Food Service Building Asset Rating
Methodology and Analysis
Supriya Goel Juan Gonzalez Matamoros Alex Vlachokostas, PhD
Na Wang, PhD
ABSTRACT HEADING
Food Service buildings are extremely energy intensive, using about 5 to 7 times more energy per square foot than conventional commercial buildings.
Energy intensive commercial kitchen appliances are the primary drivers, often necessitating high exhaust air requirements. Currently, no standardized
method exists to directly compare energy efficiency between different Food Service buildings. Different restaurant types have various types of appliances and
cooked food throughput requirements and thus it is challenging to make direct comparisons. Past attempts to categorize Food Service use types into
“Quick-Service” and “Full-Service” led to the development of the Standard 90.1 prototype building models. However, these models do not address the
highly diverse Food Service use types. This paper proposes a methodology to compare Food Service buildings through an asset rating system. By identifying
all unique systems in a kitchen and creating a common baseline, this methodology identifies approaches for normalizing variations in kitchen requirements
and to compare all Food Service buildings against one another.
1. INTRODUCTION
The commercial Food Service industry uses approximately five to seven times more energy per square foot than
other commercial buildings. Niche Food Service categories, such as high-volume Quick-Service Restaurants (QSRs),
may even use up to 10 times more energy per square foot than other commercial buildings (EnergyStar 2017). The
Food Service industry energy use is largely driven by the energy consumption of commercial grade cooking
equipment, refrigeration equipment and high exhaust and ventilation requirements. Commercial kitchens are equipped
with diverse appliances and refrigeration equipment, based on the type and quantity of food cooked. The operating
schedules can also be highly diverse resulting in significant variations in their measured energy use. All of these
variations make it highly challenging to develop an Asset Rating metric for Food Service buildings. This paper
presents a methodology developed for the Building Energy Asset Score tool (hereafter referred to as the “the tool”)
which implements a baseline that normalizes for primary energy sources of variations in commercial kitchens, such as
appliances, ventilation and exhaust requirements, and operation assumptions. The methodology provides a standard
baseline against which various Food Service buildings can be evaluated.
2. THE TOOL
The web-based tool helps building owners, operators, and tenants understand the current and potential
performance of a building asset. The building assets are defined as the building systems that are not influenced by
Supriya Goel, Juan Gonzalez Matamoros, Alex Vlachokostas, and Na Wang are research engineers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
operational changes (e.g., envelope, mechanical systems, and electrical systems). The tool is based on a 10-point scale,
with 0.5 point increments, where a higher score translates to a more efficient building asset, relative to its population
of peers (Wang et al. 2016a). The tool is modular in design for clean separation of functionalities and easier
development and testing. The backend simulation process is integrated within a framework to perform a sensitivity
and energy use intensity (EUI) distribution analysis (Wang et al. 2016a, Wang et al. 2017). It leverages OpenStudio
(OpenStudio 2017) and EnergyPlus (Crawley et al. 2000, EnergyPlus 2017) to calculate building energy use.
The tool is built on a simplified user interface, through which a user can specify key characteristics of the building,
including but not limited to roof, walls, windows, lighting systems, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems, and the service hot water system. The tool standardizes for the plug and process loads and uses standard
operating assumptions including schedules of occupancy, lighting, and thermostat setpoints. Once the building is
scored, the user can download a PDF report which identifies the current score for the building, the potential score
and a list of cost effective upgrade opportunities that the tool identifies through a series of optimization runs (Wang et
al. 2016b). The tool can evaluate a large number of use types including multifamily, offices, retail, assisted living, city
hall, community centers, courthouse, educational, etc. as well as mixed use buildings. This paper presents the
methodology incorporated in the tool in order to evaluate the Food Service use type buildings.
2.1. Evaluating Commercial Kitchens Using the Tool
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) characterizes Food Services as the most energy intensive use type
in the United States based on energy per area, consuming more energy per square foot than an average commercial
building (EIA 2017). Commercial kitchens have high electric and gas equipment densities for refrigeration, food
preparation, and dishwashing, and often require high ventilation requirements. The internal loads in commercial
kitchens can vary tremendously depending on the types and amounts of food served. The high energy intensive
cooking equipment, long operation hours, high cooked food throughput, ventilation and cooling load contribute to
considerable high energy use intensity. The evaluation approach implemented in the tool standardizes for these
variations, enabling comparison and rating of Food Service buildings with different profiles of energy consumption
and operation against each other.
