A national laboratory of the U.S.

Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Conference Paper
DOE Commercial Building NREL/CP-550-43291
Benchmark Models July 2008

Preprint
P. Torcellini, M. Deru, B. Griffith, and K. Benne
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

M. Halverson and D. Winiarski

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

D.B. Crawley
U.S. Department of Energy
To be presented at the 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Buildings
Pacific Grove, California
August 17-22, 2008

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute  Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337

 NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a
contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US
Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of
this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not
infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and
opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: mailto:[email protected]

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: [email protected]
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
 DOE Commercial Building Benchmark Models 1
Paul Torcellini, Michael Deru, Brent Griffith, and Kyle Benne National Renewable Energy
Laboratory; Mark Halverson and David Winiarski, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory;
Drury Crawley, U.S. Department of Energy

ABSTRACT

The excitement surrounding the drive to build and renovate commercial buildings to
achieve exemplary and even “net zero performance,” coupled with the realization that complex
systems engineering is usually required to achieve such levels, has led to a broader use of
computer energy simulations. To provide a consistent baseline of comparison and save time
conducting such simulations, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) – through three of its
national laboratories – has developed a set of standard benchmark building models for new and
existing buildings. These models represent a complete revision of the DOE benchmark buildings
originally developed in 2006. The shapes, thermal zoning, and operation of the models are more
indicative of real buildings than in the previous versions.
DOE has developed 15 benchmark buildings that represent most of the commercial
building stock, across 16 locations (representing all U.S. climate zones) and with three vintages
(new, pre-1980, and post-1980 construction). This paper will provide an executive summary
overview of these benchmark buildings, and how they can save building analysts valuable time.
Fully documented and implemented to use with the EnergyPlus energy simulation
program, the benchmark models are publicly available and new versions will be created to
maintain compatibility with new releases of EnergyPlus. The benchmark buildings will form the
basis for research on specific building technologies, energy code development, appliance
standards, and measurement of progress toward DOE energy goals. Having a common starting
point allows us to better share and compare research results and move forward to make more
energy efficient buildings.

Introduction
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducts a large amount of research in
commercial buildings at the national laboratories, private industry, and universities. The focus of
the research is to develop the most energy efficient buildings and eventually reach zero energy
buildings. This type of research relies heavily on whole building energy simulations, which are
approached differently by each individual. To provide some standardization and to provide
starting points for the researchers, DOE, working with the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory (LBNL), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has developed standardized benchmark building models

1
This work has been authored by employees of the Midwest Research Institute under Contract No. DE-
AC36-99GO10337 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and the publisher,
by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive,
paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to
do so, for United States Government purposes.

1
for energy simulations. The building models are developed for use with EnergyPlus Version 2.2
and will be updated for future versions (DOE 2008a). These benchmark building models
represent approximately 70% of the commercial building energy use based on the 2003
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) (EIA 2005). There are three
vintages of the building models meant to represent new construction, post-1980 construction, and
pre-1980 construction. A companion paper presents a methodology for selecting envelope and
HVAC systems from data on the existing building stock (Winiarski et al. 2008).
The primary users of the benchmark building models will be DOE sponsored research
projects; however, the building models are likely to be used by other groups as starting points for
their projects. Developing full models for detailed energy simulations is very time consuming
and can be difficult to verify all the inputs. The DOE benchmark models have been carefully
developed and reviewed by several researchers to increase confidence in their use. In addition,
standardized models allow research results to be more easily compared. This paper describes the
development of the benchmark building models and presents some results from running the
models in EnergyPlus.

