<html>
<body>
Right now infiltration reduction is not an eligible item for energy cost
reduction for LEED. Infiltration rates must be the same in the
proposed and budget buildings.<br><br>
My understanding is that the Energy & Atmosphere Technical Advisory
Group (EA TAG) of the USGBC is considering this issue with an eye toward
developing a modeling protocol.<br><br>
I am aware of at least two projects that have applied for savings in this
area which have been put on hold (the LEED points were denied pending
further input from the EA TAG). <br><br>
<br>
As At 10:33 AM 05/19/2004, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#000080">Can
infiltration be considered in comparing standard versus proposed design
models using the ECB method and for LEED credits under “Optimize Energy
Performance”? Typically we use the same criteria in both models,
but this is a particular case of a proposed double-wall building.
“10CFR435 Table 402.2.1. – Air Leakage for Fenestration & Doors
Maximum Allowable Infiltration Rate” provides standard model information
for federal buildings. For example, the infiltration rate is 0.15
cfm/ft2 for fixed aluminum windows. Can this be used for LEED
standard design and can a lower rate be used for double wall
buildings?<br>
<br>
The CFR table does not account for Heating & Cooling Degree Days as
with Table-B Building Envelope Requirements of STD90. In my
opinion, the peak design infiltration rate should be varied from maximum
in winter to minimum in summer (typically zero for pressurized buildings)
using a schedule. The maximum, of say 0.15 cfm/ft2, would apply to
a cold climate such as </font>Chicago and it should be scaled down for
warmer climates. <font color="#333399">Since DOE2 does not allow
infiltration rates on the basis of cfm/ft2 of wall or window area or cfm
per lineal foot of window perimeter, we create a typical perimeter space
and convert the window based infiltration rate to cfm/ft2 of space area
or space air changes. </font><font color="#000080">We then look at the
results in </font><font color="#333399">“REPORT- LS-C BUILDING PEAK LOAD
COMPONENTS” of the DOE2 output to see if the infiltration load looks
reasonable (relative to the other loads) for the location and type of
building and make adjustments by trial and error. Judgment and
experience is considered more reliable than theoretical mathematical
models. The BEPS and BEPU reports in DOE2 should separate out the
infiltration loads from the heating & cooling loads. Any
comments?<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#333399"> <br>
Thanks for the comments and suggestions to using different utilities in
standard versus proposed design. They were very helpful in making
some decisions here. Most of the responses seem to go directly to
the person asking the question.<br>
<br>
Varkie Thomas<br>
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#000080"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<pre>
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font face="Abadi MT Condensed Light" size=4 color="#008000">Marcus B.
Sheffer
energy & environmental consulting<br>
Energy Opportunities,
Inc
717-292-2636<br>
1200 E Camping Area
Road
Fax: 717-292-0585 <br>
Wellsville, PA USA 17365-9783
sheffer@sevengroup.com<br>
a 7group
company
<a href="http://www.sevengroup.com/" eudora="autourl"><u>www.sevengroup.com<br>
</a></font></u><PRE>
===========================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</PRE></body>
</html>