The standardized baseline has been developed using the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 prototype building models
developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Thorton et al. 2011). The prototype buildings represent 80% of
the commercial building floor area in the United States for new construction, including both Quick-Service Restaurant
and Full-Service Restaurants and provide a reference benchmark for developing a normalization approach for
evaluating Food Service buildings. The rating methodology defines assets to include the cooking and refrigeration
equipment, the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (HVAC), exhaust hoods and system controls. A
normalized baseline commercial kitchen is developed, against which all comparisons are drawn for scoring of
buildings.
3. COMMERCIAL KITCHEN BASELINE DEVELOPMENT
To evaluate commercial kitchens using our tool, extensive research was carried out to identify a standard set of
schedules and loads that could be used to define a benchmark against which all buildings would be evaluated. These
include schedules of operation (such as occupancy, lighting, thermostat setpoints, appliance operation, etc.), typical
appliances and their input power rating, commercial kitchen ventilation requirements and strategies for energy savings.
3.1. Identifying Standard Operations
The tool uses standard operating assumptions for schedule of occupancy, lighting, plug load operation, HVAC
system operation and thermostat setpoints. This enables the comparison of buildings having varying schedules of
operation. For analysis of the Food Service use types, several references were evaluated to determine kitchen
operation including California Energy Commission’s Title-24 (T-24) (CASE 2013), PNNL prototype buildings (DOE
2017), and the baseline model developed for the Advanced Energy Design Guides (AEDG) Quick-Service Restaurant
(QSR) (Zhang et al. 2010). A comparison of the operation schedules is shown in Figure 1(a) and 1(b). The occupancy
schedules for the three reference sources are very similar, where peak occupancy is observed around noon and 7 pm.
However, the fractional schedules for gas appliances (Figure 1(b)) have significant variations between the three
sources, where T-24 has peak appliance operation almost throughout the day, whereas both QSR and prototype has
part load performance throughout the day.
a)
b)
Figure 1 a) Occupancy schedule and b) gas equipment schedule for kitchen/dining.
In addition to the considerations associated with these schedules, the appliance W/ft2 as modeled by the AEDG
QSR and prototype buildings is 170 W/ft2 and 100 W/ft2, respectively. The internal load recommended through T-24
is 10 W/ft2 (CASE 2013). The recommended T-24 load was significantly low in comparison to AEDG and prototype.
This might be appropriate for compliance evaluations but it would not be appropriate for rating of commercial
kitchens where high loads significantly impact the cooling and heating energy use. The prototype buildings approach
was identified to be most appropriate and the tool models incorporate schedules of operation as identified by these
buildings.
3.2. Identifying Typical Appliances and Refrigeration Equipment
The typical appliances in a commercial kitchen include refrigerators, freezers (Zhang et al. 2010), fryers, griddles,
steamers, broilers, ovens, range top, and braising pans (Fisher Nickel 2002). We use the rated values from the 2013
ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals for the commonly found appliances in a commercial kitchen (ASHRAE 2013).
Table 1 shows some common commercial kitchen appliances’ annual energy use operating under the tool’s standard
operations.
Table 1. Standard and Energy Efficient Appliances
Electric Appliances (MBtu/yr) Gas Appliances (MBtu/yr)
Standard Energy Efficient Standard Energy Efficient
Broiler 53 40 138 104
Freezer (Reach In) 15 11 N/A N/A
Freezer (Undercounter) 10 9 N/A N/A
Fryer 69 48 115 81
Griddle 84 76 130 117
Holding Cabinet 45 13 N/A N/A
Ice Machine 45 39 N/A N/A
Microwave 16 13 N/A N/A
Oven (Convection) 59 51 80 68
Oven (Conveyor) 30 25 N/A N/A
Refrigerator (Prep Table) 18 11 N/A N/A
Refrigerator (Reach In) 42 25 N/A N/A
Refrigerator (Undercounter) 4 3 N/A N/A
Steam Kettle 159 143 209 167
Steamer (Bun) 7 4 N/A N/A
Steamer 48 29 38 26
3.3. Identifying Air Requirements and Control
3.3.1. Exhaust Requirements based on Appliance Duty Level
ASHRAE Standard 154 (ASHRAE 2016) has identified four rating categories based on the exhaust airflow
required to capture, contain, and remove the cooking effluent and products of combustion under typical operating
conditions. The following appliance duty classifications are used in this standard:
• Light: a cooking process requiring an exhaust airflow rate of less than 200 CFM/ft for capture, containment, and
removal of the cooking effluent and products of combustion. Convection ovens, combination ovens steamers, small
kettles (up to 400 °F) etc. are some of the appliances that require light duty exhaust hoods.