Background
Several previous projects focused on creating prototypical building models. Huang and
his colleagues developed a series of prototypical buildings over several years (Huang et al. 1991;
Huang and Franconi 1999) and another paper presents an analysis of 1999 building data (Huang
et al. 2005). Two more recent efforts are a set of standardized energy simulation models for
commercial buildings from the University of Massachusetts (Stocki et al. 2005) and a residential
building benchmark from the DOE Building America program (NREL 2005).
The Building America benchmark was created to provide a common baseline for
determining energy savings of proposed or existing residential buildings using hourly energy
simulations. The size and location of the benchmark (baseline) building are set to match the
proposed building, but everything else is defined by a set of modeling rules.
Huang et al. (1991) developed 481 prototypical commercial buildings (37 building types
and 13 locations) for a market assessment of cogeneration systems. The building types, sizes,
and locations were selected based on the best potential to use cogeneration. One objective of the
project was to model the energy use in existing commercial building stock as closely as
reasonable. The project paper presents an excellent summary of building characteristics
databases, engineering studies, characterizations, and prototypes for energy simulations. The
data used for the work included the Nonresidential Building Energy Consumption Survey, which
later became CBECS, and F.W. Dodge building stock and forecast data. Huang and Franconi
(1999) used 120 prototypical buildings covering 12 building types of old and new construction to
estimate the heating and cooling loads in existing commercial buildings by component. The
models were updated versions of the 1991 Huang et al. models based on 1989 CBECS data.
Extrapolation of the models to represent the regional and national building stock was completed
with weighting factors derived from the 1992 CBECS.
In an earlier version of this project, we developed simple models of the buildings (Deru et
al. 2006). These building models were developed based on statistical averages of existing
building stock for form (size and shape), but they had very simple geometry and uniform loads
throughout the building. The current project provides building models that are much more
complex and more representative of real buildings.

2
 Approach
Representing most of the commercial building stock with a small set of building models
is difficult because of the diversity of buildings and the limited data on existing buildings to draw
from. We selected 15 building types based on analysis of the 1999 and 2003 CBECS, expert
opinion of the existing building stock, and DOE research needs (EIA 2002, 2005). Table 1 lists
the 15 building types along with some key parameters. LBNL developed the preliminary
building model descriptions, focusing mainly on the form and thermal zoning based on typical
building designs and previous research (Huang et al. 2005). NREL and PNNL then reviewed the
models and filled in all the details of the building energy models. The models for the secondary
school, primary school, and warehouse were taken from the ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design
Guides (AEDG) projects conducted by NREL and PNNL. The benchmark building models were
developed to be fairly realistic in appearance (Figure 1), in contrast to the DOE commercial
building benchmark models created in 2006, which were simple single-zone or five-zone boxes.
Table 1 Benchmark Building Characteristics
Name Floor Number Aspect Ratio CBECS CBECS 2003
Area ft2 of Floors PBA PBA+ CBECS
Area ft2
Large Office 460,240 12 1.5 2 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 228,725
Medium Office 53,630 3 1.5 2 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 13,842
Small Office 5,500 1 1.5 2 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 5,579
Warehouse 52,050 1 1.5 5 9, 10 21,603
Stand-Alone Retail 41,790 1 1.3 25 42 10,028
Strip Mall 24,010 1 3 (per store) 23, 24 50, 51 23,223
Primary School 73,960 2 E-shape 14 28 26,828
Secondary School 210,890 3 E-Shape 14 27, 29 37,024
Supermarket 45,000 1 1.3 6 14 8,314
Fast Food 2,500 1 1 15 32 3,345
Restaurant 5,500 1 1 15 33 6,585
Hospital 201,250 5 1.3 13 35 241,416
Outpatient Health Care 10,000 2 1.5 8 18,19 10,409
Small Hotel 21,080 2 L-shape 18 39 14,990
Large Hotel 3.8 (1st flr)
100,820 6 18 38
5.1 97,102

3
 Figure 1 Secondary school benchmark model

Energy models of buildings contain many details that are not available from standard data
sources. Several assumptions had to be made to complete the models. These assumptions
include thermal zoning, aspect ratio, orientation, number of floors, window to wall ratios, HVAC
types, internal loading, and schedules. We have divided the building description into four areas:
program, form, fabric, and equipment Table 2.
Table 2 Input Parameter Categories
Program Form Fabric Equipment
Location Number of floors Exterior walls HVAC system types
Total floor area Aspect ratio Roof Component efficiency
Schedules Window fraction Windows Control settings
Plug and process loads Window locations Interior partitions Lighting fixtures
Lighting densities Shading Internal mass Lamp types
Ventilation needs Floor height Daylighting controls
Occupancy Orientation

