<html>
<body>
Brandon,<br><br>
I concur with Mike's comments, but I agree that if we could devise a fair
way to simplify the calculation if certain credits that require more
effort are not desired, that would be a good thing. As Mike says,
that has to be done in an evenhanded way. Once we create the
possibility of an orientation credit, we muast also allow for an
orientation penalty. We have had discussions about "what if
the site, for practical purposes, permits only one orientation for the
building?" That seems like a case in which it would be OK to
make an exception, but on the other hand, a rating system like LEED gives
points for the site and maybe energy credits should be penalized if the
site does not permit optimization. (I'm just throwing out some
ideas here--have not given this a lot of deep thought recently).<br><br>
The main point is, if you have something to contribute to the improvement
of Appendix G or Standard 90.l generally, do it!<br><br>
Bill<br><br>
At 01:52 PM 4/18/2007, Mike Tillou wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2 color="#0000FF">
Brandon,<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">I think the thing you need to remember is
that the integrity of any rating system is its ability to be fair and
equitable to everyone. This means that some buildings will get
credit for design choices and others will get penalized. We cannot
have a system where you only get to count the benefits and not the
penalties. <br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">There are a lot of things about the Appendix
G methodology that are burdensome but they maintain the integrity of the
rating system. <br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">The nice thing about ASHRAE is any member
can participate in the process of improving work like Appendix G.
You should propose an alternate method that would allow a building to be
exempt from the
</font><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF">
"significant and relatively meaningless calculation burden"
</font>you describe.<br>
<br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF">Mike
</font><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <br>
</font> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Swis721 Blk BT" size=2>Michael Tillou, PE</font> <br>
<font face="Swis721 Blk BT" size=1>ETC Group - Energy Engineering for a
Sustainable Future</font> <br>
<font face="Swis721 Blk BT" size=1>Ph:413-458-9870</font> <br>
<dl>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2>-----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>From:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com
[<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Brandon Nichols<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:44 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com<br>
<dd>Cc:</b> Shawn Gavras<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [BLDG-SIM] App G 2004 question<br><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF">Thanks Bill &
Bing for your replies,<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF">Previously I
started this topic going again 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;
please refer to that post for further details. <br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF">Here let me try to
be as clear and concise as possible:<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF">• There are,
perhaps, only 10% of all buildings that can take advantage of alternate
orientations. Most are site-constrained, or have already been
built. <br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF">• 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.<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF">• 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.<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF">• 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? <br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF">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.<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF">Thanks for your
time, and hard work on LEED...<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="Lucida Console" size=2 color="#0000FF">Brandon Nichols,
PE<br>
<dd>Mechanical<br>
<dd>HARGIS ENGINEERS<br>
<dd>600 Stewart St<br>
<dd>Suite 1000<br>
<dd>Seattle, WA 98101<br>
<dd>d | 206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707<br>
<dd>o | 206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450<br>
<dd><a href="http://www.hargis.biz">www.hargis.biz</a><br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br><br>
<hr>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2>From:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com
[<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] On Behalf Of </b>William Bahnfleth<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:48 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [BLDG-SIM] App G 2004 question<br>
</font><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>The distribution of glazing was made uniform mainly because</i> of
the intent to average multiple orientations.<br><br>
<dd>Bill Bahnfleth<br><br>
<dd>At 04:47 PM 4/17/2007, Charles Christenson wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Charlie Christenson, LEED AP<br>
<dd>Brummitt Energy Associates, Inc.<br>
<dd>2171 India Street, Suite B<br>
<dd>San Diego, CA 92101<br>
<dd>tel: 619-531-1126<br>
<dd>fax: 619-531-1101<br>
<dd>cchristenson@brummitt.com<br>
<dd><a href="http://www.brummitt.com/" eudora="autourl">
www.brummitt.com</a> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd>From:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com [
<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Leader, Philip<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:02 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com<br>
<dd>Cc:</b> Shawn Gavras<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [BLDG-SIM] App G 2004 question<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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 budget
building</i> shall have identical conditioned floor</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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Philip S. Leader, PE <br>
<dd>Director of Mechanical Engineering <br>
<dd>Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. <br>
<dd>7430 Second Ave. <br>
<dd>Detroit, Michigan 48202-2798 <br>
<dd>Phone: 313-202-7834 <br>
<dd>FAX: 3130202-7334 <br>
<dd>Email: philip.leader@akahn.com <br>
<dd>Website:
<a href="http://www.albertkahn.com/" eudora="autourl">
www.albertkahn.com</a> <br>
<dd> <br>
<hr>
<dd>From:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com [
<a href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Brandon Nichols<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:12 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> BLDG-SIM@gard.com<br>
<dd>Cc:</b> Shawn Gavras<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [BLDG-SIM] App G 2004 question<br>
<dd>All,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>• 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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>• 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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Also, does anyone know if these requirements have been identified for
relaxation or revision in the next LEED update?<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Regards<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Brandon Nichols, PE<br>
<dd>Mechanical<br>
<dd>HARGIS ENGINEERS<br>
<dd>600 Stewart St<br>
<dd>Suite 1000<br>
<dd>Seattle, WA 98101<br>
<dd>d | 206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707<br>
<dd>o | 206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450<br>
<dd><a href="http://www.hargis.biz">www.hargis.biz</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>_________________________________________________<br>
<dd>At 08:41 AM 1/24/2006, Bill Bahnfleth wrote:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Modeling the building in the specified orientations and averaging
gives an orientation-neutral baseline.<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>Bill Bahnfleth<br>
<dd>Member, ECB Subcommittee<br><br>
<dd>At 09:42 PM 1/23/2006, Peter Alspach wrote:
<dl>
<dd><pre> A bit of a throw-back to the old 1989 version
<dd>then?</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>-----Original
