Court Theater Energy Audit

Energy Assessment and Feasibility Study
for
The Court Theater

at
The University of Chicago

Submitted to: Submitted by:

University of Chicago Energy Resources Center
Facilities Management University of Illinois at Chicago
851 South Morgan Street, 12th Floor
Science and Engineering Offices
Chicago, IL 60607-7054

The University of Chicago Energy Resources Center
Court Theater Energy Audit University of Illinois at Chicago

Table of Contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ II
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. III
Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................IV
I BUILDING DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................1
II Building Envelope .................................................................................................................3
III ENERGY USING SYSTEMS ...............................................................................................6
IV ENERGY CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS.............................................................................8
V Operations and Maintenance Procedures.............................................................................12
VI Energy Conservation Measures ...........................................................................................14

The University of Chicago I Energy Resources Center

List of Tables

Table 1: ECM summary for Court Theater..................................................................................IV
Table 2: Court Theater windows....................................................................................................4
Table 3: Court Theater doors .........................................................................................................4
Table 4: Summary of Installed Lighting Fixtures..........................................................................7
Table 5: Court Theater electric usage, demand and cost ...............................................................8
Table 6: Energy summary and EUI .............................................................................................10
Table 7: Electrical demand and usage distribution ......................................................................11
Table 8: ECM summary for Court Theater..................................................................................14
Table 9: Bin method savings analysis..........................................................................................16
Table 10: DDC system summary.................................................................................................18
Table 11: Chiller retrofit summary ..............................................................................................19

The University of Chicago II Energy Resources Center

List of Figures

Figure 1: Court Theater..................................................................................................................1
Figure 2: Annual percentage of hourly use....................................................................................2
Figure 3: Court Theater outside wall .............................................................................................3
Figure 4: Roof detail ......................................................................................................................5
Figure 5: Summary of Lighting Fixtures .......................................................................................7
Figure 6: Electrical usage profile...................................................................................................9
Figure 7: Electric demand profile ..................................................................................................9
Figure 8: Energy usage profile.....................................................................................................11

The University of Chicago III Energy Resources Center

Executive Summary

The Energy Resources Center performed an energy assessment at Court Theater, located at
6030 Ellis Avenue at the University of Chicago (UC) campus located in the Hyde Park
neighborhood in Chicago, Illinois. The objective of the energy assessment was to identify
energy conservation measures (ECMs) to be used by UC as a decision making benchmark for
capital improvements. Table 1 summarizes the ECMs that were identified for Court Theater.

Table 1: ECM summary for Court Theater

Energy Savings Energy First Year Implementation Payback
Energy Conservation Measure kWh MMBtu % Reduction Savings Cost (years)
DDC Controls 84,410 kWh 288 MMBtu 21% $3,118 $12,000 3.8
High efficiency chiller retrofit 73,336 kWh 250 MMBtu 43% $2,709 $30,000 11.1
Total 157,746 kWh 538 MMBtu 28% $5,826 $42,000 7.2

Each of the ECMs evaluated present savings that are independent of each other. It is typical
that when several ECMs are implemented in a single building, those ECMs would have an
interactive effect on one another. That is, total energy savings are less than the sum of each
individual ECM. For example, if recommendations were made for high efficiency motor
retrofits and optimal start/stop on air handling supply fan motors, those savings would affect
one another. High efficiency motor savings are calculated as a function of run time, 8,760
hours per year if ran continuously. Optimal start/stop of supply fan motors reduce fan motor
run time, therefore, any hours that the supply fan operation is ceased would be a reduction in
savings from the high efficiency motor retrofit. It is important to keep these interactive effects
in mind when evaluating implementation of ECMs.

The University of Chicago IV Energy Resources Center

I BUILDING DESCRIPTION

General Information

Court Theater is located at 5535 Ellis Avenue at the University of Chicago (UC) campus located
in the Hyde Park neighborhood in Chicago, Illinois. Court Theatre formally had its beginning in
1955, when Marvin Phillips realized his dream of presenting performances under the stars on
summer evenings. Classic theater in Chicago had a new start. During the next decade, Court
Theatre laid down a tradition of performing imaginative revivals of the classics in outdoor
summer repertory, with cast and crew drawn from the university and local communities.