PNNL developed white papers with recommendations for the locations, constructions,
and HVAC types based on analysis of CBECS and expert opinion. NREL developed the balance
of the input files, including the schedules and internal loading. NREL also took the lead on
developing and maintaining the input files and documenting the models.
The building size and number of floors were selected to be representative of existing and
new buildings, which is very difficult with a small number of benchmark models. The main
source of data is the 2003 CBECS using the principal building activity (PBA) and the PBAPlus
categorization of buildings. The size and shape of the 15 buildings are listed in Table 1 along
with the average size for each building type from 2003 CBECS. The size, number of floors and
shape are kept constant across all locations and across the three vintages of benchmark building
models. We made this assumption because the data are lacking for better resolution with time
and space and it allows for better comparisons of energy features across locations.

4
 The benchmark project team selected 16 locations based on representativeness of the
climate zones and population centers in the climate zones following a white paper from PNNL
(see Table 3). These locations are not the same as those selected to be representative of the
climate zones by PNNL in development of the ASHRAE climate zones (Briggs et al. 2003). In
addition, we selected two cities for climate zone 3B. Most of climate zone 3B is characterized
by hot and dry summers and cool winters similar to Las Vegas, but the benchmark team felt that
Los Angeles represents a different climate, which is shown in the results of running the models.

Table 3 Selected Commercial Building Benchmark Locations

Number Climate Zone Representative City TMY2 Weather file location
1 1A Miami, FL Miami, FL
2 2A Houston, TX Houston, TX
3 2B Phoenix, AZ Phoenix, AZ
4 3A Atlanta, GA Atlanta, GA
5 3B Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, CA
6 3B Las Vegas, NV Las Vegas, NV
7 3C San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA
8 4A Baltimore, MD Baltimore, MD
9 4B Albuquerque, NM Albuquerque, NM
10 4C Seattle, WA Seattle, WA
11 5A Chicago, IL Chicago-O’Hare, IL
12 5B Denver, CO Boulder, CO
13 6A Minneapolis, MN Minneapolis MN
14 6B Helena, MT Helena, MT
15 7 Duluth, MN Duluth, MN
16 8 Fairbanks, AK Fairbanks, AK

The remaining program parameters cover the operation of the building. We assumed that
internal loads and operating schedules are the same for all locations and vintages of benchmark
building models. For operating schedules, we started with those from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
1989 and the slightly revised versions in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 User’s Manual
(ASHRAE 1989, 2004b). The first modification we made was to add a separate plug load
schedule and increase the plug load intensity during unoccupied periods based on data from
building monitoring activities at NREL. Next, we developed separate schedules for zones with
different operations. For example, the school models have extended hour schedules for some
classrooms, the gymnasium, and the auditorium. Lighting loads, plug loads, and ventilation
requirements vary by zone to provide fairly realistic operations. The lighting load densities for
new construction follow the Standard 90.1-2004 requirements, and the pre- and post-1980
benchmark models use the values from Standard 90.1-1989 (ASHRAE 1989, 2004a). We
assumed that most of the older buildings have been updated to the 90.1-1989 levels. The
electricity and gas plug or process load densities by zone were based on a combination of
previous research, current research, and best judgment. The complete listing of this information
is contained in the full project report, which will be published as a DOE technical paper. Several
of the models contain commercial kitchens, which have large process loads, refrigeration, and
high make-up air requirements. Walk-in style coolers and freezers are included in all the
kitchens based on data from an Arthur D. Little, Inc. study on commercial refrigeration systems