<dd>Message-----</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>From: Kevin Warren
<dd>[<a href="mailto:kevin@warren-energy.com" eudora="autourl">
</a>
<dd><a href="mailto:kevin@warren-energy.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:kevin@warren-energy.com</a>]</pre>
<font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:46
<dd>PM</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>To: peter.alspach@arup.com;
<dd>bldg-sim@gard.com</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<br>
<dd><pre>Subject: RE: [bldg-sim] App G 2004
<dd>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
<dd>from</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>orienting your building with an eye toward savings. If you pay
<dd>attention</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>to the sun in your design (passive solar and/or daylighting),
<dd>you should</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>get some savings relative to the average of the rotated
<dd>orientations.</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Similarly, you could get a penalty if you have too much
<dd>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
<dd>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
<dd>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
<dd>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
<dd>do this</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>rotation. Those incentive programs typically care about the
<dd>savings from</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>incremental changes to the design, particularly those changes
<dd>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
<dd>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
<dd>would</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>typically be
<dd>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
<dd>AP</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Warren Energy Engineering,
<dd>LLC</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>(610) 255-3798
<dd>ph</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>(610) 255-3406
<dd>f</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre> </pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>-----Original
<dd>Message-----</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>From: bldg-sim@gard.com
<dd>[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@gard.com%5DOn">
mailto:bldg-sim@gard.com]On</a>
<dd>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
<dd>PM</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>To:
<dd>bldg-sim@gard.com</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<br>
<dd><pre>Subject: [bldg-sim] App G 2004
<dd>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
<dd>to</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>simulate a building in an orientation that it is not in? This
<dd>doesn't</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>really make any sense to me - am I missing
<dd>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
<dd>Message-----</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>From: bldg-sim@gard.com
<dd>[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@gard.com">mailto:bldg-sim@gard.com</a>] On
<dd>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
<dd>PM</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>To:
<dd>bldg-sim@gard.com</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<br>
<dd><pre>Subject: [bldg-sim] App G 2004
<dd>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,
<dd>2004.</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>In Table G3.1 the baseline building is to be simulated as
<dd>follows:</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>" Orientation. The baseline building performance shall be
<dd>generated by</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>simulating the building with its actual orientation and again
<dd>after</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>rotating the entire building 90, 180, 270 degrees, then
<dd>averaging the</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>results. The building shall be modeled so that it does not
<dd>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
<dd>shade</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>itself ----
<dd>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
<dd>(which</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>self shades), it has to be modeled as square?
<dd>rectangle?</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>Any thoughts on this
<dd>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
<dd>the</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
<dd>mailing list</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>send a blank message to
<dd>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
<dd>business systems
are</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>scanned for acceptability of content and
<dd>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
<dd>the</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
<dd>mailing list</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>send a blank message to
<dd>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
<dd>subscribed</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To
<dd>unsubscribe</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br><br>
<dd><pre>from this mailing list send a blank message
<dd>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>
<dd>_________________________________________________<br><br>
<dd>William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, PE, Fellow ASHRAE<br><br>
<dd>Professor of Architectural Engineering<br>
<dd>Director, Indoor Environment Center<br><br>
<dd>The Pennsylvania State University<br>
<dd>104 Engineering Unit A<br>
<dd>University Park, PA 16802 USA<br><br>
<dd>voice: 814.863.2076 / fax: 814.863.4789<br>
<dd>e-mail: wbahnfleth@psu.edu<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.arche.psu.edu/faculty/WBahnfleth/" eudora="autourl">
www.arche.psu.edu/faculty/WBahnfleth/</a><br>
<dd><a href="http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/">
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/</a><br>
<dd>_________________________________________________<br><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Brandon Nichols, PE<br>
<dd>Mechanical<br>
<dd><b>HARGIS ENGINEERS<br>
</b>
<dd>600 Stewart Street<br>
<dd>Suite 1000<br>
<dd>Seattle, WA 98101<br>
<dd><a href="http://www.hargis.biz/" eudora="autourl">www.hargis.biz</a>
<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><b>d |</b> 206.436.0400 <b>c | </b>206.228.8707<br>
<dd><b>o |</b> 206.448.3376 <b>f |</b> 206.448.4450<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br><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><br>
<dd>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>
<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><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><br><br>
<pre>
<dd>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
<dd>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
<dd>from this mailing list send a blank message to
<dd>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font></blockquote><br>
<dd>_________________________________________________<br><br>
<dd>William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, PE, FASHRAE<br>
<dd>Professor of Architectural Engineering<br>
<dd>Director, Indoor Environment Center<br><br>
<dd>The Pennsylvania State University <br>
<dd>104 Engineering Unit A<br>
<dd>University Park, PA 16802 USA<br><br>
<dd>voice: 814.863.2076 / fax: 814.863.4789 <br>
<dd>e-mail: wbahnfleth@psu.edu<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.arche.psu.edu/faculty/WBahnfleth/" eudora="autourl">
www.arche.psu.edu/faculty/WBahnfleth/</a><br>
<dd><a href="http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/</a><br>
<dd>_________________________________________________ <br>
<dd><pre>==================
<dd>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
<dd>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
<dd>from this mailing list send a blank message to
<dd>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font><br>
<pre>
<dd>==================
<dd>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
<dd>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
<dd>from this mailing list send a blank message to
<dd>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font>
</dl><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>