• Medium: a cooking process requiring an exhaust airflow rate of 200 to 300 CFM/ft. Conveyor ovens, large
kettles, ranges, fryers (up to 400 °F), griddles, open burner ranges are a few of the appliances identified by ASHRAE
Standard 154 to required medium duty exhaust hoods.
• Heavy: a cooking process requiring an exhaust airflow rate of 300 to 400 CFM/ft. Under fire broilers and wok
ranges are identified to require heavy duty exhaust hoods.
• Extra-heavy: a cooking process requiring an exhaust airflow rate greater than 400 CFM/ft. Solid fuel (wood,
charcoal, briquettes and mesquite) appliances are required to have extra-heavy duty exhaust hoods.
Most commonly found appliances in commercial kitchens fall under the category of medium duty exhaust hoods,
which have been assumed for all kitchen applications evaluated by the tool.
3.3.2. Style of Exhaust Hoods
The design exhaust airflow rate depends on several features including the style of the exhaust hood, the
effectiveness of its design and its length. Several styles of exhaust hoods are available such as wall mounted canopy,
single island, double island, backshelf, eyebrow etc. Each style is engineered in a different manner due to which the
effectiveness varies across different styles (Fisher Nickel 2002). Generally, for the same thermal plume challenge
through cooking, a single-island canopy would require more exhaust than a wall-mounted canopy, which would
require more exhaust than a backshelf hood. The tool would give credit for a more efficient hood style and normalize
for variations in rate of exhaust airflow due to type and number of appliances. An effective normalization approach
would be able to credit a kitchen with backshelf exhaust hoods when compared to a kitchen with wall mounted
canopy hoods even if the exhaust airflow and consequent energy use of the former kitchen is higher due to operations
or number of meals cooked per day.
ASHRAE Standard 154 defines the minimum exhaust airflow for both listed and unlisted styles of hoods. Listed
hoods are the ones that have been tested against a recognized standard, such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
Standard 710 (UL 2016), whereas the hoods constructed to the prescriptive requirements of the building code are
called unlisted hoods. Generally, listed hoods can be operated at a lower exhaust rate than an unlisted hood of the
comparable style and size over the same cook line. In accordance to ASHRAE Research Project 1202 (ASHRAE
2005), listed hoods are often 30% more efficient than unlisted hoods. Table 2 below provides the exhaust airflow per
linear foot of hood length for both listed and unlisted hoods for the different hood styles.
Table 2. Exhaust Airflow Rate per Linear Foot of Hood Length
ASHRAE 154-2016 90.1-2013
Unlisted exhaust hoods Listed exhaust hoods
Exhaust Hood Type
(CFM/linear foot) (CFM/linear foot)
Wall mounted canopy 300 210
Single Island 500 350
Eyebrow 250 175
Backshelf 300 210
Double Island 250 175
3.4. Demand Controlled Kitchen Ventilation
Demand Control Kitchen Ventilation (DCKV) systems control ventilation by modulating the speed of the exhaust
fans based on cooking activity. Schedules and ventilation requirements for DKCV met requirements put forth by
Nonresidential Alternative Compliance Method Manual (NACM) 2013 guidelines (CASE 2013). NACM-2013
requires a standard DCKV enabled exhaust hood to be modeling using two fans. One fan runs 75% of the design
exhaust volume and is controlled. The NACM-2013 fractional schedule for DCKV systems dictates the demand
controlled fan’s operating conditions and hours. The second fan exhausts 25% of the design exhaust air at constant
speed running during the same operating hours as the DCKV controlled fan.
4. NORMALIZATION APPROACH
The research carried out on appliances used in commercial kitchens shows a high variation in type and number of
appliances. These are highly dependent on the kinds of food cooked. The type of appliance and the cooking effluent
determines the exhaust hood duty (light, medium, heavy or extra heavy) that is required to be used for effective
capture and containment (C&C) (Fisher Nickel 2002). Hence the exhaust airflow and the corresponding ventilation
loads are also dependent on the type and number of appliances used.
4.1. Normalization Parameters
The normalization approach addresses the following variations observed in commercial kitchens:
• Type of appliances: An effective normalization approach would enable comparison of kitchens with varying types
of appliances. For instance, a pizza restaurant with deck ovens should be comparable to a fast food restaurant with
griddles and fryers. This is achieved by developing a baseline kitchen that includes all appliances that would be present
in both kitchens.