5
(Westphalen et al. 1996). The kitchen electricity and gas process loads and the exhaust flow
were based on review of ASHRAE Journal articles (Brown 2007 and Fisher 2003), data from the
Commercial Kitchen Design Guides (CEC 2004 and SGE 2004), and a review of kitchen
designs. Transfer air from adjacent zones is used for part of the make-up air requirements for the
kitchens. The refrigeration systems in the super market benchmark model are based on prior
reports (Faramarzi and Walker 2004) and current work with large grocery retailers.
The envelope parameters include the wall, roof, and floor constructions; window types;
and the thermal parameters of these objects. The roof and wall construction types listed in
Tables 4 and 5 were determined from an analysis of the 2003 CBECS data and other information
by PNNL (Winiarski et al. 2008). One set of construction types was determined for the pre-1980
buildings and another for the post-1980 and new construction buildings. The wall, roof, and
window thermal parameters for the new construction benchmark models are set to the Standard
90.1-2004 values, and Standard 90.1-1989 was used for the post-1980 benchmark models. The
wall, roof, and window thermal parameters for the pre-1980 models were assumed to be the 1960
office building construction estimates from Briggs et al. (1987).
Table 4 Recommended Roof Constructions by Building Type
Building Type Pre-1980 Post-1980 New Construction
Large Office Ins. above deck Ins. above deck Ins. above deck
Medium Office Ins. above deck Ins. above deck Ins. above deck
Small Office Ins. above deck Attic and other Attic and other
Warehouse Ins. above deck Metal building roof Metal building roof
Stand-Alone Retail Ins. above deck Ins. above deck Ins. above deck
Strip Mall Ins. above deck Ins. above deck Ins. above deck
Primary School Ins. above deck Ins. above deck Ins. above deck
Secondary School Ins. above deck Ins. above deck Ins. above deck
Supermarket Ins. above deck Ins. above deck Ins. above deck
Fast Food Ins. above deck Attic and other Attic and other
Restaurant Ins. above deck Attic and other Attic and other
Hospital Ins. above deck Ins. above deck Ins. above deck
Outpatient Health Care Ins. above deck Attic and other Attic and other
Motel Attic and other Attic and other Attic and other
Hotel Ins. above deck Ins. above deck Ins. above deck

6
 Table 5 Recommended Wall Constructions by Building Type
Building Type Pre-1980 Post-1980 New Construction
Large Office Mass wall Mass wall Mass wall
Medium Office Steel frame wall Steel frame wall Steel frame wall
Small Office Steel frame wall Mass wall Mass wall
Warehouse Metal building wall Metal building wall Metal building wall
Stand-Alone Retail Steel frame wall Mass wall Mass wall
Strip Mall Steel frame wall Steel frame wall Steel frame wall
Primary School Steel frame wall Steel frame wall Steel frame wall
Secondary School Steel frame wall Steel frame wall Steel frame wall
Supermarket Mass wall Mass wall Mass wall
Fast Food Mass wall Wood frame wall Wood frame wall
Restaurant Steel frame wall Steel frame wall Steel frame wall
Hospital Mass wall Mass wall Mass wall
Outpatient Health Care Steel frame wall Steel frame wall Steel frame wall
Motel Steel frame wall Steel frame wall Steel frame wall
Hotel Mass wall Mass wall Mass wall

The HVAC system types were determined by an analysis of the 2003 CBECS data and
other sources by PNNL (Winiarski et al. 2008). Table 6 shows the HVAC equipment for the
post-1980 and new construction benchmark models and Table 7 shows the equipment for the
pre-1980 benchmark models. The schools, hospitals, hotel, and motel have multiple system
types to serve different zones. The equipment efficiencies are based on Standard 90.1-2004 for
new construction, Standard 90.1-1989 for the post-1980 models, and an analysis of energy codes
from PNNL for the pre-1980 models.

