[Equest-users] FW: LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans

[Pasha Korber-Gonzalez]

Magda,  when you sent this email to me off-line before you forwarded it to
the eQuest list you didn't emphatically bold type your last statement---"I
actually applaud him/her for that"

Did you feel that more emphasis was needed in public than what you conveyed
to me with a private cc; to Michael and Omer as well?

I'm happy to have this open discussion with you and others, or better yet,
lets talk this out with each other give me a call on my personal cell #
308-763-1593 any time it is convenient for you.  I work in MST time zone.

Thanks Magda--would love to talk to you about what training and simulation
support you could offer me to help me improve my skills and my services I am
offering to my clients.  They will thank you for that too.  Let's talk about
a training contract where I can get some knowledge from you?

Let me know if you'd be willing to help me learn to be better at what I'm
trying to do.

Cheers,
Pasha


2011/6/17 Magda Lelek <magda at andelmanlelek.com>

>  Dear Pasha,****
>
> ** **
>
> Regarding you criticism of the reviewer's comments about the electric heat
> use in case of your project  - please note that he/she *was correct*.
>  Please note that according to G3.1.3.2 (ASHRAE Appendix G) boilers shall
> be "natural draft".  Your boiler type (forced draft) was incorrect.
> Contrary to your assertion the reviewer was correct and possibly merely
> trying to enforce consistent standard and *I actually applaud him/her**for that
> *.****
>
> ** **
>
> Sincerely,****
>
> ** **
>
> M. Magda Lelek, P.E., CEM****
>
> LEED Accredited Professional****
>
> Andelman and Lelek Engineering, Inc.****
>
> 1408 Providence Highway****
>
> Norwood, MA 02062****
>
> 781-769-8773 tel.****
>
> 781-769-8944 fax****
>
> www.andelmanlelek.com****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Pasha
> Korber-Gonzalez
> *Sent:* Friday, June 17, 2011 3:12 PM
> *To:* Ömer Moltay
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans****
>
> ** **
>
> Omer---I have your reviewer also on one of my projects...I literally just
> finished the 33 comments back to the reviwer only 6 hours ago.  I'm
> exhausted and frustrated (hopefully I'm not alone in these feelings after
> fighting with LEED & GBCI...)****
>
>  ****
>
> I had the exact same comment, but I already had the exhaust fans in both
> the baseline and proposed.   I was also told to break-out the fan energy
> which was annoying to have to back-track on these tedious things, add an
> extra meter, etc....  I also ran into the same issue of mis-match output
> results and I could not track what was the cause of it.   I ended up
> explaining how the discrepancy in energy is literally negligible in the
> whole building picture of annual energy use.   Exhaust fans and motors are
> small--in the sense of the ones they are refering too and to spend a whole
> hour fixing, revising, and rewriting explanations in the hopes that I
> appease this reviewer is EXHAUSTING and FRUSTRATING....also this change made
> virtually no change or difference in my overall results comparison as my
> reviewer pointed out that these fans are considered process loads and
> therefore are held equal in both cases...UGH.    ****
>
>  ****
>
> Further more, it ultimately feels that GBCI and the LEED Reviwers are
> always "out to get us"....What's going on with the LEED Comment discussion
> on Assembly U-values being unacceptable???!!!    I have never had a LEED
> reviewer comment about this modeling approach and I've completed LEED sims
> from LEED version 1.0.     This is really starting to get to be tooo much of
> a double standard for inconsistencies within the GBCI EAc1/EAp2 reviewers.
> The amount of work that is required for the reporting is ridiculous.  Why do
> the new forms make us simulators take time to transpose the Appendix D
> climate characteristic data from 90.1 into the LEED template....****
>
>  ****
>
> There doesn't seem to be much support or comfort when "working for" a LEED
> reviewer and to TAKE THE CAKE....several comments in my LEED review were
> unprofessional on thier part AND they are incorrect!   For example my LEED
> reviewer takes the liberty to state:  "...*  Table G3.1.1B indicates that
> the heating type for system type 7 is hot water fossil fuel boiler only, so
> there must not be any energy consumption for electric space heating. "...*
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> The following was my response back to them where based on my 10+ yrs of
> simulation & HVAC design experience warranted thier statement ignorant and
> unprofessional in my opinion.   Statements like this from GBCI Reviewers are
> insulting to experienced simulators (maybe to inexperienced simulators too?)
> and only make the LEED Reviewers look inexperienced and
> unknowledgable---which makes me question thier ability to adequately review
