtightness 1.76 ACH gas and electrical energy consumption of the building. The gas
Air conditioning consumption is only for the heating consumption. The trends of
Saver cycle of the new air None gas are influenced by heat generation and the domestic hot wa-
ter heater (DHW). The electricity consumption combines the con-
sumption in DHW, electrical loads, lighting and of the systems of
The RETScreen software is also used in this study to estimate ventilation and cooling systems. There is no big difference between
the additional cost of the improvements brought to the building. It the two models SIMEB and Design Builder, based on the total an-
was chosen because it is the commonly used and reliable for en- nual average, which is about 252 W/m²/yr; the difference on the
ergy projects in North America. The software estimates the return total is 4% for the electricity and 3% for the natural gas. The sea-
on investment (ROI) of such a project and financing options [38]. sonal differences are due for example because SIMEB consider a
The ROI calculates the number of years to recover the investment minimum insulation and the case study building was less insu-
cost. The most important parameters of the simulation are detailed lated. The SIMEB model was considered validated and acceptable
in Table 3. The SHGC is the solar heat gain coefficient, which ex- to simulate the energy performance of the retrofitting scenarios of
presses the ratio between the energy of solar origin that penetrates this building.
into the building through the window and the incidental solar en-
ergy on the window that becomes a thermal gain and an incidental
solar energy on the window. 3. Improvement in the building energy performance
This building has a poor thermal performance. The exterior
walls are having an effective R-value of less than R-3. The roof A sensitivity analysis is performed to analyze the impact of the
is a low-sloped built up asphalt roof with minimal insulation. various parameters of the energy simulation on buildings. Once
Table 3 below provides a summary of the exterior walls and roof the model is validated, the value of every input was modified to
in terms of construction and thermal performance. Overall effec- analyze its effects on the building consumption. However, a study
tive U- and R-values for the wall and roof were calculated using of every parameter is not enough, because some simulation pa-
area-weighted U-values from the detailed area calculations. These rameters are complementary. For example, an improvement of the
overall effective walls and roof U-values were calculated to be insulation of walls or another component of the envelope will not
2.3 W/m2•K (R-2.5) and 0.51 W/m2•K (R-11.2) respectively. The re- allow saving enough energy, if we do not modify the airtightness
maining data necessary to the simulation are in the supplementary of the envelope. The sensitivity study shows that the most impor-
electronic materials (Tables S1 and S2). Mechanical and electrical tant inputs to reduce the annual consumption of RDH’s building
inputs are available in supplementary tables S3 and S4. is airtightness of the envelope, wall insulation, roofing insulation
The validation of the building model simulated with SIMEB is and U-Value of Windows. The reduction of multiple parameters is
critical in order to reflect the reality and allows performing para- known to be less than the sum of the individual saving [12]. The
metric study with confidence. This is an inter-model validation comparison of the saving of CO2 equivalent was calculated using
process. Furthermore, this stage is necessary so that energy-saving the generation intensity factor of 587.4 g CO2 eq/kWh for gas use
measures are reliable. For that purpose, the data of simulation ob- in British Columbia in 2015 [39]. There is no direct CO2 emission
tained in this study using SIMEB software has to reach the same from the hydroelectricity generation. Indirect CO2 emission from
or close to energy consumption as those who were obtained by energy transport and services were not considered.
154 A. Charles, W. Maref and C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon / Energy & Buildings 183 (2019) 151–160

Fig. 3. Validation of the pre-retrofit energy consumption with two simulation software: (a) electricity consumption, (b) gas consumption.

Table 4
Simulation inputs used for the sensitivity analysis.

Building elements Inputs

Envelope Walls
insulation Windows
Roof
Floor slab
Heating Number of boilers
Boiler power
Heating coil capacity
Heating efficiency
Modulation of the burner
Heating setpoint
Flow control of the pump
Type of peripheral heating
Type of terminal heating
Cooling Setpoint temperature
Cooling coil capacity
Cooling efficiency
Ventilation Flow rate of ventilation
Supply flow of the fans
Restarting the fans in idle period if the set point is not respected
Option of control of the fresh air by a CO2 probe

3.1. Inputs of the sensitivity analysis 300 100

90
250 80
Consumpon (MWh)

The sensitivity analysis was done for every input available on

SIMEB software (Table 4). All the data have a different impact on 200 70
the annual consumption. The sensitivity analysis shows the most 60 tons CO2 eq
150 50
important data for the improvement of the energy efficiency of the
40
office building. The sensitivity study shows that the most impor- 100 30
tant inputs to reduce the annual consumption is the airtightness 20
50
of the envelope and the insulation of walls, roof and windows. Pa- 10
rameters based on occupants, such as set point temperature, were 0 0
not the most influential on the overall annual energy consumption. 0.88 1.88 2.88 3.88 4.88
Wall insulaon (m²K/W)
3.2. Single parameter study Heang Cooling Total GWP