Table 6 HVAC Equipment for Post-1980 and New Construction

Building Type Heating Cooling Air Distribution
Large Office Boiler Chiller MZ VAV
Medium Office Furnace PACU MZ VAV
Small Office Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Warehouse Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Stand-Alone Retail Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Strip Mall Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Primary School Boiler PACU CAV *
Secondary School Boiler Chiller MZ VAV
Supermarket Furnace PACU CAV *
Fast Food Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Restaurant Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Hospital Boiler Chiller FCU, CAV and VAV**
Outpatient Health Care Furnace PACU CAV *
Motel ISH IRAC SZ CAV
Hotel Boiler Chiller FCU and VAV***

7
 Table 7 HVAC Equipment for Pre-1980 Construction
Building Type Heating Cooling Air Distribution
Large Office Heating Cooling Air Distribution
Medium Office Boiler Chiller MZ VAV
Small Office Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Warehouse Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Stand-Alone Retail Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Strip Mall Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Primary School NA NA NA
Secondary School Boiler PACU CAV *
Supermarket Boiler PACU CAV *
Fast Food Furnace PACU CAV *
Restaurant Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Hospital Furnace PACU SZ CAV
Outpatient Health Care Boiler Chiller FCU, CAV and VAV**
Motel Furnace PACU CAV *
Hotel ISH IRAC SZ CAV

PACU – Packaged Air Conditioning Unit ISH – Individual Space Heater

IRAC – Individual Room Air Conditioner
SZ - Single Zone MZ - Multizone
CAV - Constant Volume VAV – Variable Air Volume
FCU – Fan Coil Units
* Unclear if single zone or multizone
** Hospitals may use constant volume systems in some operating and critical care type areas with
variable air flow used for pressurization, but classic VAV multizone systems in other areas such as offices.
CBECS guidance seems limited here and other sources should be consulted. CBECS Buildings reporting
VAVs are significantly less common before 1980 (67% versus 95% in post-1980 hospitals).
*** Hotels may be characterized with two system types serving different areas. Both multizone
systems (VAV and CAV) may serve public spaces (lobby/conference rooms), whereas single zone fan coil
systems may be common for living areas.

All the models will be publicly available after peer review with a project report,
spreadsheet “scorecards,” and EnergyPlus input files (DOE 2008b). The EnergyPlus input files
are written by Opt-E-Plus, NREL’s simulation and optimization platform that auto generates
EnergyPlus input files based on an xml file that contains high level building model descriptions.
There is one master xml file for each building type and vintage that is used to generate the other
files. Therefore, we only need to maintain one file per building type. The location dependent
information is contained in the Opt-E-Plus application, which creates the EnergyPlus input file
for any location defined in the program and manages running all files with EnergyPlus over a
distributed computer network or on a local multiprocessor machine.

Results
All the models were run with EnergyPlus version 2.2 (DOE 2008a). The site energy use
intensities for the new construction benchmarks for the 16 locations are shown in Table 8, along
with the average from 2003 CBECS for comparison purposes. We are not attempting to match
the CBECS energy use numbers, and no conclusions beyond general trends in the data should be
drawn by comparisons between the new construction benchmark models and CBECS.

8
 Table 8 Benchmark Site Annual Energy Use Intensities for New Construction (1000Btu/ft2)

2003 CBECS Average

San Francisco

Albuquerque

Minneapolis
Los Angeles

Las Vegas

Fairbanks
Baltimore
Houston

Chicago
Phoenix

Atlanta

Denver

Helena

Duluth
Seattle
Miami

City

Climate Zone
1A 2A 2B 3A 3B 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 6A 6B 7 8
Building

