[Bldg-sim] 90.1-2013 vs 2015 IECC Performance Path Compliance

Elizabeth Gillmor via Bldg-sim bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Mon May 2 10:49:02 PDT 2016


Sorry, I should have qualified the envelope stringent-ness with an ***in MY
area*** note (CZ5).  ​That isn't the case with all climate zones.

*Elizabeth Gillmor  PE, BEMP, LC, LEED AP*

*e n e r g e t i c s  **consulting engineers, llc*
energetics-eng.com | 303.619.0091

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Elizabeth Gillmor <
elizabeth at energetics-eng.com> wrote:

> I just did a little seminar on this very topic for our Rocky Mountain
> ASHRAE tech conference last week.  There are a few other key differences in
> 90.1:
>
> - Mandatory occupancy and daylighting controls in parking garages
> - Bi-level occ sensors required in stairwells
> - Slightly more stringent cooling efficiency requirements (full load and
> part load, also slightly lower economizer thresholds). Differences in heat
> pumps as well I believe.
> - More stringent envelope requirements (walls and windows). Also note
> limits to E/W glazing which may require that you rotate/average the
> baseline.
>
> Other important items to note:
>
> - A90.1 has MANDATORY electrical submetering requirements (separate
> monitoring for lighting, receptacles, and HVAC, plus some whole-building
> requirements) -- this is a biggie. Read section 8-Power thoroughly!
> - You CAN take credit for renewable energy (up to 5%)
> - A90.1 does not have the same commissioning requirements
> - A90.1 allows extra lighting credit for room geometry adjustments and
> some extra lighting controls (see control factor table), whereas IECC does
> not
>
>
> This is not a comprehensive list but those are the big ones that jump
> out.  Whichever method you choose, make sure you are using the
> space-by-space method for lighting (it will almost always come out better
> than whole-building).
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
>
>
> *Elizabeth Gillmor  PE, BEMP, LC, LEED AP*
>
> *e n e r g e t i c s  **consulting engineers, llc*
> energetics-eng.com | 303.619.0091
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Duggin, Cory via Bldg-sim <
> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have experience showing code compliance via the performance
>> path in 90.1-2013 vs 2015 IECC?  I have a project that isn’t meeting the
>> 15% threshold against the 2015 IECC standard reference design (per
>> C401.2(3)).  I have always thought the 15% was to level the compliance
>> paths, but the main difference I am finding between the 2015  IECC SRD and
>> 90.1-2013 budget building is the mandatory plug load control requirement.
>> What am I missing to account for the 15% difference?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> *Cory Duggin, PE, LEED AP BD+C, BEMP*
>>
>> *Principal/Energy Modeling Wizard*
>>
>> *TLC Engineering for Architecture*
>>
>> 6 Cadillac Drive, Suite 200
>>
>> Brentwood, TN 37027-5080
>>
>>
>>
>> direct:
>>
>> 615-346-1939
>>
>> website:
>>
>> www.tlc-engineers.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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20160502/bc3fe595/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list