> my energy models:****
>
>  ****
>
> *Response:*   First off it is incorrect to state, "*so there must not be
> any energy consumption for electric space heating."  *The order of
> magnitude is small enough (equalling 0.4% of the total energy use in the
> whole building), that the impact of this energy is more than negligible.
> Thus indicating that this electric energy usage is coming from something
> very small in comparison to the over all building systems.  Second, looking
> at the output summary document for the simulation tool the screen shot below
> shows that "*boiler draft fan electric use is included under SPACE
> HEATING, not PUMPS & AUXILLARY EQUIPMENT*."  Therefore the small amount of
> electric space heating that is being reported is being accounted from the
> hot water boiler draft fans.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> * *****
>
> I tested the model where this energy was coming from and found that in the
> boiler input window the efficiency is represented as an HIR value, and there
> was a small default input for the EIR input associated with the equipment.
> To appease the confusion of this small amount of electric energy that was
> being reported I have zeroed-out the EIR input value that was causing the
> results to be unacceptable to the LEED Reviwer.****
>
> ---end of response comment----****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> I don't really want to use the term "enemy" but with these types of stupid
> comments from LEED EAc1 reviewers they certainly feel like the enemy who's
> goal is to work against the Simulation crusade to better our design industry
> with these integrated design tools and skills.****
>
>  ****
>
> HOW CAN WE REGARD GBCI & USGBC AS INDUSTRY 'GURUS' AND EXPERTS WHEN IDIOT
> COMMENTS ARE COMING FROM THE SIMULATION REVIEWERS.    I certainly have lost
> any amount of respect or comfort in the "expertise" of the GBCI & USGBC
> organizations with regards to energy simulation for real life and for
> compliance purposes.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Note to GBCI---you cannot apply a cookie-cutter approach to energy
> simulation reviews, where there is literally NO cooking-cutter approach to
> creating energy simulations.   The EAc1 review process needes to become more
> dynamic and interactive, so at the very least you can let me educate your
> reviewers since it is obvious they are not getting the proper training nor
> does it seem they even have any simulation experience at all to do a
> minimally adequate review of an energy model.   ****
>
>  ****
>
> It is my professional opinion that GBCI EAc1 Review Team is losing face
> quickly amongst the greater populus of LEED simulators.   At this point in
> time I'd sooner start consulting to my clients that doing the *formal*LEED process will do nothing for them but waste more money and cause more
> stress and headaches in the long run.   I'll certainly suggest that they
> apply the "principals" and strategies of LEED but without the
> 'marketing-monopoly hype' spewing from USGBC/GBCI lackies.****
>
>  ****
>
> Furthermore as a LEED simulator and an Engineering Consultant there is ZERO
> support from USGBC/GBCI in support of what reasonable simulation fees and
> costs should be to comply with all of the ridiculous requirements that are
> being mandated to be completed for EAc1.  Over the years of new LEED
> versions, the amount of information detail being "required" by the reviewers
> has increased at least 3-fold, however I've observed that energy simulation
> fees have been at a stale-mate for the past 10 years and have had no
> opportunity for growth--in fact it is more likely that simulation fees have
> been continuously decreasing over the years while the LEED work reqirements
> continue to increase.****
>
>  ****
>
> The only thing that I get out of this LEED phenomena is more
> headaches...all of my LEED projects are at a profit loss due to the amount
> of *extra* work imposed on us by the LEED Comments and requirements of the
> reviewer (i.e. my comment example above).   I spent an extra 45 minutes
> composing that response and verifying that I WAS CORRECT, to prove to the
> LEED reviewer that thier comment was completely false in how it applied to
> my project.  At an average hourly simulation rate of $125/hour, this LEED
> comment cost me an extra $94 of time that could have been legitimately spent
> working on another model that will be useful for the client to use and help
> impose an industry shift towards sustainable building design standards.***
> *
>
>  ****
>
> ...Instead, this comment cost me an extra $94 out of my pocket to "argue"
> with the LEED reviwer who virtually isn't even there or listening to
> me....so in a sense I am also throwing more money towards USGBC inclusive of
> the multi-thousand dollars that my client has already paid them.   DEAR
