[Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings (UNCLASSIFIED)

Joe Huang yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com
Wed May 27 15:09:51 PDT 2015


I don't think the primary cause of discrepancy between simulations and measured data are 
the algorithms (although they do play a part), but much more the input assumptions.  I 
also agree that more calibration should be done, not so much to tune an individual model, 
which can easily be taken to a meaningless excess, but more to gain insight into which 
input assumptions or defaults are most questionable and need revision of the "conventional 
wisdom".  A case in point is how much shading from drapes, blinds, and other obstructions 
should be assumed?  For many years, I've seen and used a SHADING-FRACTION of 0.60, i.e., 
40% of the incident solar is being obstructed, but is that really the best average value ? 
(this will likely vary by simulation program).

When this issue of how reliable are simulations was raised at a DOE-sponsored workshop in 
Jan. 2012 following the ASHRAE conference in San Antonio, and someone put up the 
proverbial plot of simulations vs measured for LEED buildings showing a huge cloud, I had 
suggested that we should tackle the calibration process in steps:
    1.  original ASHRAE-90.1 model vs measured
    2.  1 from above corrected to as built and operated (including actual weather!) vs 
measured
    3.  2 from above with end-use metered data vs measured, plus tuning the model
1 would be what we're doing now.  2 is eminently doable by onsite visit to the actual 
building. 3 would require much more instrumentation and manpower, and only doable as a 
research project.
What I would like to see is how much do the correlations improve going to 2 and then 3.  
My gut feeling is that the standard deviations would be halved each time, i.e., from 40% 
to 20% to 10%.

I've actually thought of turning this idea into an ASHRAE WS (RFP), and might still do it, 
time and energy permitting. What I envision is for some contractor to get a healthy number 
of ASHRAE 90.1 models (~30-40), possibly submitted for LEED, and then apply the same 
methodology to get 2, and pick a few (~5) that would be monitored for 3.  If there are any 
ASHRAE members or friends interested to flush out such a WS,  please send me an e-mail.

Joe  (currently Chair ASHRAE TC 4.7 on Energy Calculations)

Joe Huang
White Box Technologies, Inc.
346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 205A
Moraga CA 94556
yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com
http://weather.whiteboxtechnologies.com for simulation-ready weather data
(o) (925)388-0265
(c) (510)928-2683
"building energy simulations at your fingertips"

On 5/27/2015 2:34 PM, Justin Spencer wrote:
> Models are never going to agree, but that doesn't mean they aren't powerful tools for 
> decision-making. Look at the ASHRAE 140 results for highly simplified geometries with 
> different engines. Things easily vary by 20%. Hell, things vary by 20% just between some 
> versions of the same tool. I didn't see it mentioned that the underlying models just 
> aren't going to give you the "right" answer.
>
> That's why we need to calibrate. The models are not generally actually calculating 
> things based on first principles. They use shortcuts for computation time and ease of 
> specification everywhere. That's why it's no less real for me to impose some sort of 
> somewhat goofy setpoint schedule to get things to work out well in the calibration of my 
> model. Ideally, we'd calibrate to one set of bills and then run it against a second set 
> of bills to see if we over-calibrated the models (the same as over-fitting a regression 
> model). Instead of arguing whether or not the models are right, we should be going back 
> to the fundamental question of whether or not the models provide useful decision-making 
> information, i.e. whether or not they get the first order impacts right for different 
> kinds of design choices in new construction. Remember that uncertainty around each point 
> and move ahead making the design decisions you need to make.
>
> There's still plenty of room to develop better analysis practices that will improve the 
> design decisions we make. I would love to see a study looking at normalized consumption 
> and key characteristics of 5-year-old commercial buildings, and then again at 
> 10-year-old commercial buildings. You could do this with LEED submittals and regress 
> against the ECMs included and other characteristics. You wouldn't necessarily get to the 
> why of how the buildings failed to deliver without a lot of extra work, but I think you 
> could get the what just by looking at bills and data. You could also do this on the 
> residential side. We have some utility clients who run commercial or residential new 
> construction programs. Theoretically, we could get bills and characteristics for a large 
> number buildings and regress. I know that would work on the residential side. On the 
> commercial side, I don't know if there is enough participant data.  Others should 
> consider doing the same. It would be a fascinating study and would make for a great 
> energy nerd parlor game. Which of these measures just didn't deliver?
