<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><FONT
face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks Bill & Bing for your
replies,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><FONT
face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><FONT
face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>Previously I
started this topic going again <SPAN class=076150423-17042007>with a
point-by-point description of some implementation problems caused by the
'orientation averaging' and 'fenestration leveling' requirements of LEED
2.2 / 90.1-2004 Appendix G</SPAN><SPAN class=076150423-17042007>; please
refer to that post for further
details. </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007>Here let </SPAN>me try to be as clear and
concise as possible<SPAN
class=076150423-17042007>:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007>• There are, perhaps, only 10% of all buildings that
can take advantage of alternate orientations. Most are
site-constrained, or have already been built.
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007>• There are perhaps a
greater fraction than 10% of all buildings that can take advantage of alternate
glass distributions, however glass distribution is also often constrained by
site considerations.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007>• So
to accommodate a minority of cases, LEED 2.2 / 90.1-2004 Appendix G
seems to impose a significant and relatively meaningless calculation burden
on the majority, by requiring the development of a fictitious baseline that
needs to be manually maintained outside of the simulation
software.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007>• How can we waive these
requirements in LEED 2.2 for projects that cannot realistically benefit from
them, and substitute a "code minimum" baseline oriented identically and glazed
similarly to the proposed
building? </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007>On the last point, even
if a site-constrained project could 'theoretically' benefit from orientation
averaging or fenestration leveling, in principle I believe LEED teams should
have the option to forgo that marginal benefit the sake of the simplicity,
clarity, accuracy, and meaningfulness of the comparative
calculations.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007>Thanks for your time,
and hard work on LEED...</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007><SPAN
class=076150423-17042007><SPAN class=076150423-17042007>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></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Lucida Console" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> BLDG-SIM@gard.com
[mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>William Bahnfleth<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:48 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
BLDG-SIM@gard.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> [BLDG-SIM] App G 2004
question<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>One of the perceived shortcomings of Ch. 11 as a method for computing
energy savings for green building rating purposes was that it did not provide
sufficient opportunity to take credit for energy savings through envelope design
and building orientation on the site. The cited portion of Ch. 11 (Table
11.3, item 5) requires all envelope components of the Budget Building to be the
same as the Proposed Building, eliminating that opportunity.<BR><BR>The parallel
part of Appendix G relaxes this constraint in a way that should make it possible
for the Proposed Building to show a greater reduction in energy cost. This
is done by removing self-shading, distributing fenestration uniformly instead of
optimally, and by averaging the effects of orientation. If someone has
done a robust test of orientation averaging vs. best and worst case orientations
that shows negligible scatter around the mean, I am sure the ECB Subcommittee
would be interested to see it. <BR><BR>The distribution of glazing was
made uniform mainly <I>because</I> of the intent to average multiple
orientations.<BR><BR>Bill Bahnfleth<BR><BR>At 04:47 PM 4/17/2007, Charles
Christenson wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="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>
<DIV align=center></DIV><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:<BR>
<DL><BR>
<DD><PRE> A bit of a throw-back to the old 1989 version
then?</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>-----Original
Message-----</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><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>
<DD><PRE>Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:46
PM</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>To: peter.alspach@arup.com;
bldg-sim@gard.com</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Subject: RE: [bldg-sim] App G 2004
question</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Peter,</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><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>
<DD><PRE>orienting your building with an eye toward savings. If you pay
attention</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>to the sun in your design (passive solar and/or daylighting),
you should</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>get some savings relative to the average of the rotated
orientations.</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Similarly, you could get a penalty if you have too much
west-facing</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>glass.</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><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>
<DD><PRE>modelers I have spoken to ignore it, but that is a very
unscientific</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>sample.</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>These modelers may not be submitting to
USGBC.</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><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>
<DD><PRE>rotation. Those incentive programs typically care about the
savings from</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>incremental changes to the design, particularly those changes
that carry</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>an incremental cost. I'm not sure how one would determine an
incremental</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><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>
<DD><PRE>typically be
eligible.</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Kevin Warren, P.E., CEM, LEED
AP</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Warren Energy Engineering,
LLC</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>(610) 255-3798
ph</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>(610) 255-3406
f</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>-----Original
Message-----</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><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>
<DD><PRE>Alspach</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8:04
PM</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>To:
bldg-sim@gard.com</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Subject: [bldg-sim] App G 2004
question</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Anyone out there know the source of why one would be required
to</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><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>
<DD><PRE>really make any sense to me - am I missing
something?</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Peter</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>-----Original
Message-----</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><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>
<DD><PRE>Brahme</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:13
PM</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>To:
bldg-sim@gard.com</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Subject: [bldg-sim] App G 2004
question</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>I have a question about the Appendix G in 90.1,
2004.</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>In Table G3.1 the baseline building is to be simulated as
follows:</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>" Orientation. The baseline building performance shall be
generated by</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>simulating the building with its actual orientation and again
after</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>rotating the entire building 90, 180, 270 degrees, then
averaging the</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>results. The building shall be modeled so that it does not
shade</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>itself."</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>What does --- the building shall be modeled so that it does not
shade</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>itself ----
mean?</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><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>
<DD><PRE>self shades), it has to be modeled as square?
rectangle?</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Any thoughts on this
appreciated.</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Thanks</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>- Rohini</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>==================</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to
the</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</PRE><FONT
face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>____________________________________________________________</PRE><FONT
face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup
business systems are</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>scanned for acceptability of content and
viruses</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>==================</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to
the</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</PRE><FONT
face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>You received this e-mail because you are
subscribed</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To
unsubscribe</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>from this mailing list send a blank message
to</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR>
<DD><PRE>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</PRE><FONT
face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR></DD></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><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>==================</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>from this mailing list send a blank message to
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><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><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>==================</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>from this mailing list send a blank message to
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</PRE><FONT
face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE> </PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>==================</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>from this mailing list send a blank message to
</PRE><FONT face="Courier New, Courier"></FONT><BR><PRE>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</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><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>_________________________________________________
<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><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>