3.2.1. Wall insulation Fig. 4. Impact of wall insulation on total consumption ton.

The value of the thermal resistance of the insulation of walls

is 0.44 m2 K/W, which is R-2.5. However, the minimal value of the
thermal resistance of the insulation of walls in the SIMEB software
is 0.88 m²K/W(R-5), which was used. Increasing the thermal resis- of the thermal resistance of walls. A wall insulation of 4.88 m2 K/W
tance of the insulation of walls allows to reduce heating consump- (R-27) obtained by simulation is an optimum value that allows to
tion, but makes increase the consumption in cooling, as shown in reach an annual consumption of 233 828 kWh (Fig. 4) and deemed
Fig. 4. However, savings in heating are more important than the complied with the 2015 National Building Code [40]. A decrease of
increases of consumption in cooling, especially in cold climate, so 15% for the consumption and a saving of 27 tons of CO2 equivalent
the total consumption of the building decreases with the increase can be obtained with this insulation.
 A. Charles, W. Maref and C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon / Energy & Buildings 183 (2019) 151–160 155

350 100 300 90

90 80
Energy consumpon (MWh)

300 250

Consumpon (MWh)
80 70
250 70 200 60

tons CO2eq
tons CO2 eq
200 60 50
150
50 40
150 40 100 30
100 30 20
20
50
10
50
10 0 0
0 0 0.61 0.91 1.21 1.52 1.76
0.97 1.97 2.97 3.97 4.97 Air change per hour (ACH)
Roof insulaon (m²K/W) Heang Cooling Electricity
Heang Cooling Total GWP Total GWP
Fig. 5. Impact of roof insulation on total energy consumption. Fig. 6. Impact of airtightness on annual energy consumption.

350 120
3.2.2. Roofing insulation
300 100

Energy consumpon (MWh)

The roof is part of the building envelope of the building. The
roof’s thermal resistance is RSI of 1.97 m2 K/W, which gave us an 250
80

tons CO2eq
R-Value of 11 (R11). Increasing the thermal resistance of the roof
200
insulation reduces the consumption for heating but increases the 60
consumption for cooling. A roof insulation of 4.97 m2 K/W (R-28) is 150
an optimum value obtained by simulation that allows us to reach 40
100
an annual consumption of 267 004 kWh (Fig. 5). This represents a
50 20
decrease of 8% for the consumption and a saving of 16 tons of CO2
equivalent. 0 0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Power (kW)
3.2.3. Window U-value
Heang Total GWP
Window energy efficiency is defined by two parameters: global
thermal transmission in W/m2 K (i.e. U Coefficient or U-Value) and Fig. 7. Impact of boiler efficiency on annual building energy consumption.
SHGC. Windows settled in the simulated building have a value of
global thermal transmission of 5.9 W/m2 K and SHGC of 0.85. The
windows consist of clear, 3 mm single panes in non-thermally bro- building corresponds to a rate of airtightness of 0.61 ACH, which is
ken aluminum window frames. The windows occupy 8.9% of the also very close to the requirement of 0.6 ACH for a passive house
exterior wall area and vary in size in shape. SIMEB software pro- [41]. An average building has generally a rate of airtightness of 1.82
poses several types of windows to model a building. Every type ACH; a rate of 3.64 ACH corresponds to a building with a lot of
of window corresponds to a global thermal transmission and dif- infiltration of air and thus energy losses. When the value of the
ferent SHGC (see supplementary electronic materials Table S5 for rate of airtightness decreases, the annual consumption in heating
more details) [37]. decreases, whereas the consumption in cooling increases. Savings
When the global thermal transmission of windows increases, in heating allow to reduce the total consumption of the building
the window allows more heat to pass. When SHGC is increased, to 245 772 kWh (Fig. 6). This change impacts a lot the total con-
the ratio between the energy of solar origin which penetrates into sumption, which represents the reduction of 11% in total energy
the building through the window and the incidental solar energy consumption and 19.6 tons of CO2 eq. Even if the energy simula-
on the window is important and so the contribution of solar en- tion shows that the value of 0.61 reduce annual consumption, this
ergy through the window is important. Simulations performed on value is actually hard to achieve. Thus it is not necessary to simu-
all types of windows showed that the type allowing the biggest late lower values of ACH.
reduction on the total consumption of the building is the high-
performance windows double tinted filled with argon and with 3.2.5. Boiler efficiency
low emissivity. A total consumption of 269 580 kWh represents an Boiler efficiency used for the numerical modeling is 80% with
annual reduction of 5 819 kW, which corresponds to a decrease of Design Builder. Increase the boiler efficiency allows decreasing the
2% of the total consumption. heating consumption. This has no influence on the other consump-
tion. We can increase the efficiency by choosing a certified boiler
3.2.4. Building envelope airtightness ENERGY STAR. The efficiency of 95% allows to reach a total con-
The airtightness measures the tightness of the building to out- sumption of 252 794 kWh, whereas the efficiency of 70% causes
side air. If the rate of airtightness increased, an important quan- the consumption of 296 041 kWh (Fig. 7).
tity of air circulates between the building and the outside, which
causes heat losses in winter and thermal heat gain in summer. The 3.2.6. Air conditioning: saving cycle of the new air
unit of the airtightness of the building is the quantity of air change The regulation of the saving cycle is used to reduce mechanical
per hour (ACH). The airtightness is essential to ensure that the in- air conditioning. A regulation according to the temperature means
sulation of the envelope is effective. The initial rate of airtightness that the outside air is used as long as the outside temperature is
measured by the building science-consulting firm was 1.76 ACH lower than the recovery temperature. A regulation according to the
and allowed user thermal comfort. American Society of Heating, enthalpy means that the outside air is used as long as the enthalpy
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning (ASHRAE) defines that a tight of the outside air is lower than the enthalpy of the air of recov-
156 A. Charles, W. Maref and C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon / Energy & Buildings 183 (2019) 151–160

