<html>
<body>
Occupancy based controls require the modification of schedules and/or
ventilation rates which is not allowed by the modeling
protocols.<br><br>
For LEED one can claim credit for these items by following Section 11.5
Exceptional Calculation Methods in 90.1. You have to do separate
calculations and submit them for consideration by the review team.
Separate modeling runs can be an acceptable methodology as long as you
explain the modeling procedure followed. These are then subtracted
from the original energy modeling like Renewable Energy.<br><br>
Regarding daylighting modeling the review of LEED projects does not get
to this level of depth. We will not ask you the location of the
sensor in the room. We do use our experience to try and determine
if the energy efficiency measures you have employed produce a reasonable
savings.<br><br>
For USGBC members you can join in some of the discussions of the EA TAG
by signing up for the EA listserv. Log in, visit your account and
sign up for various committees. Also check out the Credit
Interpretation Requests (CIRs) where you can find many answers like the
one regarding occupancy based controls I responded to above.<br><br>
The EA TAG was also seeking new members very recently but I think the
nominations/applications are closed. The best way to have an effect
on LEED is to get involved.<br><br>
At 01:04 PM 05/19/2004, Varkie Thomas wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#000080">The
EA-TAG should also consider that the infiltration due to stack effect in
a high-rise building is affected by having entrances with a vestibule and
revolving doors. <br>
<br>
Can occupancy based lighting and occupancy based ventilation be
considered for LEED credits under “Optimize Energy
Performance”? How should these options be modeled? In
DOE2 the design ventilation value can be varied by using the occupancy
schedule for the minimum OA schedule. Occupancy based lighting
would have to be “on-off” depending on occupancy = 0 or occupancy >
0. This can vary with the space type and it is difficult to
determine for buildings zoned as perimeter and interior only. Can
we assume say an average 5% off the lighting schedule for installing
occupancy based lighting controls? How would you model daylighting
controls for LEED credits? In DOE2 you can locate the light sensor
close to the window and assume it represents a perimeter space with any
depth. Are there limits on lighting sensor location and perimeter
space depths, areas and volumes? The ASHRAE STD90 prescriptive
standards are stringent in all categories of envelope, lighting and
mechanical systems. From the responses I have received so far,
significant energy cost savings (such as 60%) can be achieved with
daylighting controls (not accepted by most energy codes), renewable
energy sources such as PV and GSHP, and thermal storage in situations
where there is a big difference between peak and off-peak electric
rates. <br>
<br>
I think that different types of standard building models should be
defined with case studies. It is difficult to figure out the intent
of STD90 and to convert STD90 legal descriptive language into a base
prototype building model. 10CFR435 is more precise. I think
that the “Energy & Atmosphere” section of LEED should be explained in
more detail and with examples.<br>
<br>
Varkie Thomas<br>
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP<br>
<br>
</font><font face="tahoma" size=2>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> postman@gard.com
[<a href="mailto:postman@gard.com" eudora="autourl">mailto:postman@gard.com</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Marcus Sheffer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 19, 2004 11:00 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [BLDG-SIM] Infiltration: Standard versus Proposed
Design<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
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 </font>10:33 AM 05/19/2004, you wrote:<br><br>
<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>
<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 color="#000080"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2> </font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2> </font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2> </font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>You received this e-mail
because you are subscribed
</font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM
mailing list. To unsubscribe
</font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>from this mailing list send
a blank message to
</font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<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">www.sevengroup.com</a><br>
</font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2> </font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2> </font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>==================</font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>You received this e-mail
because you are subscribed
</font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM
mailing list. To unsubscribe
</font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>from this mailing list send
a blank message to
</font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</font></pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></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>