>
> My gut says that failures in fancy control systems are to blame for the most egregious 
> differences. There are so many failure points -- sensors, valves, dampers, actuators, 
> not to mention the likelihood of a mistake in the controls sequence. You need somebody 
> on top of monitoring for each of those potential failure points and correcting them. My 
> gut also says that good solid basic design will deliver the savings. Cutting down on 
> west-facing solar gains will save cooling energy. Installing more efficient HVAC 
> equipment, given solid ratings information, will also work. More efficient lighting 
> designs will work. Really fancy stuff will fail some of the time. And some of the time 
> it will work! And we need to celebrate those pieces that work!
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Fred Betz <fbetz at aeieng.com <mailto:fbetz at aeieng.com>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Just catching up with this thread so I'm sorry if I'm repeating anything that's
>     already been mentioned.
>
>     Take a look at the paper from Pam Berkeley et al published last year at SimBuild.
>     https://www.ashrae.org/membership--conferences/conferences/ashrae-ibpsa-usa-papers
>
>     10 experienced energy modelers modeling the same building in a 3hr period.
>     Fascinating results.
>
>
>     There are emerging methods to do more rigorous QC using a variation on Monte Carlo
>     for energy models to calculate a confidence interval for the model rather than fully
>     rely on modeler experience and 3rd party QC. Georgia Tech has integrated this into
>     their version of e+, which I hope gets integrated into a future version of e+. It's
>     computationally intense so cloud computing is probably the right way to do this,
>     which I believe e+ is heading towards.
>
>
>     Fred
>
>
>     FRED BETZ  PhD., LEED AP ®BD+C
>     SENIOR SUSTAINABLE
>     DESIGN CONSULTANT
>
>     AEI | AFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC.
>     5802 Research Park Blvd. | Madison, WI  53719
>
>     P: 608.236.1175 <tel:608.236.1175> | F: 608.238.2614 <tel:608.238.2614>
>     fbetz at aeieng.com <mailto:fbetz at aeieng.com> | www.aeieng.com <http://www.aeieng.com>
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Eurek, John S NWO [mailto:John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil
>     <mailto:John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil>]
>     Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 11:28 AM
>     To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>     Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings
>     (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
>     Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>     Caveats: NONE
>
>     This is a slightly different question:
>     How close do you expect 2 energy models to be created by 2 different modelers (using
>     the same program) if you give them the same plans and information?
>
>     (Ask Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali and Rembrandt to draw a tree)
>
>     I assume most companies don't double up on the energy modeling efforts which would
>     show how consistent or non-consistent energy models are. (assuming the energy
>     modelers are experienced and competent.)
>
>     Somebody who teachers energy modeling may be able to provide insight and good examples.
>
>     As far as an energy model matching the actual utilities bills..... If you have a
>     1000 modelers, making models on 1000 computers for 1000 years......
>
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>     <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] On Behalf Of Jacob Dunn
>     Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 2:37 PM
>     To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>     Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings
>
>     Thank you all for your thoughtful insight on this matter!  It’s an important debate
>     – both in understanding the capabilities/limitations of our craft as energy
>     modelers, but also to communicate our value to the community at large.
>
>
>
>     To clarify slightly, my question revolved around how the specific modeling protocol
>     of Appendix G could account for the “performance” gap between modeled and actual
>     use.  Thus, the fact that buildings aren’t operated as the energy model specified
>     and the lack of building commissioning, while true and important, are not inherent
>     to the intent of Appendix G modeling.  The most interesting question is, “If you
>     model a LEED App G model perfectly according to protocol, AND the building was
>     operated according to the modeled schedules, will it predict the right number?” 
>     Lots of your responses lent insight into this question, thanks again!
>
>
>
>     I’ve revised my list below based on your responses:
>
>
>
>     Added:
>
>     -   Plug load values are assumed, which can have a huge impact on overall energy
>     (Thanks Christoph and Chris Hadlock for the insight)
>
>     -  Insulation values are largely specified without thought to thermal bridging
>
>     -  HVAC controls simulation is often simplified
>
>     - Performance curves are often not simulated due to increased effort and
>     unavailability of performance data from manufacturers
>
>
>
>     Original:
>
>     -          Appendix G does not take into account external shading, which can be
>     critical in urban environments for accurate energy predictions
>
>     -          Schedules are typically not created with the intent of being predictive. 