ery. The saving cycle of the new air according to the temperature electricity consumption is the total of the electrical need (light-
of outside air causes an increase of the total annual energy con- ing, etc.) and the cooling of the building. The optimized build-
sumption (with an annual consumption of 280 225 kWh instead ing requires higher electricity consumption than the basic, this is
of 275 501 kWh). Whereas the saving cycle of the new air work- due total improvement of the envelope, which increases the cool-
ing with the enthalpy of the outside air allows to reduce the total ing needs. The cooling of the basic building is only 18 720 kWh,
annual consumption of the building (with an annual consumption while the optimized building is about 23 110 kWh. The optimized
of 267 021 kWh instead of 275 501 kWh). The regulation of free building requires a lower gas consumption than the basic one,
cooling used to reduce the heat load on the mechanical system is because the improvement of the envelope decreases the heating
carried out by enthalpy measurements. Indeed, the outside air is needs (Table 5). The heating savings are important in this study.
used for free cooling as long as its enthalpy is lower than that of The total consumption of the optimized building is 45% lower than
the indoor air. the basic one, which is comparable to the results of a classical uni-
versity office building [6]. These changes can save a total of 75
3.3. Multiple parameter study tons of equivalent CO2 gas by reducing only the heat consumption.
To compare with another study, the electricity energy saving of a
3.3.1. Roof insulation and airtightness of the building envelope two-story building reached 20% by applying heat recovery, day-
Energy consumption was simulated for every value of roof insu- lighting, lighting load reduction, boiler efficiency economizer and
lation and airtightness of the envelope. If we increase the R-value preheat upgrades, in Edmonton, Ottawa and Vancouver. The natu-
for roof insulation and decrease the value of airtightness, annual ral gas saving of these three cities were 30%, 32% and 19% respec-
heating consumption decreases whereas annual cooling consump- tively [12]. Upgrading the building envelope had more impact on
tion increases. The criterion to select the building upgrade is to the energy saving.
choose the simulation data which allows the biggest total energy RETScreen calculated the additional cost and saving for the im-
saving. A roof insulation of 4.97 m2 K/W (R-28) and the airtightness provements, from an initial to an upgrade value (Table 6). The in-
of 0.61 ACH (or 0.91 ACH) reached the minimal annual consump- sulation of the walls and roof were panels, as proposed for flat
tion which is 239 032 kWh. roofs. The new windows were effective double tinted with argon
low emissivity. These results show that 83% of this saving was due
3.3.2. Wall insulation and airtightness of the building envelope to the increase of the insulation of the wall and to the very good
The same method is applied to find the values of wall insulation airtightness of the building. This represents only 48% of the total
and airtightness of the envelope, which allow the biggest energy price of the retrofit cost. Improving the windows and the roof ef-
savings. A wall insulation of 4.88 m2 K/W (R-27) and the airtight- ficiency cost more for a limited result, while the airtightness mea-
ness of 0.61 ACH allows to reach the minimal annual consumption sures offers the best energy saving/additional cost ratio.
which is 189 998 kWh. This reduction can save the production of
50 tons of CO2 equivalent gas, which is not negligible gain for CO2 3.4. Renewable energy and net zero building
mitigation.
A net zero building produces as much clean energy as it con-
sumes [42], which is easier once the energy consumption is re-
3.3.3. Window insulation and airtightness of the building envelope
duced by energy efficiency measures. The addition of on-site re-
A window insulation of 2.16 W/m²K with a SHGC value of 0.3
newable energy measured was modeled with RETScreen [38]. The
(effective double tinted with argon low E) and the airtightness of
capacity of the solar heating system is 9.1 kW and the installed sur-
0.61 ACH allows to reach the minimum annual consumption which
face is 13 m². The incoming air is sucked in dimples with a great
is 239 193 kWh. A study of different types of windows on the fa-
turbulence for maximum heat transfer. For the gas consumption,
cades of the building according to their orientation could achieve
a solar heating system of the air is a good renewable solution.
more energy savings due to an effective insulation in the north and
A solar thermal collector collects heat by absorbing sunlight. The
in the east and windows, which allow an important solar heat gain
improvement of the envelope and the airtightness of the building
to the south and on the west. The solar heat gain from the win-
allowed a strong fall in demand in heating and what allows fill-
dows must not increase the air conditioning consumption. To limit
ing the remaining needs easily. However, these improvements also
this increase of consumption, it is possible to install flaps or sun
caused an increase of the electric consumption because of a big-
visors on the windows of the building.
ger need for cooling, supplied by the installation of photovoltaic
panels. The Table 7 presents the annual consumption and the ap-
3.3.4. Global energy savings propriate sources of renewable power production. The supplied en-
The sensitivity test shows the most important choices to allow ergy was calculated using RETScreen software and the Vancouver
a reduction of energy consumption of the building are: solar radiation data. Electricity production by the 226 photovoltaic
• Improvement of the airtightness of the envelope, panels with a life cycle efficiency of 16% represents a surface of
• Improvement of the building insulation, 433 m2 (the roof surface is 497 m2 ). The solar collector replaces
• Energy efficient equipment, gas consumption and has a surface of 13 m2 . When the renovation
• A saving cycle of the new air. of the building is done, it is important to assure a follow-up of the
energy performances of the building.
The results of the building simulated with SIMEB with the com-
bined parameters allow calculating the total energy savings on the 3.5. Annual saving and return on investment (ROI)
building’s annual consumption, based on the basic building and
optimized building (Table 4). The basic one is the building sim- Reducing energy needs allows a reduction of operating costs,
ulated with original data and the optimized one is the building but there are additional costs for the installation of measures of
simulated with four energy efficiency measures: insulation of the efficiency energy proposed. Additional costs, the return on invest-
roof and wall, the improvement of windows and the airtightness ment and savings due to the renovation of the envelope and to the
of the envelope. Building retrofits of the building envelope has installation of renewable sources of energy were estimated with
more impact in northern climate [1], while it is not the most com- RETScreen software (Table 8). The costs were based in Canadian
mon retrofit chosen in southern cities in United States [2]. The dollar value on January 1, 2016. To measure the profitability of
 A. Charles, W. Maref and C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon / Energy & Buildings 183 (2019) 151–160 157