A major campaign conducted jointly by Court Theatre and UC in 1979 raised the necessary
funds to construct a permanent theater facility for Court. The Abelson Auditorium, designed by
Harry Weese, was specifically conceived to accommodate large productions of a classic
repertory. The space is very intimate, with 3/4 round seating and no seat farther than seven rows
from the stage. Court Theater’s total floor area is approximately 10,000 ft2.

Figure 1: Court Theater

The primary HVAC system(s) for Court Theater is located on the building’s roof. These
system(s) consist of a rooftop air-handling unit with electric resistance heating and DX cooling.

The University of Chicago 1 Energy Resources Center

Located near the main air-handling unit is the condenser/compressor unit. This system is
equipped with two hermetically sealed compressors and is air cooled with two condenser fans.

Occupancy

Court Theaters occupancy patterns vary depending upon performance schedules. On average
Court Theater conducts five productions annually. A detailed analysis was performed to
understand the building and mechanical systems use patterns. Mr. Fritz Bennett, Court Theater
production manager, provided the information to ERC. The following is a summary of the
occupancy for from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000.

Figure 2: Annual percentage of hourly use

0 hours
6%
15 hours
37%

9 hours
13 hours 55%
1%
10 hours
1%

• 21 days totally unoccupied
• 203 days with 9 hours of occupancy

The occupancy hours breaks down to 3,938 hours occupied and 4,846 hours unoccupied. Ten
percent of the occupied hours are for performance and 90 percent non-performance or theater
preparation. Theater preparation occupancy is approximately 10 people per day. Court Theater


supplemental information for occupancy and lighting is presented in Appendix C. – Occupancy
Dat

II Building Envelope

Exterior Walls

The exterior shell of Court Theater consists of 3” limestone panels, 2” of rigid insulation and 10”
concrete block. The walls are maintained on a regular basis and are in excellent condition. The
U-value of the walls is estimated to be 0.074 Btu/hr-ft2- ºF.

Figure 3: Court Theater outside wall

3“ Limestone

1“ Air Space

2“ Rigid Insulation

Bituminous Damp
Proofing Membrane

10“ Concrete Block

The foundation wall consists of approximately 16” of reinforced concrete. The wall appears to be
in good condition. The U-value of the foundation wall is estimated to be 0.46 Btu/hr-ft2-ºF.

Windows

Windows in Court Theater are minimal since the theater requires a controlled environment. A
very small number of windows are present in the production/set design area. These windows
provide natural lighting to supplement the high intensity lighting system in this area. The
windows are commercial aluminum fixed type with single glazing. The windows are in good
condition. The windows’ U-value is estimated at 0.55 Btu/hr-ft2-ºF.


Table 2: Court Theater windows

No. of Windows U-Value
Total Area of Doors
Window Type
(sq.ft.)
(orientation)
Fixed 8 (S) 96 0.55

Exterior Doors

The exterior doors at Court Theater are kept to a minimum so as to control access to the various
activities in the building. The main entry consists of a stainless steel framed vestibule with
commercial grade plate glass doors. The doors have a brass threshold to control infiltration but
due to the sleek modern design, lack weatherstripping. The utility doors consist of steel framed
metal clad units. The U-values for the doors are 0.91 and 0.62, respectively.

Table 3: Court Theater doors

No. of Doors Total Area of Doors
Door Type U-Value
(orientation) (sq.ft.)

Entry Doors 2 (S) 116 0.91

Security Doors 1 (W) 21 0.62
2 (N) 56 0.62

Roof

The roof of Court Theater is flat and consists of an inverted built up roofing system. The
following diagram illustrates the system in detail. The U-value of the roofing systems is
approximately 0.049Btu/h-ft2-oF. The roof is in good condition therefore yielding an estimated
remaining life of 10 years.


Figure 4: Roof detail

Stone ballast

3” Rigid Insulation

Inverted built-up
roofing system

15# felt membrane

4-1/2” Concrete topping

Metal decking


III ENERGY USING SYSTEMS

A Primary Heating and Cooling Systems

The primary mechanical system(s) for Court Theater is located on the building’s roof. These
system(s) consist of a rooftop air-handling unit with electric resistance heating and DX cooling.
Located near the main air-handling unit is the condenser/compressor unit. This system is
equipped with two hermetically sealed compressors and is air cooled with two condenser fans.

