[Equest-users] Natural Draft Boiler G3.1.3.2

[Paul Diglio]

Magda:

Isn't the G3.1.3.2 requirement for a natural draft boiler only for the 
baseline?    The proposed model should reflect the as-designed heating plant.

If the boiler is oil-fired a forced draft burner is required.  

Even a natural draft boiler uses some electric energy for the gas valves, stack 
damper, intermittent ignition and control system.

Paul Diglio




________________________________
From: Magda Lelek <magda at andelmanlelek.com>
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Fri, June 17, 2011 4:47:03 PM
Subject: [Equest-users] FW:  LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans


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/herfor 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110618/2ec0bbb2/attachment.htm>