Table 5
Primary energy savings.

Type of energy consumption Basic building (kWh) Optimized building (kWh) Energy savings

Gas heating 144 967 17 247 88%

Electricity 130 449 133 989 2.70% gain
Total 275 416 151 236 45%

Table 6
Detail energy savings of the combined envelope retrofit.

Energy Energy
Additional Tons of
Improvements savings saving/additional
costs ($) CO2 eq.
kWh cost

Wall
Initial Upgrade values 35,000 41,673 24 1.19
0.44 RSI 4.88 RSI
Windows
Initial Upgrade values 16,367 5,921 3 0.36
5.9 W/m²K 2.16 W/m²K
Roof
Initial Upgrade values 26,093 8,497 5 0.33
1.97 RSI 4.97 RSI
Envelope Airtightness
Initial Upgrade values 3,900 29,729 17 7.62
1.76 ACH 0.61 ACH
Combined improvements 1,24,265 81,360 75 1.53

Table 7
Supplied energy for the building.

Type of energy consumption Annual consumption (kWh) Renewable power production Supplied energy (kWh) Decrease of tones CO2 eq.

Gas 17 247 Solar heating of the air 17 472 10.1

Electricity consumption 133 989 Photovoltaic panels 134 315 NA

Table 8
Annual savings due to the energy performance.

Measures of efficiency energy Additional costs ($) Annual savings ($)

Envelope retrofits (wall, roof, windows and airtightness) 81 360 9 452

Photovoltaic panels (226 for a surface of 433 m²) 234 112 12 594
Solar heating of the air (for a surface of 13 m²) 7 280 1 726

Table 9
Return on investment of the office upgrade scenario in Vancouver (in years).