B Air Handling Systems

The main air distribution consists of a rooftop air handler consisting of a 20 horsepower supply
fan motor, DX cooling, and electrical resistance heating. The air handling system is equipped
with a return network.

C Domestic Hot Water

An electric resistance hot water heater provides domestic hot water to Court Theater.

D Lighting

Court Theater is a very complex structure when looking at it from a lighting point of view.
Theatrical lighting is a very precise art and is difficult to quantify since the lighting requirements
change from performance to performance. Mr. Fritz Bennet, productions manager, assisted us
with information to try to determine an annual baseline usage. He provided ERC with Court
Theater’s detailed performance schedule and a study, which monitored the lighting load of the
performance “The Invention of Love”. In addition, ERC conducted a detailed lighting inventory
of all lighting fixtures installed in Court Theater. The information is presented in Appendix A.
With this information, ERC was able to estimate the lighting load for all performances for the
1999-2000 theatrical season.

Court Theater has a total of 206 theatrical lighting fixtures, 156 dimmers, and 300 general
lighting fixtures installed throughout the building with a total load of 297.94 kW. Approximately
99% of the lighting fixtures are incandescent. The remaining 1% consists of fluorescent fixtures.


Of the 99% incandescent fixtures, 89% consist of theatrical lights and 10% consist of general-
purpose lights. Table 4 and Figure 5 summarize the installed lighting system. Appendix A
includes a full inventory of the complete lighting system for the building. The system and
controls are in good working condition and do not require additional upgrade or maintenance at
this time.

Table 4: Summary of Installed Lighting Fixtures
Installed KW %
Inc - General 29.10 9.8%
Inc - Theatrical 265.74 89.2%
Fluorescent 3.10 1.0%
Exit - 8w - T5 0.198
Auditorium footlights 0.255
1 x 4- 2 lamp - T12 0.401
2x4 - 2 lamp - T12 0.642
2x4 - 4 lamp - T12 1.605
Total Installed KW 297.94

Figure 5: Summary of Lighting Fixtures

Inc - Theatrical
89.2%

Inc - General
Inc - Theatrical
Fluorescent

Inc - General Fluorescent
9.8% 1.0%

E Other Equipment

Other equipment at Court includes equipment utilized by the theater group for performances and
preparation.


IV ENERGY CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS

Current Energy Consumption

Energy at Court Theater is 100 percent electrical provided by Commonwealth Edison (ComEd).
There are four separate electrical service feeds that provide power to Court Theater. Court
Theater electricity is served, as well as all U of C buildings, under a single utility rate. During
the period of analysis, U of C was being provided electricity, through ComEd, at a significantly
reduced rate. Starting December 2000, U of C will contract with Enron for electricity. Costs
demonstrated in Table 5 are based upon the future Enron rate. This was done in order to ensure
that when comparing utility costs to ECM savings, that the comparison is performed with parity.
Demand costs above 10,000 kW campus wide are accessed at a reduced cost per kW of $6.51
and $5.03 for summer and winter, respectively. Any demand savings associated with ECMs
demonstrated in this report will be based upon those costs.

Table 5: Court Theater electric usage, demand and cost

Usage (kWh) Cost

Month Peak Offpeak Total Demand (kW) Load Factor Total

July 25,573 30,413 55,986 120 61% $3,803
August 29,804 29,337 59,141 134 63% $4,613
September 24,875 19,719 44,594 68 94% $3,047
October 26,747 25,595 52,342 83 83% $3,270
November 21,095 20,841 41,936 91 66% $2,908
December 15,547 13,026 28,573 54 71% $1,917
January 25,643 21,849 47,492 61 95% $2,839
February 32,201 29,809 62,010 139 64% $4,385
March 32,217 29,530 61,747 88 94% $3,767
April 30,031 31,453 61,484 89 99% $3,706
May 13,006 10,206 23,218 40 80% $1,525
June 12,713 10,296 23,009 32 93% $1,520