Large Office 49.5 51.5 51.1 49.2 42.6 53.3 42.6 52.6 51.4 44.8 51.5 52.7 54.7 56.7 55.9 68.0 98.6
Medium Office 48.3 49.0 50.6 47.5 41.3 47.2 42.0 50.9 46.5 44.7 50.1 47.6 53.9 50.6 54.8 66.3 93.8
Small Office 36.7 33.6 35.2 29.1 26.1 30.1 26.1 30.5 28.9 28.2 31.7 29.4 34.6 32.1 35.3 47.3 79.9
Warehouse 18.2 21.4 21.8 26.6 17.9 24.4 25.1 34.7 29.6 32.9 42.0 36.9 53.3 47.9 58.5 87.6 47.8
Stand-Alone Retail 37.4 33.7 33.8 32.0 30.1 33.1 29.8 32.6 32.1 30.3 32.8 32.0 34.8 33.3 35.1 41.1 70.1
Strip Mall 38.1 36.2 37.6 35.2 29.2 36.1 32.3 38.5 36.3 35.4 40.9 37.9 46.6 43.5 48.5 63.4 110.0
Primary School 94.5 93.0 91.3 85.5 72.3 82.5 91.8 92.9 82.5 79.5 100.0 88.0 115.2 99.9 121.8 165.5 68.3
Secondary School 86.5 85.0 92.3 78.8 66.4 83.0 84.7 85.1 81.7 71.0 88.9 84.2 100.6 92.5 105.2 144.0 79.9
Supermarket 180.9 185.4 171.7 180.8 158.4 163.6 167.3 191.0 171.8 181.1 200.1 181.3 213.6 197.0 222.1 264.1 214.4
Fast Food 454.5 464.4 431.7 476.2 365.9 439.5 400.3 552.5 483.1 486.1 621.6 543.5 709.1 626.1 781.3 1043.6 450.9
Restaurant 260.4 266.4 249.0 274.7 204.0 253.7 228.7 324.5 278.4 283.2 366.4 314.6 421.0 367.0 464.0 633.1 231.2
Hospital 126.1 128.7 132.5 121.9 99.8 122.6 107.8 132.6 123.9 113.6 140.6 130.3 154.2 140.2 161.3 206.8 249.2
Outpatient Health
40.2 37.0 37.7 34.4 29.7 35.6 29.1 36.8 34.4 32.5 37.5 34.1 41.5 37.3 41.2 56.0 94.6
Care
Small Hotel 60.7 60.3 59.4 60.6 58.0 59.1 58.4 63.4 63.5 61.0 67.2 66.2 73.2 70.6 77.6 92.5 74.9
Large Hotel 68.3 72.9 75.9 64.7 50.3 63.8 57.6 73.7 65.3 65.5 81.1 70.3 90.8 80.3 95.8 129.2 110.0

9
 Conclusions
We have been successful in developing commercial benchmark building models for 15
building types, 3 vintages of buildings, and 16 locations for energy analysis research. These
models represent the work of numerous individuals over several years; however, they are not
static. The models will be updated with new releases of EnergyPlus, and they will evolve as we
gain more knowledge about building operations and new research requirements develop. The
models are presented in EnergyPlus input files, but they could also be translated for other energy
simulation programs.
The benchmark building models represent a starting point for analysis projects. They can
be used with weighting factors to model the effect of energy efficiency technologies on all or
part of the building stock, or they can be used without the weighting factors to understand the
effects of energy efficient technologies on specific building types in different climates. The
benchmark building models will be used as the basis for DOE research programs and to evaluate
the effectiveness of DOE research programs. In addition, they will be used by ASHRAE for
analysis and development of energy standards. It is also anticipated that they will be used by
other building research activities, and they will modified by the users to fit the needs of their
projects. The main benefit of the standardized benchmark models is that they form a common
point of comparison between research projects.

References
ASHRAE (1989). Energy Efficient Design of New Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings. ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1989. Atlanta, GA: American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE (2004a). Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.
ANSI/ ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

ASHRAE (2004b). 90.1 User’s Manual ANSI/ ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. Atlanta,
GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

Briggs, R.S.; D.B. Crawley; and J.S. Schliesing. (1987). Analysis And Categorization Of The
Office Building Stock, Topical Report. GRI-87/0244. Des Plains, IL: Gas Technology Institute.

Briggs, R.S., Lucas, R.G., and Taylor, T. (2003). Climate Classification for Building Energy
Codes and Standards: Part 2 - Zone Definitions, Maps and Comparisons, Technical and
Symposium Papers, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January, 2003. Atlanta, GA:
American Society of Heating Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

Brown, S.L. (2007). Dedicated Outdoor Air System for Commercial Kitchen Ventilation.
ASHRAE Journal, Vol. 49. No. 7. July 2007, pp. 24-35. Atlanta, GA: American Society of
Heating Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

CEC (2004). Design Guide 2 Improving Commercial Kitchen Ventilation System Performance:
Optimizing Makeup Air. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.

