ASHRAE Journal - June 2019 - 50

2019

ASHRAE TECHNOLOGY AWARD CASE STUDIES

of materials and systems has been made with a view to
sustainability to minimize the use of energy resources in
the context of building operations. The energy efﬁciency,
the service life, the ease of maintenance of the selected
equipment, the accessibility and the extended life expectancy were in the main selection criteria.
To ensure the continuity of the energy performance
of the building, all HVAC equipment is centralized on a
state-of-the-art energy management and control system
(EMCS), which makes the operation fully automatic
with no intervention required other than regular maintenance. Training on the operation and trending of the
equipment was delivered to the Ullivik operation team
upon completion of the HVAC system commissioning.
The commissioning process and the energy monitoring
allowed us to ﬁne-tune some design parameters, which
include adjustment of temperature setpoints and start
and stop of the night setback strategy (in the administrative and catering area) to maximize energy savings without affecting comfort or creating electric demand peaks.

Cost Effectiveness

The Ullivik Health Center was designed to exceed
the Model National Energy Code for Buildings
(MNECB-1997) by 43.7% in terms of energy consumption
and 32.3% in terms of energy costs.
The simulated energy savings is 8,663 GJ/yr
(8.2 million kBtu/yr), which is 43.7% of the energy consumption of the corresponding MNECB reference building.
The simulated energy cost savings are $92,317/year,
which is 32.3% lower than the energy cost of the corresponding MNECB reference building.
In its ﬁrst year of operation (from Jan. 5, 2017, to
Jan. 3, 2018), energy savings totaled 11,645 GJ/yr
(11 million kBtu/yr) or 64.5% of the energy consumption
of the corresponding MNECB reference building after
normalization with heating degree days. Energy cost
savings in the ﬁrst year are $136,634/yr, which is 51.2%
lower than the energy cost of the corresponding MNECB
reference building. The results of the ﬁrst year of operation are shown in Table 1.
A measurement and veriﬁcation program has been
set up to monitor the energy performance of the building and ensure the sustainability of energy savings.
This project is a demonstration of the viability of the
centralized heating and cooling concept with centralized water cooling and heating. This is despite a higher

ASHRAE JOURNAL

ashrae.org

J U N E 2 0 19

initial capital cost compared to other concepts that were
less expensive at installation but also less efﬁcient and,
therefore, more expensive considering the overall life
cycle of the building.
The adopted concept was compared to the decentralized variable refrigerant volume (VRF system) heat
pumps. The difference in the cost of installing HVAC
systems between the two concepts ($650,000) was totally
offset by the energy-efﬁciency grants, not to mention the
synergies offered by central cooling/heating (such as the
reduction of the life and safety generator capacity and
the domestic hot water heating plant).
This optimization of the energy performance of HVAC
systems also ensured better occupant comfort and had
other economic impacts such as:
* Reduced energy and operation costs with highly efﬁcient HVAC concepts installed.
* More ﬂexible building operation: mechanical systems are all controlled by an energy management and
control system that allows the building operations team
to effectively monitor and manage the building operation
and respond to changes. Considering the special nature
of the center's clientele, this ﬂexibility was crucial.
* Noise reduction thanks to the ECM motors and
adequate dimensioning of the fan coils and the coordinated location of the main mechanical room.
* Increased building value due to lower operating
costs and longer service life of selected equipment and
due to the elimination of refrigeration lines throughout
the building had the VRF concept had been used.

Environmental Impact

The project prevented the emission of 408 tons of
CO2/year into the atmosphere. This is the equivalent of
planting 10,465 trees or removing 60 cars from the road.
In addition to avoiding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the project consumes less drinking water than a
conventional cooling tower project through heat recovery and dry cooler.
This project included several measures reducing the
environmental impact:
* The signiﬁcant reduction in the amount of refrigerant in HVAC equipment compared to a VRF system;
* The use of low emission materials; The proximity to
public transportation (direct access to bus stops);
* The reduction of light pollution;
* A recycling company recycling construction waste.

https://www.ashrae.org/

ASHRAE Journal - June 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of ASHRAE Journal - June 2019