>     Overall building hours are adhered to, but detailed schedule creation is not usually
>     in the scope of a LEED model (or is it, in your experience?).  For instance, typical
>     plug load base values during unoccupied times are .3, this is a pretty big assumption.
>
>     -          The App G model uses a TMY weather file, which can vary from the current
>     weather year (I wonder on average by how much?)
>
>     -          Infiltration values are assumed, unless blower door testing has been done
>     (which is rare for commercial buildings).
>
>     -          Thermostat values are modeled as consistent across the building, which is
>     rarely the case in an actual operating building
>
>     Cheers,
>
>
>
>     Jacob Dunn LEED AP BD+C
>
>
>
>     ESKEW+DUMEZ+RIPPLE, APC
>
>     2014 AIA National Architecture Firm Award
>
>
>
>     365 Canal Street Suite 3150
>
>     New Orleans LA 70130
>
>     504.561.8686 <tel:504.561.8686>
>
>     eskewdumezripple.com <http://eskewdumezripple.com> <http://www.eskewdumezripple.com/>
>
>
>
>     From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>     <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] On Behalf Of Chris Hadlock
>     Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:08 PM
>     To: Christoph Reinhart
>     Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>     Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings
>
>
>
>     All,
>
>
>
>     I would agree with all of the factors mentioned that absolutely can result in
>     deviations between actual and modeled building performance. I would also echo the
>     sentiment that following modeling rules shouldn't necessarily preclude us from
>     attempting to better predict actual building performance through the LEED process.
>     Applying careful attention to important details and a healthy dose of experience
>     (bringing together real life building performance knowledge as it relates to the
>     grey areas - namely schedules, equipment controls, occupant behavior, etc) can truly
>     help close the gap. At the end of the day, a rating system should be attempting to
>     reward buildings that actually perform well, not theoretically perform well (and as
>     modeler's we should take a leading role in making good (i.e. fair) assumptions).
>
>
>
>     My colleague (Janine Vanry) has recently completed research (to be published soon)
>     for her masters thesis at the University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) which studied
>     how LEED certified academic buildings in southwestern Ontario performed in
>     comparison to government energy intensity benchmarks, campus-wide energy
>     intensities, and in general how LEED (modeled) results compare to actual building
>     performance (as measured through M&V). Consistent with Dr Samuelson's (et al.)
>     research findings, the discrepancies between the modeled results and the actual
>     energy intensities showed that there was an under-prediction anywhere from 2% to 44%.
>
>
>
>     While energy modeling professionals understand (as is evident by this thread) that
>     there will be differences between the documented EAc1 energy savings and actual
>     building energy usage, this isn't always communicated and understood by the building
>     owners and the professionals we work with.
>
>
>
>     Chris
>
>
>
>     On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Christoph Reinhart <tito_ at mit.edu
>     <mailto:tito_ at mit.edu>> wrote:
>
>             Dear Jacob,
>
>
>
>             This is an eternal debate and there are many reasons for moving away from
>     the use of 90.1 Appendix G to evaluate the performance of a building designs.  To
>     answer your question directly, we worked a few years ago with Enermodal in Canada on
>     a comparison between design phase building energy models (BEM) prepared for LEED
>     Canada certification (slightly different to Appendix G) to calibrated BEM and
>     measured energy use for 18 buildings. The main findings are quoted below:
>
>
>
>             Analysis of a Simplified Calibration Procedure for 18 Design-Phase Building
>     Energy Models
>
>             H W Samuelson, A Ghorayshi and C F Reinhart
>
>             Journal of Building Performance Simulation, DOI:
>     http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2014.988752
>     <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2014.988752>
>
>             This paper evaluates the accuracy of 18 design-phase building energy models,
>     built according to LEED Canada protocol, and investigates the effectiveness of model
>     calibration steps to improve simulation predictions with respect to measured energy
>     data. These calibration steps, applied in professional practice, included inputting
>     actual weather data, adding unregulated loads, revising plug loads (often with
>     submetered data), and other simple updates. In sum, the design-phase energy models
>     underpredicted the total measured energy consumption by 36%. Following the
>     calibration steps, this error was reduced to a net 7% underprediction. For the
>     monthly energy use intensity (EUI), the coefficient of variation of the root mean
>     square error improved from 45% to 24%. Revising plug loads made the largest impact
>     in these cases. This step increased the EUI by 15% median (32% mean) in the models.