• Quantity of Appliances: A kitchen serving more meals per day may be equipped with more appliances compared
to a kitchen serving fewer meals per day. The normalization approach credits a higher number of energy efficient
appliances and therefore does not penalize restaurants that need more kitchen equipment.
• Kitchen Area: The tool scores a building on its energy use intensity (EUI) which is normalized by floor area.
Appliances are rated by their input power consumption (W) which does not account for variations in kitchen size.
Hence, two kitchens with the same assets but varying floor area would score differently as the same energy use would
be normalized over different areas. The proposed normalization approach accounts for this variation through the
baseline kitchen which is always assumed to be 100 W/ft2 and is adjusted according to the appliances present in the
kitchen being evaluated.
• Exhaust Air: The desired normalization approach would give credit to efficient hood style and would normalize
for variations in volume of exhaust airflow. Exhaust hoods are rated by exhaust airflow per linear foot of hood length.
Hence, in our proposed normalization we adjust the total length of exhaust hood in feet over the total square feet of
the kitchen area. This normalizes for exhaust airflow and kitchen area at the same time, while giving credit to the hood
style.
The rating approach should give credit to the following building assets:
• Appliance Energy Efficiency: Appliance energy efficiency is a measure of how much of the energy that an
appliance consumes is actually delivered to the food product (Fisher Nickel 2002). There are several technologies that
can improve the performance and energy efficiency of good service equipment, including improved heat exchanger
design, enhanced control, thermostatic controls, power burners etc. The asset rating methodology should recognize
appliances with advanced controls and give credit for the use of energy efficient technologies.
• Gas vs Electric Appliances: Electric appliances are more efficient than gas appliances partly due to higher
effectiveness of the heat exchanger for electric appliances. On average, a gas fryer or griddle can consume twice as
much energy at full load conditions (Fisher Nickel 2002). The tool uses source energy for scoring buildings due to
which gas appliances, though less efficient than electric appliances, are bound to score higher due to the lower site-to-
source conversion ratios. The normalization approach addresses this issue by accounting for both gas and electric
appliances in the normalized baseline hence crediting a kitchen for the use of efficient electric appliances.
4.2. Normalized Baseline Model
The normalization approach developed for scoring commercial kitchens normalizes for type of appliances, number
of appliances, kitchen area and exhaust airflow, and gives credit to energy efficient appliances, exhaust hood style, and
exhaust hood listing.
4.2.1. Normalizing for Type of Appliances
This is achieved by developing a baseline kitchen model that has one of each kind of appliance and refrigeration
equipment being evaluated by the tool, at an “average efficiency.” In Section 3.2 we presented the annual energy
consumption for standard and energy efficient appliances and refrigeration equipment. Average efficiency, for the
purpose of the tool, is defined as the average input power rating of a standard and energy efficient appliance. Hence,
the normalized baseline kitchen is assumed to have one of each appliance type at average efficiency and is then
modified to reflect the kitchen being evaluated, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Simplified example of appliance type normalization with only 6 appliances. The tool’s calculation
uses 24 different appliance types.
4.2.2 Normalizing for Kitchen Area
Appliances are typically defined with an input power rating (W) and not a W/ft2. Without normalization, a smaller
kitchen will score lower than a larger kitchen, with all other attributes being the same. To normalize for kitchen area,
an appliance power density (APD) of 100 W/ft2 is assumed (based on the Full-Service Restaurant prototype, DOE
2017), which is then adjusted based on the appliances present in the kitchen being evaluated. For instance, if the
evaluated kitchen has four energy efficient appliances, the savings of these four appliances over the average efficiency
appliances would be calculated and the baseline APD would be adjusted to account for these savings. In the example
highlighted in Figure 3, two kitchens with same assets but varying floor area are considered. Using the methodology
described, both kitchens would be modeled with the same appliance power density, resulting in similar EUIs and same
asset scores.
Figure 3 Normalization for kitchen area.
4.2.3. Normalizing for Number of Appliances
In addition to appliance type, the normalized baseline kitchen model takes into consideration multiple of the same
appliances. Since the tool evaluates assets, kitchens with multiples of the same energy efficient appliance score higher.
Conversely, the same kitchen, but with fewer energy efficient appliances, receives a lower score. To accomplish this,
the baseline kitchen model is modified to include the additional appliances. Consider Kitchen 1 from Figure 3 but
with an additional energy efficient oven. Kitchen 1B in Figure 4 reflects the modification. The new baseline includes
two average ovens instead of one. The modification happens only when multiple of the same appliances are evaluated.