Total kWh 289,452 272,073 561,532 80% $37,300
Total MMBtu 988 928 1,916


Figure 6: Electrical usage profile

35,000

30,000

25,000
Usage (kWh)

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

ay
ly

ril
ry

ch
st

ne
er

y
r

r

r
be

be

be

ar
Ju

Ap
gu

ua

M
ob

ar

Ju
nu
em

em

em

br
Au

M
ct

Ja

Fe
O
pt

ov

ec
Se

N

D

Peak Offpeak

Figure 7: Electric demand profile

160

140

120
Demand (kW)

100

80

60

40

20

0
r

ry

ry
r

r

ay
st

ch

e
r
ly

ril
be
be

be
be

n
Ju

gu

Ap
ua

ua

ar

M

Ju
em
em

em
o
Au

br
n

M
ct

Ja
O

ov
pt

Fe
ec
Se

N

D

Total Energy

Energy usage in a building can be effectively summarized through the use of the energy usage
index (EUI). The EUI provides the total energy usage of a building in common units of MMBtu

per building square footage. When expressed in this manner, building energy usage can be
compared appropriately to buildings of similar operation. At an area of 10,000 ft2, the EUI at
Court Theater is approximately 0.192 MMBtu/ft2/year. Table 6 summarizes the total energy
usage and EUI, current and projected, for Court. The projected ECMs, based upon calculations
demonstrated in this report, project and EUI of 0.138 MMBtu/ft2/year.

Table 6: Energy summary and EUI

Current Energy Consumption Projected Energy Consumption
Electrical Energy 561,532 kWh Electrical Energy 403,785 kWh
1,916 MMBtu 1,378 MMBtu
Total Energy 1,916 MMBtu Total Energy 1,378 MMBtu
energy usage index (EUI) 0.192 MMBtu/ft^2/year energy usage index (EUI) 0.138 MMBtu/ft^2/year


Building Energy Profile

Electric Profile

Table 7 and Figure 8 provide analyses of energy usage for Court Theater in terms of energy
usage (kWh) and building electrical usage profile.

Table 7: Electrical demand and usage distribution

kWh
Winter Summer Annual
Lighting (General) 37,031 41,977 79,008
Lighting (Performance) 15,147 18,814 33,962
Lighting (Parking) 18,214 13,010 31,225
Chiller/Condenser - 170,470 170,470
Electrical Resistance Heat 148,851 - 148,851
Air Handling Unit 53,223 38,016 91,239
Other 3,954 2,824 6,778
Total 276,419 285,112 561,532
Total (in MMBtu) 943 973 1,916

Figure 8: Energy usage profile

Lighting (General) Lighting (Performance)
14% 6%

Lighting (Parking)
Other 6%
1%
Air Handling Unit
16%

Chiller/Condenser
30%

Electrical Resistance
Heat
27%


V Operations and Maintenance Procedures

Ventilation

The discharge register in the office area of Court is currently dumping conditioned air. Measures
should be taken to install discharge dampers to regulate the discharge of air. By regulating the
discharge air, comfort, draft and energy issues can be mitigated.

Space Heating

1. Lower the thermostats during the heating season and raise the thermostats during the cooling
season. If your building is like most, you can save about 15% of your heating fuel bill by
lowering the thermostat(s) a five degrees.

2. Use night setback on heating systems with zone controls. Maintaining 55 or 60F at night will
reduce energy consumption by 5% to 6% during the night hours.

3. Do not heat storerooms unless heat is for protection of stored contents

4. Calibration of all instruments should be checked annually and, as operators notice
deficiencies, they should be corrected immediately.

5. Turn off non-critical exhaust fans.

6. In mild weather, lower the cooling effect by running room cooling fans at lower speeds.

7. Begin pre-cooling operations so noncritical areas are 80°F by the time occupants arrive.
Complete cool down during the first hour of occupancy.

8. Reduce internal heating generation as much as possible during the cooling season. Typical
sources of heat generation include lighting, people, machines, cooking equipment, etc.

9. Heat transfer surfaces of radiators, convectors, baseboard and finned tube must be kept clean
for efficient operation.