> USGBC---please stop raping the industry for the money monopoly that you have
> created.  The sense of GREED is oozing from everything that comes out of
> USGBC/GBCI with a price tag on it or a cost associated with it.****
>
>  ****
>
> (my profit loss is due to extra unforseen time expended to fulfull LEED
> comment requirements beyond the fee that I had estimated to my client.) **
> **
>
>  ****
>
> Pasha Korber-Gonzalez****
>
> Korber Energy Consultants****
>
> www.korberenergy.com****
>
> pasha at korberenergy.com****
>
> Direct Ph:  308-763-1593****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> * *****
>
> 2011/6/16 Ömer Moltay <omoltay at mimtarch.com>****
>
> Dear Crina,
>
> Thanks for the reply. I just added these exhaust fans to my baseline model.
> The reviewer is also asking for a separate energy consumption calculation
> for the exhaust fans. While trying to capture this through separate meters,
> I just realized that the air volume exhausted through some of these
> independent fans is variable in hourly reports even if I define them to be
> constant volume. I am afraid that this will result in mismatching values for
> energy consumption between the baseline and the proposed models.
>
> 1. What could be causing the air volume to be variable?
> 2. Is it a must that both the baseline and the proposed cases should
> display exactly the same amount of energy consumption for these independant
> fan systems?
>
> Thank you, ****
>
>
>
> Omer Moltay, LEED AP BD+C, BREEAM Assessor Mimta Ltd.
> Hekimsuyu Cad. 559. Sk. No:39
> 34255 Kucukkoy Istanbul Turkey
> Tel: 90-212-617-2296
> Fax: 90-212-617-2297
> www.mimtarch.com
> www.mimtasolar.com
> www.eko-yapi.net
>
> Sürdürülebilir Binalar Blog
> http://surdurulebilirbina.blogspot.com
>
> Green Building in Turkey on LinkedIn
> http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2278249
>
>
> ****
>
> 14.06.2011 00:04, Bosch, Crina yazmış:****
>
> Omer,
>
> They are talking about independent fans like toilet exhaust or kitchen
> exhaust. Those values that you have under EF-1 thru EF-9 need to be equal
> between baseline and proposed model. So, if you have EF-1 at 300 cfm and 2KW
> for that fan, you need to input the same values in baseline model. Those
> fans are separate than the Exhaust from the AHU. I usually input them at
> space level and the kw/cfm for those fans.
> Hope this helps.
>
> Crina Bosch
> Engineer, Mechanical
>
> karpinski
> ENGINEERING
> 3135 Euclid Avenue
> Cleveland, OH  44115
> P  216.391.3700 ext 3087
> F  216.391.0108
> E  cbosch at karpinskieng.com
> W www.karpinskieng.com ****
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ömer Moltay [mailto:omoltay at mimtarch.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 9:16 AM
> To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans****
>
> Dear All,
>
> We have received the following from GBCI regarding the energy modelling
> review:
>
> "Table1.4.2 indicates that exhaust fan systems are reflected in the
> Proposed model; however, the equipment capacities are inconsistent with the
> exhaust fan systems (EF-1 through EF-9) as indicated in the mechanical
> schedules provided for PI Form 4: Schedule and Overview Documents. In
> addition, the independent fan systems of the HVAC systems in the actual
> design must be modeled identically between the Proposed and Baseline models
> at actual equipment capacities (fan volume and fan power) as required by
> Table G3.1.10 in the Proposed building column, since the fan design air flow
> rates and fan power per Sections G3.1.2.8 and G3.1.2.9, respectively, only
> applies to system types 1 through 8 in Table G3.1.1A.
> Revise the
> Proposed and Baseline models so all independentfan systems of the HVAC
> systems are modeled identically between the Proposed and Baseline models. In
> addition, separate the energy consumption and peak demand energy for
> independent#fans in Table EAp2-4 and Table EAp2-5 of the prerequisite form.
> Further,provide revised SV-A reports reflecting the changes"
>
> Our proposed model has supply and exhaust fans (Supply: AHU, FCU -
> Exhaust: AHU, independant exhaust fans). Our baseline model has supply and
> relief fans (VAV System).
>
> Please look at Section 6 of the attached Table 1.4.2. Are we expected to
> additionally model exhaust fans in the baseline case? Do they mean exhaust
> fans when they say "independent fan systems of the HVAC systems?".
>
> Thanks for all replies,
>
> Omer Moltay, LEED AP BD+C, BREEAM Assessor Mimta Ltd.
> Hekimsuyu Cad. 559. Sk. No:39
> 34255 Kucukkoy Istanbul Turkey
> Tel: 90-212-617-2296
> Fax: 90-212-617-2297
> www.mimtarch.com
> www.mimtasolar.com
> www.eko-yapi.net
>
> Sürdürülebilir Binalar Blog
> http://surdurulebilirbina.blogspot.com
>
> Green Building in Turkey on LinkedIn
> http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2278249****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110617/e5d0e0f0/attachment.htm>