<html>
<body>
I wrote:<br><br>
"The distribution of glazing was made uniform mainly <i>because</i>
of the intent to average multiple orientations."<br><br>
Which I believe is a correct recollection of the discussions within ECB
subcommittee. However, Bill Talbert is quite right that Addendum a
removed that requirement.<br><br>
Bill Bahnfleth<br><br>
At 04:47 PM 4/17/2007, Charles Christenson wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">As clarification, LEED v2.2
requires the use of the Performance Rating Method from Appendix G, not
the ECB method (which was used in previous versions of LEED). In
fact, in the Reference Guide section of LEED v2.2 titled “Common mistakes
made using the Performance Rating Method”, the first mistake listed is
“The Energy Cost Budget Method (Section 11) is incorrectly used rather
than the Performance Rating Method (Appendix G) to obtain EA Credit 1
credit”. <br>
<br>
Brandon – when I first read Appendix G, I was puzzled by their
motivation. Why rotate the building if you are already evenly
distributing glass? I am still not sure what the justification from
ASHRAE is on that one. I have not seen anything from USGBC that
gives any exceptions to the rotating requirement.<br>
<br>
Charlie Christenson, LEED AP<br>
Brummitt Energy Associates, Inc.<br>
2171 India Street, Suite B<br>
San Diego, CA 92101<br>
tel: 619-531-1126<br>
fax: 619-531-1101<br>
cchristenson@brummitt.com<br>
<a href="http://www.brummitt.com/" eudora="autourl">www.brummitt.com</a>
<br>
<br>
A net-zero carbon company, using
<a href="http://www.b-e-f.org/GreenTags" eudora="autourl">
www.b-e-f.org/GreenTags</a><br>
<br>
Brummitt Energy Associates, Inc. helps you achieve comfortable, highly
energy efficient, cost-effective projects by integrating the building
design with daylighting, electric lighting, and mechanical systems.
Consulting from early design through construction documentation, we
specialize in energy and daylight modeling, increasing financial
incentives, and documentation for Title 24, LEED™ and CHPS. 20
years experience includes thousands of buildings, and more than 35
projects pursuing and achieving LEED™ ratings, from Certified to
Platinum.<br>
<b>From:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com
[<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Leader, Philip<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Shawn Gavras<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [BLDG-SIM] App G 2004 question<br>
<br>
The Appendix G is an informative appendix and is not part of Standard
90.1. It is merely informative and does not contain requirements
necessary for conformance to the Standard.<br>
<br>
In the Energy Cost Budget Method section in Table 11.3 under
Section 5 Building Envelope, it describes the requirements for the
Proposed Building design and the Budget Building design. The first
paragraph under the Budget Building design states.... The <i>budget
building</i> shall have identical <i>conditioned floor</i> <i>area</i>
and identical exterior dimensions and orientations as the proposed
design, except as noted in (a), (b), and (c) in this clause. <br>
<br>
There's nothing in the Standard stating you must rotate the building in
90 degree increments and average the results. We've never been asked to
do it to my knowledge by the USGBC during a LEED review of our
projects.<br>
<br>
Philip S. Leader, PE <br>
Director of Mechanical Engineering <br>
Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. <br>
7430 Second Ave. <br>
Detroit, Michigan 48202-2798 <br>
Phone: 313-202-7834 <br>
FAX: 3130202-7334 <br>
Email: philip.leader@akahn.com <br>
Website:
<a href="http://www.albertkahn.com/" eudora="autourl">
www.albertkahn.com</a> <br>
<br>
<hr>
<b>From:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com
[<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Brandon Nichols<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Shawn Gavras<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [BLDG-SIM] App G 2004 question<br>
All,<br>
<br>
This is an old thread, but one I thought worth revisiting to see if there
have been any developments. Specifically we are preparing a LEED
Silver project for submittal, and while we understand he intent of the
Appendix G 'multiple-orientation' and 'fenestration-leveling'
requirements, our evaluation is that they impose extensive calculation
requirements for arguably marginal returns on accuracy.<br>
<br>
In the case of our specific building (as I would suspect the case of 90%+
of all buildings) there's simply no latitude to change the
orientation. Similarly with glass distribution, the lobby and
entryway have the flexibility to be on one side and one side only of the
building, and thus distributing the glass equally amongst all facets for
the baseline model seems to add an unnecessary level of abstraction to
the comparative analyses.<br>
<br>
Does imposing the requirement for analysts to spend considerable effort
developing fictitious baselines based on building orientations and glass
distributions that have 0% chance of construction seem to be a reasonable
requisite for LEED project certifications? What I mean by
'considerable effort' is:<br>
<br>
• That the all baseline numbers for each of the four orientations would
need to be extracted from the analysis software, averaged on a
spreadsheet, and a similar extraction done for all subsequent energy
efficiency measure (EEM) comparisons. Posting these numbers from
analysis software to spreadsheets would be both time-consuming and
introduce another level of potential error, and thus require additional
error-checking. <br>
<br>
• That a new building would need to be developed, with glass
redistributed equally amongst all facets, for the four-point orientation
exercise described above. Again, while this may sound reasonable
from a theoretical standpoint, practically speaking this requirement
serves to decouple the baseline from glazing-dependent energy efficiency
measures. How meaningful is changing the U-value or shading
coefficient of the glass in an EEM in comparison to a fictitious
baseline, when the glass distribution is crucial to determining whether
or not the measure is cost-effective? As with building
orientations, posting these numbers from analysis software to
spreadsheets would be both time-consuming and additionally error-prone.