Air Filters

Air filters are a necessary and costly component of air-handler operation. The cost includes the
price of the air filter itself (a fixed cost) plus the cost of the energy to move the air through the
filter (highly variable depending on filter characteristics, sizes, final static pressure drop, etc).
Cost-effective, energy-saving air filters for commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
systems have been on the market for quite some time, but building owners and managers

continue to use the lower grade conventional filters. This ultimately drives the operations cost up
and mitigates the air quality of the building with respect to the air filter efficiency.

Consideration should be given to using premium air filter bags (manufactured under the
tradenames Viledon, LUWA and others) instead of the existing Tridim air filter bags at COURT.
Experience with the Viledon air filter bags has shown that prefilters are not necessary in most
air-handling systems with no detriment to the life of the bag. This yields the lowest possible
initial static pressure drop across the filter bank, which results in the lowest energy use/cost for
COURT fan systems. The Viledon bags are more expensive than conventional bag-type air
filters, however, the simple payback on the investment is often less than two years. Case studies
are available from premium air filter manufacturers.


VI Energy Conservation Measures

This section identifies and discusses energy conservation measures (ECMs). All ECMs
evaluated for cost saving are demonstrated independently of other building ECMs that may have
interactive effects. These effects act to reduce the overall savings of the ECMs. The ECMs
discussed are based on their technical and economic feasibility.

Economic feasibility is demonstrated using engineering calculations to ascertain energy savings,
relevant utility rates to demonstrate cost savings, and contractor implementation costs to
establish a simple payback for each project. ECM technical feasibility takes into account
considerations that are concerned with installation and effects that are concerned with issues
such as occupant comfort. All ECMs are applicable to any and all local codes. Dollars saved
were calculated using an average cost per kWh based on ComEd rate 6L less seven percent per
Enron. A summary of the ECMs at Court Theater is shown in Table 8.

Table 8: ECM summary for Court Theater

Energy Savings Energy First Year Implementation Payback
Energy Conservation Measure kWh MMBtu % Reduction Savings Cost (years)
DDC Controls 84,410 kWh 288 MMBtu 21% $3,118 $12,000 3.8
High efficiency chiller retrofit 73,336 kWh 250 MMBtu 43% $2,709 $30,000 11.1
Total 157,746 kWh 538 MMBtu 28% $5,826 $42,000 7.2


ECM #1: Energy Management System

An energy management system (EMS) can save energy by optimizing the control of several
components of the existing HVAC system(s) that are currently not controlled or controlled
manually. Direct digital control (DDC) is the recommended technology for this type of system.
A DDC controller is capable of not only providing energy management, but total facility
management as well, such as security. Specifically this ECM will allow energy savings through:

Use of Economizer Cycles (Enthalpy Economizer)
Temperature setback
Optimal start/stop of supply fan motor

An EMS is designed to run individual pieces of equipment more efficiently and to permit
integration of equipment, enhancing performance of the system. In a typical EMS, sensors
monitor parameters such as air and water temperatures, pressures, humidity levels, flow rates,
and power consumption. From those performance points, electrical and mechanical equipment
run times and setpoints are controlled.

Each component of the control system contributes to the total savings of this ECM and will be
explained in detail in the following paragraphs. Table 10 will present the total savings, total cost
and simple payback of this ECM.

Use of Economizer Cycles (Enthalpy Economizer)

An enthalpy economizer takes into account the effects of temperature and humidity. Free
cooling can be realized anytime the outdoor temperature and humidity are below a desired
enthalpy setpoint (usually 23 Btu/lb) and the building is calling for cooling. The DDC controller
automates this activity. The governing equation for economizer energy savings follows:

Qsaved (Btu) = 4.5 × CFM × (houtside - hsetpoint) × th

Where:

Qsaved= Energy saved due to ‘free cooling’ (Btu)


CFM= Total fan CFM of all supply fans
hsetpoint= Enthalpy setpoint (usually 23 Btu/lb)
houtside= Outdoor enthalpy (from BIN Data)
4.5= Conversion constant
th= Total hours for each individual bin

The total savings are summarized in Table 9 below. This table uses the BIN method to calculate
total savings over a wide range of climatic conditions. This is an accurate way of predicting
savings, second only to modeling the system with a building loads simulation program (e.g.
DOE-2).