Debt ratio Return on investment

Building envelope Building envelope and renewable energy

0% 7.5 years 11.6 years

Interest rate 2% Interest rate 7% Interest rate 2% Interest rate 7%
10% 7.7 7.9 11.7 12.0
50% 7.1 8.7 12.2 13.7
90% 4.3 10.5 12.6 15.4

such a project, the return on capital is better than the simple re- ration of the loan, capital costs, possible subsidies and the annual
turn, because the first one indicates the number of years which savings [38]. The debt ratio is the most influential value on the re-
it is necessary to get back amounts invested in the project by the turn on investment. The lower is the ratio, the lower is the debt,
investor due to the flows generated. The return on the invested the more the project will be profitable quickly. The returns on in-
capital takes into account the flows of money of the project from vestment take into account the duration of the project of 25 years
the beginning, but also the financial lever (function of the level of (approximately the life expectancy of a solar panel) and the du-
debt), that makes it a better financial indicator of the project than ration of a loan of 10 years. The return on capital for a 50% debt
the simple return. With no debt, the ROI is 7.5 years for the retrofit ratio (an interest rate of 7%) is of 13.7 years while considering the
of the building envelope and 11.6 years for the retrofit with the re- renewable energy production and 7.9 years when considering only
newable energy production, in Vancouver (Table 9). the building envelope. Other values for the debt ratio are presented
Several data influence the return on own capital: inflation rate, in the Table 9.
life cycle of the project, debt ratio, interest rate on the debt, du-
158 A. Charles, W. Maref and C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon / Energy & Buildings 183 (2019) 151–160

Table 10
Consumptions for Vancouver and Montreal.

Basic building Optimized building envelope

Energy consumption Vancouver Montreal Montreal (all electric) Vancouver Montréal Montréal (all electric)

Gas (kWh) 144 967 216 084 0 17247 71 698 0

Electricity (kWh) 130 449 135 866 239 610 133 989 140 255 154 124
Total (kWh) 275 416 351 950 239 610 151 236 211 953 154 124

Table 11
Energy costs for Vancouver and Montreal.

Basic building Optimized building envelope

Energy bills Vancouver Montréal Vancouver Montréal Montréal (all electric)

Gas bills ($) 10 728 7 130 1 276 2 366

Electricity bills ($) 12 262 10 870 12 595 11 220 12 330
Total bills ($) 22 991 18 0 0 0 13 871 13 586 12 330

Table 12
Return on investment of the office upgrade scenario in Montreal.

Debt ratio Return on investment

Building envelope Building envelope and renewable energy

0% 14.9 years 22.6 years

Interest rate 2% Interest rate 7% Interest rate 2% Interest rate 7%
10% 15 years 15.4 years 22.8 years 23.4 years
50% 15.6 years 17.5 years 23.7 years More than 25 years
90% 16.2 years 19.5 years 24.5 years More than 25 years

3.6. The application of the study to Montreal, Quebec 11% less. The case of retrofit to the all-electric building in Vancou-
ver was not evaluated, because buildings are usually demolished
The impact of the building location on consumption, upgrade and rebuilt when deciding to change to an electric building [44],
measures, and return on investment was also performed by which is actually what happened to this case study building. The
moving the building from Vancouver to Montreal, in simulations. return on investment of the optimized building in Montreal was
The numerical modeling was performed by changing the weather calculated using various debt ratio. The ROI of the building en-
input files in SIMEB and RETScreen from Vancouver to Montreal, velope was nearly 15 years and adding on-site renewable energy
to evaluate the relevance of the choices of the improvement of increases the ROI to 22.6 years (Table 12), for the building with
the building. For an office building in Montreal with natural gas, both natural gas and electricity, as in the case of Vancouver. The
the total consumption is 28% higher than in Vancouver, due to increase in number of years is due to the lower cost of energy. If
a 50% increase in the heating consumption in a colder winter financing is needed, installing renewable energy on an office build-
climate (Table 10). In Vancouver, electricity costs 0.094$/kWh and ing Montreal with both natural gas and electricity is not profitable.
gas costs 0.074$/kWh, whereas for Montreal electricity costs 0.08 However, other motivations can justify the installation, especially
$/kWh and gas costs 0.033 $/kWh, at the commercial rate. Even resilience toward extreme events having the potential to damage
though the consumption is 28% higher in Montreal, the energy the electricity transport lines.
bill is 21% lower because of the lower energy price for the basic The use of a geothermal heat pump can also be a solution to re-
building (Table 11). If we consider the same energy efficiency duce the consumption of the building. A classical geothermal heat
measures applied on the building envelope in Vancouver then, the pump in Quebec has an average between 3 and 5 in heating mode
energy needs are reduced by 39% in Montreal, as compared to 45% [45]. With this performance the efficiency in heating mode, and
in Vancouver. even in cooling mode, is gone improved. Furthermore, a direct ex-
In Montreal, most buildings are already heated by electricity, pansion system [46] can also be used to reduce the installation
buildings are connected on the grid supplied with hydroelectricity. part and decreased the return of investment. Installing water heat
Thus the electric building in Montreal was modeled with SIMEB pumps in office building in China was also found to create 70%
by using an electric boiler, which is an electric serpentine with HVAC energy saving [13]. Moreover, additional building improve-
the efficiency of 100% [43], meaning a coefficient of performance ment is possible by using higher insulation for the walls, roof, win-
of 100%. For the capacity of the serpentine, an automatic sizing dows, and floor; shades in the windows to limit heat gains in the
was chosen to supply the total heating needs of the building. Even summer and reduce air conditioning, water and energy-efficient
in the colder climate with no building upgrade, the energy use is appliances.
reduced by 13% by using an electric heating. The building enve- Thus, this case study shows that upgrading an existing office
lope upgrades in Montreal for the all-electric building reduce the building in Vancouver can be profitable. This building was actually
electricity consumption by 36%, compared to the basic building sold and demolish during the time this study was performed. New
heated by electricity, and by 56% for the building using both nat- building offers the possibility to rethink the functionality of build-
ural gas and electricity, like the base case in Vancouver. The elec- ings. However, it is not always the trend in cities in North Amer-
tricity needs of the optimized electric only building in Montreal ica and many building owners select energy efficiency measures to
is consuming only 2% more energy than the building in Vancou- retrofit their building [2]. Buildings are also demolished as a lower
ver with the optimized building envelope, and the electricity bill is rate in Montreal. As the energy source for heating of most new
 A. Charles, W. Maref and C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon / Energy & Buildings 183 (2019) 151–160 159