<br>
<br>
All to fulfill the requirement of deriving a fictitious baseline for use
in the comparative analyses -- no doubt these requirements were
incorporated with good intention, but practical implementation
considerations seem to have not been considered carefully enough.<br>
<br>
Further, we find the concept of comparing proposed energy efficiency
measures to a "code minimum" baseline building, oriented
identically and glazed similarly to each of the EEMs, to be intuitively
more meaningful to both the owner and project team (and thus presumably
to the LEED reviewer) than comparison to a fictitious baseline.
This approach allows the baseline to reside in the analysis software, and
EEM comparisons accomplished using the built-in 'parametric run' features
of the analysis software (eQuest and others) to reduce the time-consuming
error-prone tediousness of extracting and posting numbers to a
spreadsheet for comparative evaluation.<br>
<br>
Has anyone had success in obtaining LEED project approval when excepting
these 'building orientation averaging' and 'glazing-area leveling'
requirements? What is required in terms of the LEED application to
waive these requirements?<br>
<br>
Also, does anyone know if these requirements have been identified for
relaxation or revision in the next LEED update?<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Brandon Nichols, PE<br>
Mechanical<br>
HARGIS ENGINEERS<br>
600 Stewart St<br>
Suite 1000<br>
Seattle, WA 98101<br>
d | 206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707<br>
o | 206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450<br>
<a href="http://www.hargis.biz">www.hargis.biz</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_________________________________________________<br>
At 08:41 AM 1/24/2006, Bill Bahnfleth wrote:<br>
<br>
Modeling the building in the specified orientations and averaging gives
an orientation-neutral baseline.<br><br>
Appendix G has been developed with substantial input from experts at PNNL
and after discussions with USGBC. Glad to hear that modelers are ignoring
whatever they don't understand or find inconvenient.<br><br>
Bill Bahnfleth<br>
Member, ECB Subcommittee<br><br>
At 09:42 PM 1/23/2006, Peter Alspach wrote:
<dl>
<dd><pre> A bit of a throw-back to the old 1989 version
then?</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>-----Original
Message-----</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>From: Kevin Warren
[<a href="mailto:kevin@warren-energy.com">
mailto:kevin@warren-energy.com</a>]</pre>
<font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:46
PM</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>To: peter.alspach@arup.com;
bldg-sim@gard.com</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Subject: RE: [bldg-sim] App G 2004
question</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Peter,</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>I believe the intent is to give you a way to get some savings
from</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>orienting your building with an eye toward savings. If you pay
attention</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>to the sun in your design (passive solar and/or daylighting),
you should</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>get some savings relative to the average of the rotated
orientations.</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Similarly, you could get a penalty if you have too much
west-facing</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>glass.</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>I'm not sure how strictly this provision is being enforced. Most
of the</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>modelers I have spoken to ignore it, but that is a very
unscientific</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>sample.</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>These modelers may not be submitting to
USGBC.</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>For a utility incentive program, it often does not make sense to
do this</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>rotation. Those incentive programs typically care about the
savings from</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>incremental changes to the design, particularly those changes
that carry</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>an incremental cost. I'm not sure how one would determine an
incremental</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>cost for your building's orientation, so it is not a factor that
would</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>typically be
eligible.</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Kevin Warren, P.E., CEM, LEED
AP</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Warren Energy Engineering,
LLC</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>(610) 255-3798
ph</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>(610) 255-3406
f</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>-----Original
Message-----</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>From: bldg-sim@gard.com
[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@gard.com%5DOn">mailto:bldg-sim@gard.com]On</a>
Behalf Of Peter</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Alspach</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8:04
PM</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>To:
bldg-sim@gard.com</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Subject: [bldg-sim] App G 2004
question</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Anyone out there know the source of why one would be required
to</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>simulate a building in an orientation that it is not in? This
doesn't</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>really make any sense to me - am I missing
something?</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Peter</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>-----Original
Message-----</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>From: bldg-sim@gard.com
[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@gard.com">mailto:bldg-sim@gard.com</a>] On
Behalf Of Rohini</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Brahme</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:13