>     This impact far exceeded that of calibrating the weather data, even in a sensitivity
>     test using extreme weather years.
>
>
>
>             Best,
>
>
>
>             Christoph
>
>             Christoph Reinhart
>
>             Associate Professor
>
>             Department of Architecture
>
>             Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>
>             77 Massachusetts Ave, Rm 5-418, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
>
>             t: 617 253 7714 <tel:617%20253%207714> , f: 617 253 6152
>     <tel:617%20253%206152> , creinhart at mit.edu <mailto:creinhart at mit.edu>
>     <mailto:creinhart at mit.edu <mailto:creinhart at mit.edu>>
>
>             Sustainable Design Lab <http://mit.edu/SustainableDesignLab/> | DIVA
>     <http://www.diva4rhino.com/> | Daysim <http://daysim.ning.com/> | mapdwell
>     <http://www.mapdwell.com/> | umi <http://www.urbanmodeling.net/>
>
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>             Events  Modeling Urban Sustainability
>     <http://architecture.mit.edu/event/modeling-urban-sustainability-energy-daylight-and-walkability>
>     | DIVA Day 2015 <http://diva4rhino.com/diva-day-2015>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>     <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] On Behalf Of Brooks, Alamelu
>             Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:43 AM
>             To: Jim Dirkes; Nathan Kegel
>             Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>             Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings
>
>
>
>             I believe Appendix G is not meant to measure the performance of the existing
>     building. ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G Technical Committee is the right source to answer
>     this question. They can clarify the intention of the APP G modeling methodology.
>
>
>
>             Best,
>
>             Alamelu
>
>             Alamelu  Brooks LEED AP (BD+C), HBDP, BEAP, EIT| Senior Associate |
>     +1.443.718.4881 <tel:%2B1.443.718.4881> <tel:%2B1.443.718.4881>  direct |
>     Alamelu.Brooks at icfi.com <mailto:Alamelu.Brooks at icfi.com>
>     <mailto:Alamelu.Brooks at icfi.com <mailto:Alamelu.Brooks at icfi.com>> | icfi.com
>     <http://icfi.com>
>
>             ICF INTERNATIONAL | 7125 Thomas Edison Drive, Suite 100, Columbia, MD 21046 USA
>
>             Connect with us on social media <http://www.icfi.com/social> .
>
>
>
>
>
>             From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>     <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] On Behalf Of Jim Dirkes
>             Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:36 AM
>             To: Nathan Kegel
>             Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>             Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings
>
>
>
>             I agree fully with all of the above comments and would like to add these:
>
>             *       Even buildings that are commissioned properly will see their
>     performance erode over time. There are hundreds of reason for this, ranging from
>     poor maintenance to well-intentioned maintenance people not having time to monitor
>     operations well.  There is NO BUILDING that operates well for long.
>             *       Buildings often see changes in operation, occupancy and schedule. 
>     These are oftimes gradual changes over a period of years, but can be substantial
>
>
>
>             On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Nathan Kegel <nathan.kegel at iesve.com
>     <mailto:nathan.kegel at iesve.com>> wrote:
>
>             Climate files used in the simulations versus the actual weather.
>
>
>
>             I’m in the midst of a project that shows a variance in EUI of up to 200%
>     just by changing the climate file for the DOE primary school.  Full results to be
>     presented in September.
>
>
>
>             Add in all the other factors already mentioned, and if your 90.1 model comes
>     anywhere close the real buildings’ it’s far more likely that the 90.1 model was
>     extremely “lucky” than it is that the model used accurate assumptions.
>
>
>
>             Regards,
>
>
>
>             Nathan
>
>
>
>      <http://www.iesve.com/>
>
>     Nathan Kegel
>     Business Development Manager
>
>     O:
>
>     763.276.9981 <tel:763.276.9981>
>
>     M:
>
>     415.420.9314 <tel:415.420.9314>
>
>     http://www.iesve.com <http://www.iesve.com/>
>
>     Integrated Environmental Solutions Limited. Registered in Scotland No. SC151456
>     Registered Office - Helix Building, West Of Scotland Science Park, Glasgow G20 0SP
>
>     Email Disclaimer <http://www.iesve.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
>
>
>             From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>     <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] On Behalf Of Maria-Lida Kou
>             Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:17 AM
>             To: Jacob Dunn
>             Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>             Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings
>
>
>
>             Jacob,
>
>
>
>             Happy to hear that other people are thinking the same.