buildings in Vancouver is mostly hydroelectric, the carbon pay- [3] A. Passer, C. Ouellet-Plamondon, P. Kenneally, V. John, G. Habert, The impact
back is over 100 years, and with the very fast reconstruction rate, of future scenarios on building refurbishment strategies towards plus energy
buildings, Energy Build. 124 (2016) 153–163.
lower carbon goal will not be achieved when taking into account [4] J. Dettling, A. Pike, S. Humbert, in: Quantifying the Value of Building Reuse
embodied carbon, which suggest to reevaluate current policies to a Life Cycle Assessment of Rehabilitation and New Construction, Quantis US,
encourage new construction [44]. Material conservation is a guid- Boston, USA, 2012, p. 174.
[5] M. Fesanghary, S. Asadi, Z.W. Geem, Design of low-emission and energy-ef-
ing principle for low energy, low-carbon building and considered ficient residential buildings using a multi-objective optimization algorithm,
in the material credits of the LEED standard value [47]. When us- Build. Environ. 49 (2012) 245–250.
ing hydroelectric energy, the impacts from operation are small, and [6] C. Micono, G. Zanzottera, Energy modeling for NZEBs: A Case-study„ Energy
Procedia 78 (2015) 2034–2039.
therefore the contribution from materials are the most important.
[7] C. Dotzler, S. Botzler, D. Kierdorf, W. Lang, Methods for optimising energy ef-
Policies can encourage the reduction of the life cycle impacts. Ex- ficiency and renovation processes of complex public properties, Energy Build.
tension of the building service life and reuse of existing structures 164 (2018) 254–265.
[8] P.F.d.A.F. Tavares, A.M.d.O.G. Martins, Energy efficient building design using
are part of the strategies to reduce embodied energy and green-
sensitivity analysis—A case study, Energy Build. 39 (1) (2007) 23–31.
house gas emissions [48,49]. More economical and environmental [9] T. Ramesh, R. Prakash, K.K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An
benefits are found in recovering entire building [50]. Thus, the up- overview, Energy Build. 42 (10) (2010) 1592–1600.
grade of existing office building must part of the building energy [10] L.F. Cabeza, L. Rincón, V. Vilariño, G. Pérez, A. Castell, Life cycle assessment
(LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sec-
strategy and policy [1,3,4], along with novel building design. tor: A review, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 29 (2014) 394–416.
[11] X. Oregi, P. Hernandez, R. Hernandez, Analysis of life-cycle boundaries for
environmental and economic assessment of building energy refurbishment
4. Conclusion
projects, Energy. Build. 136 (2017) 12–25.
[12] S.E. Chidiac, E.J.C. Catania, E. Morofsky, S. Foo, Effectiveness of single and mul-
This case study of a two-story office building in Vancouver tiple energy retrofit measures on the energy consumption of office buildings,
shows that characteristics of the envelope are one of the most im- Energy 36 (8) (2011) 5037–5052.
[13] Z. Wang, Y. Ding, G. Geng, N. Zhu, Analysis of energy efficiency retrofit
portant parameters in the reduction of the building consumption, schemes for heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems in existing of-
based on a sensitivity analysis and a parametric study. The im- fice buildings based on the modified bin method, Energy Convers. Manag. 77
provement made on the building envelope in terms of airtightness (2014) 233–242.
[14] J. Jia, W.L. Lee, The rising energy efficiency of office buildings in Hong Kong,
and insulation allows to reduce of 45% of the annual energy con- Energy Build. 166 (2018) 296–304.
sumed and saved 75 tons of CO2 gas equivalent. Net zero build- [15] S.H. Lee, T. Hong, M.A. Piette, G. Sawaya, Y. Chen, S.C. Taylor-Lange, Acceler-
ing performance is possible with the addition of solar collectors ating the energy retrofit of commercial buildings using a database of energy
efficiency performance, Energy 90 (2015) 738–747.
to heat the air and photovoltaic panels. It is important to high- [16] E.M. El Khattabi, M. Mharzi, Effect of locations and thicknesses for the different
light that the return on investment (ROI) of such a project is influ- material constituting a building wall, Energy Procedia 139 (2017) 328–333.
enced by the building energy consumption, but also with the en- [17] J. Lizana, R. Chacartegui, A. Barrios-Padura, J.M. Valverde, Advances in thermal
energy storage materials and their applications towards zero energy buildings:
ergy price in the studied city. The ROI to upgrade the building en-
A critical review, Appl. Energy 203 (2017) 219–239.
velope is 7.7 years in Vancouver, while it is 14.9 years in Montreal. [18] G. Quesada, D. Rousse, Y. Dutil, M. Badache, S. Hallé, A comprehensive review
Installing on-site renewable energy is more profitable in Vancouver of solar facades. Transparent and translucent solar facades, Renew. Sust. Energy
Rev. 16 (5) (2012) 2643–2651.
with a ROI of 11.6 years and a ROI of 22.6 years in Montreal.
[19] G. Quesada, D. Rousse, Y. Dutil, M. Badache, S. Hallé, A comprehensive review
To validate such a study, it is essential to realize measures of of solar facades. Opaque solar facades, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 16 (5) (2012)
the real performances of the building with occupants. Only the 2820–2832.
follow-up of the performances allows making sure of the viabil- [20] A. Reilly, O. Kinnane, The impact of thermal mass on building energy con-
sumption, Appl. Energy 198 (2017) 108–121.
ity of a net zero and to obtain a certification which will allow to [21] S. Roberts, Altering existing buildings in the UK, Energy Policy 36 (12) (2008)
identify this building as a net zero building. Furthermore, an analy- 4482–4486.
sis of sensibility could be interesting to estimate the robustness of [22] P.K. Soori, S. Alzubaidi, Study on improving the energy efficiency of office
building’s lighting system design, in: 2011 IEEE GCC Conference and Exhibi-
the scenario of renovation in front of economic fluctuations, such tion (GCC), 2011, pp. 585–588.
as the energy price. [23] Y. Shao, P. Geyer, W. Lang, Integrating requirement analysis and multi-objec-
tive optimization for office building energy retrofit strategies, Energy Build. 82
(2014) 356–368.
Acknowledgment [24] S. Ferrari, M. Beccali, Energy-environmental and cost assessment of a set of
strategies for retrofitting a public building toward nearly zero-energy building
The authors thanks Mr. Graham Finch, Principal, Senior Building target, Sust. Cities Soc. 32 (2017) 226–234.
[25] K. Carlson, D.K.D. Pressnail, Value impacts of energy efficiency retrofits on
Science Specialist at RDH for his cooperation and his availability commercial office buildings in Toronto, Canada, Energy Build. 162 (2018)
and in providing us all the necessary information to complete the 154–162.
study. Thanks are also accorded to Clément Rousseau and Charles [26] G. Ruiz, C. Bandera, Validation of calibrated energy models: Common errors,
Energies 10 (10) (2017) 1587.
Thibodeau for reviewing the manuscript. [27] S.S. Shrestha, D.G. Maxwell, Empirical validation of building energy simula-
tion software: EnergyPlus, O.R. Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), TN (United
Declarations of interest States); Building Technologies Research and Integration Center (Ed.), United
State, 2010.
[28] M. Trcka, J.M. Pasini, S.M. Oggianu, Validation of retrofit analysis simulation
None. tool: Lessons learned, 3rd International High Performance Buildings Confer-
ence at Purdue, 2014.
[29] D. Coakley, P. Raftery, M. Keane, A review of methods to match building en-
Supplementary materials ergy simulation models to measured data, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 37 (2014)
123–141.
Supplementary material associated with this article can be [30] Y. Chae, Y. Lee, D. Longinott, Assessment of retrofitting measures for a large
historic research facility using a building energy simulation model, Energies 9
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.10.008. (6) (2016) 466.
[31] A. Cacabelos, P. Eguía, L. Febrero, E. Granada, Development of a new multi-
References -stage building energy model calibration methodology and validation in a pub-
lic library, Energy Build. 146 (2017) 182–199.
[1] O. Pombo, B. Rivela, J. Neila, The challenge of sustainable building renovation: [32] S. Pander, Zero emissions building plan, in: S.G. Green Building Manager (Ed.),
assessment of current criteria and future outlook, J. Clean. Prod. 123 (2016) Policy Report Development and Building, 2016, p. 62.
88–100. [33] A. Pape-Salmon, in: BC Energy Step Code: A Best Practices Guide For Local
[2] C.E. Kontokosta, Modeling the energy retrofit decision in commercial office Governments, Government of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada, 2017,
buildings, Energy Build. 131 (2016) 1–20. p. 52.
160 A. Charles, W. Maref and C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon / Energy & Buildings 183 (2019) 151–160