PM</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>To:
bldg-sim@gard.com</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Subject: [bldg-sim] App G 2004
question</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>I have a question about the Appendix G in 90.1,
2004.</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>In Table G3.1 the baseline building is to be simulated as
follows:</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>" Orientation. The baseline building performance shall be
generated by</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>simulating the building with its actual orientation and again
after</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>rotating the entire building 90, 180, 270 degrees, then
averaging the</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>results. The building shall be modeled so that it does not
shade</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>itself."</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<br>
<dd><pre>What does --- the building shall be modeled so that it does not
shade</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>itself ----
mean?</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Does it mean that if there is, for example, an L shaped building
(which</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>self shades), it has to be modeled as square?
rectangle?</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Any thoughts on this
appreciated.</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Thanks</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>- Rohini</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>==================</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font>
<br><br>
<dd><pre>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to
the</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier">
</font><br><br>
<dd><pre>
____________________________________________________________</pre>
<font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup
business systems
are</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>scanned for acceptability of content and
viruses</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>==================</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font>
<br><br>
<dd><pre>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to
the</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier">
</font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>You received this e-mail because you are
subscribed</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To
unsubscribe</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>from this mailing list send a blank message
to</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</pre>
<font face="Courier New, Courier"></font>
</dl>_________________________________________________<br><br>
William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, PE, Fellow ASHRAE<br><br>
Professor of Architectural Engineering<br>
Director, Indoor Environment Center<br><br>
The Pennsylvania State University<br>
104 Engineering Unit A<br>
University Park, PA 16802 USA<br><br>
voice: 814.863.2076 / fax: 814.863.4789<br>
e-mail: wbahnfleth@psu.edu<br>
<a href="http://www.arche.psu.edu/faculty/WBahnfleth/" eudora="autourl">
www.arche.psu.edu/faculty/WBahnfleth/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/">
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/</a><br>
_________________________________________________<br><br>
<br>
Brandon Nichols, PE<br>
Mechanical<br>
<b>HARGIS ENGINEERS<br>
</b>600 Stewart Street<br>
Suite 1000<br>
Seattle, WA 98101<br>
<a href="http://www.hargis.biz/" eudora="autourl">www.hargis.biz</a><br>
<br>
<b>d |</b> 206.436.0400 <b>c | </b>206.228.8707<br>
<b>o |</b> 206.448.3376 <b>f |</b> 206.448.4450<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br>
<pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>==================</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<br>
<pre>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>from this mailing list send a blank message to
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier">
</font><br>
This email message and any attachments are intended only for the use of
the addressee(s) named above. This message may contain privileged
and confidential information, and may be protected by copyright. If
you are not the intended recipient, any review, dissemination,
distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received
this email message in error, please immediately delete it and notify the
sender by replying to this email, or by telephone. Thank
you.<br><br>
<br>
<pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>==================</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<br>
<pre>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>from this mailing list send a blank message to
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier">
</font><br><br>
<pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>==================</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<br>
<pre>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>from this mailing list send a blank message to
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<pre>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier">
</font><br><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></body>
<br>
<div>_________________________________________________</div>
<br>
<div>William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, PE, FASHRAE</div>
<div>Professor of Architectural Engineering</div>
<div>Director, Indoor Environment Center</div>
<br>
<div>The Pennsylvania State University </div>
<div>104 Engineering Unit A</div>
<div>University Park, PA 16802 USA</div>
<br>
<div>voice: 814.863.2076 / fax: 814.863.4789 </div>
<div>e-mail: wbahnfleth@psu.edu</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.arche.psu.edu/faculty/WBahnfleth/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>
www.arche.psu.edu/faculty/WBahnfleth/</a></div>
<div><a href="http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/" EUDORA=AUTOURL>
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/</a></div>
_________________________________________________</html>
<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>