<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV>My experience has been that there are a reasonable number of buildings that could benefit from optimizing orientation/geometry/fenestration area, and ASHRAE/LEED's efforts to credit projects for doing this when possible seems fair. I do agree however, that the rotation effort doesn't always make sense as some projects can't realistically do anything about orientation. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I haven't seen a need to complete additional calculations on the baseline outside the software as the orientation/fenestration changes can be done within the software most of the time. Simply rotating the building isn't the best comparison as it does affect system sizes and zone loads, but since App. G/LEED doesn't require reporting unmet load hours for the incremental rotations, it doesn't appear that the intent was to require detailed system and zone level adjustments for these runs.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The question is whether creating an 'optional' path makes it easier for projects to ignore orientation and not be penalized for an orientation that results in higher energy consumption/costs. I would vote for keeping it in and requiring the project team to document why orientation is not a valid ECM for a specific project. This would require more 'interpretation' by the LEED reviewers, but makes the process more flexible.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Technic>Bill Talbert, PE, <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LAYOUT-GRID-MODE: line; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LAYOUT-GRID-MODE: line; FONT-FAMILY: Technic; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><FONT size=2>LEED® AP</FONT></SPAN></SPAN><BR>Mechanical Systems</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Technic>Phone: (608) 441-6677<BR>E-mail: btalbert@aeieng.com<BR><BR>Affiliated Engineers Inc.<BR>5802 Research Park Blvd.<BR>Madison, WI. 53719<BR>Tel. (608) 238-2616<BR>Fax. (608) 238-2614</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR>>>> "Brandon Nichols" <BrandonN@Hargis.biz> 4/17/2007 6:44 PM >>><BR></DIV>
<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]On">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><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>