[34] C. Moning, Energy Study Report RDH Office Building, in: R.B.E. Ltd (Ed.), Van- [44] J. Dahmen, J.von Bergmann, M. Das, Teardown Index: Impact of property val-
couver, Canada, 2011, pp. 40. ues on carbon dioxide emissions of single family housing in Vancouver, Energy
[35] V.S.K.V. Harish, A. Kumar, A review on modeling and simulation of building Build. 170 (2018) 95–106.
energy systems, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 56 (2016) 1272–1292. [45] S.J. Self, B.V. Reddy, M.A. Rosen, Geothermal heat pump systems: Status review
[36] C. Smyth, G. Rampley, T.C. Lemprière, O. Schwab, W.A. Kurz, Estimating prod- and comparison with other heating options, Appl. Energy 101 (2013) 341–348.
uct and energy substitution benefits in national-scale mitigation analyses for [46] C. Rousseau, J.-L.C. Fannou, L. Lamarche, S. Kajl, Modeling and experimental
Canada, GCB Bioenergy 9 (6) (2017) 1071–1084. validation of a transient direct expansion heat pump, Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev.
[37] Hydro-Québec (2018). Simulation énergétique des bâtiments. Retrieved from 6 (2) (2017). doi: 10.14710/ijred.6.2.145-155.
https://www.simeb.ca/ on October 28 2018. [47] H.C. McCombs, LEED Green Associate Exam Preparation Guide LEED, v4 Edi-
[38] RETScreen International, Clean Energy Project Analysis RETScreen Engineering tion, American technical publishers, Orland Park, Illinois, USA, 2015.
& Cases Textbook, Third Edition, Minister of Natural Resources Canada, Canada, [48] T. Malmqvist, M. Nehasilova, A. Moncaster, H. Birgisdottir, F. Nygaard Ras-
2005. mussen, A. Houlihan Wiberg, J. Potting, Design and construction strategies for
[39] National Inventory Report 1990-2015: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in reducing embodied impacts from buildings – Case study analysis, Energy Build.
Canada, in: L.a.A.C.C.i. Publication (Ed.), Gatineau, Canada, 2017. 166 (2018) 35–47.
[40] National Building Code of Canada 2015, Canadian Commission on Buildings [49] H. Birgisdottir, A. Moncaster, A.H. Wiberg, C. Chae, K. Yokoyama, M. Balouk-
and Fire Codes, CNRC, Ottawa, Canada. tsi, S. Seo, T. Oka, T. Lützkendorf, T. Malmqvist, IEA EBC annex 57 ‘evaluation
[41] Passive House Institute, Criteria for the Passive House, EnerPHit and PHI of embodied energy and CO2eq for building construction’, Energy Build. 154
Low Energy Building Standard, version 9f, Passive House Institute, Darmstadt, (2017) 72–80.
Germany, 2016, p. 27. [50] M. Larsen, L. Charlotte, H. Birgisdottir, M. Birkved, The Potential of Circular
[42] Z. Zhang, J.L. Provis, A. Reid, H. Wang, Geopolymer foam concrete: An emerg- Economy in Sustainable Buildings, in: The 3rd of annual “World Multidisci-
ing material for sustainable construction, Construct. Build. Mater. 56 (0) (2014) plinary Civil Engineering – Architecture – Urban Planning Symposium”, WM-
113–127. CAUS 2018, Materials Science & Engineering, Prague, Czech Republic, 2018.
[43] N. Mousseau, Gagner La Guerre Du climat: Douze Mythes à Déboulonner,
Boréal, Montréal, 2017.