Table 9: Bin method savings analysis

Total Total
Bin Occupied Unoccupied Free Cooling Savings $ Savings
Temp Enthalpy Hours Hours (BTU/hr) kWh electric
92 38.42 69 28 0 0 $0
87 35.67 159 63 0 0 $0
82 32.29 240 122 0 0 $0
77 30.68 263 249 0 0 $0
72 27.75 303 502 0 0 $0
67 26.55 194 493 0 0 $0
62 23.87 183 433 0 0 $0
57 22.08 233 389 82,800 5,651 $209
52 19.18 214 371 343,800 21,592 $797
47 17.19 215 362 522,900 33,004 $1,219
42 14.79 231 405 0 0 $0
37 12.59 303 417 0 0 $0
32 10.95 333 625 0 0 $0
27 8.95 180 331 0 0 $0
Total Savings 60,247 kWh $2,225


Temperature setback

As the name implies, night temperature setback allows for less cooling in summer and less
heating in winter during unoccupied hours. A 10°F temperature setback is typical for this type of
control strategy. The governing equation for temperature setback is as follows:

Qsaved (Btu) = Tback/(Tsetpoint – Tavg) × (occ. hours/168) × (HDDnormal/ HDDbase) × Qbase

Where:

Tback Temperature setback
Tsetpoint Indoor temperature setpoint
Tavg Average outdoor winter temperature
Occ. hours Building occupied hours
168 Total hours in one week
HDDnormal Normal HDD
HDDbase Base year HDD
Qbase Base heating load

Optimal Start/Stop of HVAC Supply Fan(s)

Currently the rooftop supply fan motor operates continuously. Optimal start/stop enables the
entire system to look ahead several hours and, relative to current conditions, make decisions
about how to proceed; this allows the system to ramp up slowly, avoiding morning demand
spikes or unnecessary run times. The governing equation for start/ stop is as follows:

E = hp × 0.746 × .80 × th / η

Where:

E= Energy saved when fans are off (kWh)
hp= Total fan hp of all supply fans
th= Total hours fans are scheduled ‘off’ (hours/year)
0.80= Load factor
0.746= Conversion constant

η= Motor efficiency

Table 10 summarizes the savings and cost associated an energy management system.

Table 10: DDC system summary1

Implementation Cost $12,000
First Year Savings $3,118
Energy Savings 84,410 kWh
Energy Savings 288 MMBtu
Energy Percent Reduction 21%
Payback 3.8

ECM #1: Chiller Retrofit

Current operational efficiency of the compressor/condenser is expected to be low. Based upon
the type, age and condition the estimated efficiency is 1.3 kW/ton. Newer condenser
technologies of similar size are available in the 0.75-kW/ton2 efficiency range. A higher
efficiency chiller will save energy by optimizing the energy input required to provide cooling
efficacy by the compressor(s). The governing equation that describes the energy savings for
retrofitting with a higher efficiency chiller follows:

1 1
Energy savings (kWh) = Current energy use ( New eff.
-
Old eff. )
Table 11 summarizes the total savings and cost associated with implementation of a DDC
system.

1
Jim Perisin, Johnson Control, 708-418-2268
2
Trane unit, model number XX, IPL = 16.2 Btu/watt-hr: 1/(16.2 Btu/watt-hr) × (1,000 watt/kW) / (12,000 Btu/ton-
hr) = 0.74 kW/ton.


Table 11: Chiller retrofit summary3

Implementation Cost $30,000
First Year Savings $2,709
Energy Savings 73,336 kWh
Energy Savings 250 MMBtu
Energy Percent Reduction 43%
Payback 11.1

3
Costs provided by Kevin Kisala at Air Comfort, 708-345-1901.


Appendix A - Lighting


Appendix B. – Energy Calculations


Appendix C. – Occupancy Data


Appendix D – Floor Plans


Court Theater Energy Audit

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Court Theater Energy Audit

Similar to Court Theater Energy Audit (20)

Court Theater Energy Audit