For all other appliance types, the baseline kitchen model still has one average efficiency appliance. As a result, making
the oven’s energy a larger portion of the kitchen’s appliance energy use allows for kitchens with a greater number of
energy efficient ovens to score better than kitchens with a single energy efficient oven.
Figure 4 Normalization for number of appliances.
4.3. Evaluation Scenario
In this section, we present the overall methodology. For example, Kitchen 1 represents a 1000 ft2 space with four
appliances and an annual EUI of 650 kBtu/ft2. In addition, Kitchen 2 represents a 2000 ft2 space equipped with two
appliances and an annual EUI of 400 kBtu/ft2. Based on EUI, Kitchen 2 would appear to be more energy efficient
than Kitchen 1. However when compared using the normalization approach implemented in the tool, Kitchen 2
scores lower than Kitchen 1. In Figure 5, the tool’s methodology shows the normalized version of both kitchens
adjusted to reflect the efficiency levels of appliances present in the kitchen. This enables the comparison of multiple
configurations and rates the kitchen assets irrespective of actual operation.
Figure 5 Overall methodology.
5. CONCLUSION
The tool’s evaluation methodology standardizes kitchen configurations allowing for comparison and analysis of
Food Service building use types. We identify the energy use drivers in commercial kitchens and propose a
methodology to evaluate their energy efficiency. The methodology presented in this paper demonstrates techniques to
normalize for variations in appliance type, efficiency, and amount, and ventilation and exhaust requirements. The
methodology provides a technically robust approach to fairly score different Food Service buildings.
REFERENCES
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 154-2011. 2016. Ventilation for Commercial Cooking Operations.
ASHRAE. 2013. ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA.
ASHRAE. 2015. RP-1202 -- Effect of Appliance Diversity and Position on Commercial Kitchen Hood Performance.
CASE (Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative). Kitchen Ventilation. 2013. California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards. Available:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/current/Reports/Nonresidential/Cover
ed_Processes/2013_CASE_ASHRAE5-KitchenVent_09.30.2011.pdf [Accessed 1 December 2017].
Crawley, D., Pedersen, C., Lawrie, L., and Winkelmann, F. 2000. EnergyPlus: Energy Simulation Program. ASHRAE
Journal, 42 (4), 49.
DOE. 2017 Commercial Prototype Building Models Available:
https://www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/prototype_models [Accessed 1 December 2017].
EnergyStar. 2017. ENERGY STAR for Small Business: Restaurants. Available online:
https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/small-biz/restaurants [Accessed 30 November
2017].
EnergyPlus. 2017b. Available: https://energyplus.net/ [Accessed 1 December 2017].
EIA. 2017. Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), Table E2. Major fuel consumption intensities
(Btu) by end use, 2012. Available: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/c&e/cfm/e2.php
[Accessed 4 December 2017].
Fisher Nickel INC. 2002. Commercial Cooking Appliance Technology Assessment. Available:
https://fishnick.com/equipment/techassessment/Appliance_Tech_Assessment.pdf [Accessed 1 December 2017].
OpenStudio. 2017. Available: https://www.openstudio.net/developers [Accessed 1 December 2017].
Thornton BA, M Rosenberg, EE Richman, W Wang, Y Xie, J Zhang, H Cho, VV Mendon, RA Athalye, and B Liu. 2011.
Achieving the 30% Goal: Energy and Cost Savings Analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. PNNL-20405, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 710. 2016. Standard for Safety: Exhaust hoods for Commercial Cooking
Equipment.
Wang, N., Makhmalbaf, A., Srivastava, V., and Hathaway, J.E. 2017. Simulation-based coefficients for adjusting climate
impact on energy consumption of commercial buildings 10(3): 309-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-016-0332-1
Wang, N., Goel, S., Makhmalbaf, A., and N. Long, 2016. Development of building energy asset rating using stock
modelling in the USA. Journal of Building performance Simulation 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2015.1134668
Wang, N., Goel, S., Srivastava, V., and Makhmalbaf, A. 2016. Building Energy Asset Score Program Overview and
Technical Protocol (Version 1.2). PNNL-22045 Rev. 1.2. Available:
https://buildingenergyscore.energy.gov/documents/energy_asset_score_technical_protocol.pdf [Accessed 1
December 2017].
Zhang, J., Schrock, D.W., Fisher, D.R., Livchak, A., Zabrowski, D.A., Lane, M.D., Athalye, R.A., and Liu, B. 2010.
Technical Support Document: 50% Energy Savings for Quick-Service Restaurants. Available:
https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19809.pdf [Accessed 1 December
2017].
