[Equest-users] Interpretation of Appendix G3.1.2.2 for unmet hours
Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.
poleary1969 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 13 11:35:28 PDT 2010
i've wondered that before. i had a review comment several years ago on
a leed 2.1 project where the reviewer disagreed with the concept that
the overall unmet load hours were fine as i had a spread similar to
yours in the heating or cooling unmet hours. i ended up increasing cmf
and/or capacity until they were more in line with each other.
i never did receive a better clarification though, and the 90.1 user
manuals only show an example with 0 unmet hours so it is pretty useless
in that regard.
On 7/13/10 11:28 AM, Brett Fero wrote:
>
> Has anyone received LEED reviewer comments regarding the fine-line
> interpretation of Appendix G3.1.2.2 for unmet hours.
>
> I think I meet the criteria as shown in the table below.
>
> 1) The unmet loads in either model is less than 300.
>
> 2) The unmet loads of the proposed building does not exceed the
> Baseline building by more than 50.
>
> There does not appear to be a requirement regarding the breakdown of
> heating and cooling unmet hours.
>
> I know I could tweak the over-sizing factors, but am I correct in
> thinking that these results satisfy AppendixG3.1.2.2 for unmet hours?
>
> *Brett Fero, P.E., LEED AP*
>
> RobsonWoese Inc.
>
> Syracuse, NY 13212
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100713/677e014e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 2278 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100713/677e014e/attachment.png>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list