>
>
>
>             I was into this subject on my own thoughts recently.
>
>
>
>             I would like to add in your list: Occupants' behavior actually which is not
>     in the stage to be included into the prediction.
>
>             I would add commissioning as well along with controls simulation and
>     controls operation.
>
>
>
>             Apologies because I haven't worked with LEED projects but I think the above
>     applied in general to "the performance gap".
>
>
>
>             Really looking forward to hearing more about this subject as I am not that
>     experienced engineer yet, but really interested in "the performance" side of buildings.
>
>
>
>             Best,
>
>             Maria-Lida Kounadi
>
>
>
>
>
>             2015-05-21 15:04 GMT+01:00 Jacob Dunn <jdunn at eskewdumezripple.com
>     <mailto:jdunn at eskewdumezripple.com>>:
>
>                     Bldg-Sim Community –
>
>
>
>                     I’m trying to compile a list of why it might be inappropriate to
>     compare Appendix G models to actual consumption data.  This comes about because I
>     recently got into a debate with one of my co-workers when looking at the infamous
>     NBI chart/study that shows little correlation to predicted and actual energy values
>     of LEED buildings.  I was trying to explain that the Appendix G model’s intent is
>     NOT to be compared to actual consumption, as it is a modeling protocol aimed at
>     creating consistent relative comparisons for LEED points.
>
>
>
>                     Here are the reasons thus far that support this notion (that App G
>     models shouldn’t be compared to actual data).  Does anyone know of any resources out
>     there that expand upon this?  Or can you think other reasons?
>
>
>
>                     -          Appendix G does not take into account external shading,
>     which can be critical in urban environments for accurate energy predictions
>
>                     -          Schedules are typically not created with the intent of
>     being predictive.  Overall building hours are adhered to, but detailed schedule
>     creation is not usually in the scope of a LEED model (or is it, in your
>     experience?).  For instance, typical plug load base values during unoccupied times
>     are .3, this is a pretty big assumption.
>
>                     -          The App G model uses a TMY weather file, which can vary
>     from the current weather year (I wonder on average by how much?)
>
>                     -          Infiltration values are assumed, unless blower door
>     testing has been done (which is rare for commercial buildings).
>
>                     -          Thermostat values are modeled as consistent across the
>     building, which is rarely the case in an actual operating building
>
>
>
>                     Any additional insight is much appreciated!
>
>
>
>
>
>                     Jacob Dunn LEED AP BD+C
>
>                     ESKEW+DUMEZ+RIPPLE, APC
>
>                     2014 AIA National Architecture Firm Award
>
>
>
>                     365 Canal Street Suite 3150
>
>                     New Orleans LA 70130
>
>     504.561.8686 <tel:504.561.8686>
>
>     eskewdumezripple.com <http://eskewdumezripple.com> <http://www.eskewdumezripple.com/>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>                     Bldg-sim mailing list
>     http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>                     To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
>     BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
>     <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>     <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>>
>
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Bldg-sim mailing list
>     http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>             To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
>     BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
>     <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>     <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             --
>
>             James V Dirkes II, PE, BEMP, LEED AP
>             CEO/President
>             The Building Performance Team Inc.
>             1631 Acacia Dr, GR, Mi 49504
>
>             Direct: 616.450.8653 <tel:616.450.8653>
>     jim at buildingperformanceteam.com <mailto:jim at buildingperformanceteam.com>
>
>             Website <http://buildingperformanceteamcom> l  LinkedIn
>     <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jim-dirkes/7/444/413>
>
>             The truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it.  A lie is still a
>     lie, even if everyone believes it.
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Bldg-sim mailing list
>     http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>             To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
>     BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
>     <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>     <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>>
>
>
>
>
>     Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>     Caveats: NONE
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Bldg-sim mailing list
>     http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>     To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
>     BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150527/f62d706c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list