10
Deru, M., Griffith, B., Torcellini, P.; (2006). Establishing Benchmarks for DOE Commercial
Building R&D and Program Evaluation. Paper #500, Proceedings, ACEEE Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Buildings, August 1318, 2006, Pacific Grove, CA. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, 12 pp. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39834.pdf

DOE (2008a). EnergyPlus Energy Simulation Software V2.2. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Energy. www.energyplus.gov

DOE (2008b). Commercial Building Benchmark Energy Simulation Models. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Energy. www.eere.energy.gov/buildings

EIA (2002). 1999 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Washington, DC: EIA.
Available from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/1999publicuse/99microdat.html.

EIA. (2005). 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (Preliminary).

Washington, DC: EIA. Available from
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/introduction.html.

Faramarzi, R.T. and D.H. Walker (2004). Investigation of Secondary Loop Supermarket
Refrigeration Systems. 500-04-013. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.

Fisher, D. (2003). Predicting Energy Consumption. ASHRAE Journal, Vol. 45. No. 6. June
2003, pp. K8-K13. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers.

Huang, J., H. Akbari, L. Rainer, and R. Ritshard (1991). 481 Prototypical Commercial Buildings
for 20 Urban Market Areas. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Huang, J. and E. Franconi (1999). Commercial Heating and Cooling Loads Component Analysis.
LBL-37208. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Huang, J., J. A. Roberson, and O. Sezgen (2005). Analysis of 1999 CBECS Data by Commercial
Building Type. LBNL-57457. Draft. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

NREL (2005). Building America Research Benchmark Definition.Updated December 29, 2004.
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

SGE (2004). Design Guide 1 Improving Commercial Kitchen Ventilation System Performance:
Selecting and Sizing Exhaust Hoods. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Southern California Edison.

Stocki, M.; Curcija, D.C.; and Bhandari, M. S. (2005). The Development of Standardized Whole
Building Simulation Assumptions for Energy Analysis for a Set of Commercial Buildings (draft
May 31 2005). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.

Westphalen, D.; R.A. Zogg; A.F. Varone; and M. A. Foran (1996). Energy Savings Potential for
Commercial Refrigeration Equipment. for the U.S. Department of Energy. Cambridge, MA:
Arthur D. Little, Inc.

11
Winiarski, D.W.; M.A. Halverson; and W. Jiang (2008). DOE’s Commercial Building
Benchmarks - Development of Typical Construction Practices for Building Envelope and
Mechanical Systems from the 2003 CBECS. In Proceedings of 2008 Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

12
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents
should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a
currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
July 2008 Conference Paper
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
DOE Commercial Building Benchmark Models: Preprint DE-AC36-99-GO10337
5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

P. Torcellini, M. Deru, B. Griffith, K. Benne, M. Halverson, NREL/CP-550-43291
D. Winiarski, and D. Crawley
5e. TASK NUMBER
BEC71004
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

National Renewable Energy Laboratory REPORT NUMBER
1617 Cole Blvd. NREL/CP-550-43291
Golden, CO 80401-3393
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

To provide a consistent baseline of comparison and save time conducting such simulations, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) has developed a set of standard benchmark building models. DOE has developed 15 benchmark
buildings that represent most of the commercial building stock, across 16 locations (representing all U.S. climate
zones) and with three vintages (new, pre-1980, and post-1980 construction). This paper will provide an executive
summary overview of these benchmark buildings, and how they can save building analysts valuable time. Fully
documented and implemented to use with the EnergyPlus energy simulation program, the benchmark models are
publicly available and new versions will be created to maintain compatibility with new releases of EnergyPlus. The
benchmark buildings will form the basis for research on specific building technologies, energy code development,
appliance standards, and measurement of progress toward DOE energy goals. Having a common starting point
allows us to better share and compare research results and move forward to make more energy efficient buildings.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
benchmark building; energyplus; commercial building

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

F1147-E(09/2007)