<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PostalCode"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Black";
panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
pre
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:green;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>Yes. We have been unfortunate to have had
a couple of buildings with large glazed areas on the south east and south west
facades. When the 4 rotations are used and averaged, the loads differ as do the
annual consumption.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>Rotating the building is ridiculous. We
have hard enough job as it is explaining how the sun affects a building without
having a standard that quadruples an engineers simulation time.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>Peter Simmonds Ph.D.</span></font><font
color=green><span style='color:green'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=green face=Arial><span style='font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:green'>Associate</span></font><font color=green><span
style='color:green'><br>
</span></font><font size=1 color=gray face=Arial><span style='font-size:7.5pt;
font-family:Arial;color:gray'>IBE Consulting Engineers</span></font><font
color=green><span style='color:green'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><font size=1
color=gray face=Arial><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial;
color:gray'>14130 Riverside Drive Suite 201</span></font></st1:address></st1:Street><font
color=green><span style='color:green'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><font size=1
color=gray face=Arial><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial;
color:gray'>Sherman</span></font></st1:place></st1:City><font size=1
color=gray face=Arial><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial;
color:gray'> Oaks, CA 91423<br>
p: (818) 377-8220<br>
f: (818) 377-8230<br>
m: (818) 219-1284<br>
<a href="BLOCKED::http://www.ibece.com/" title="http://www.ibece.com/"><font
color=gray face="Arial Black" title="http://www.ibece.com/"><span
style='font-family:"Arial Black";color:gray'>IDEAS FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT</span></font></a><br>
<br>
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName> [mailto:<st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName>]
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Peter Alspach<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, November 30, 2007
12:04 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> [BLDG-SIM] <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">LEED</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Building</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>
Orientation</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>what I would like to hear about is if
anyone has done the 4 rotations, averaged them, and found any statistically
significant difference between that result and the result if you just took the
actual orientation? I have done several and have never seen any real difference
in outcome. Often the 4 rotations cancel one another. That is why I think
it is nonsense (along with some of <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Brandon</st1:place></st1:City>'s
points as well...). if I actually saw a benefit/penalty then I might see some
benefit. To date I have not, but I have just a few examples. Has anyone seen
anything different?</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> <st1:PersonName
w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName> [mailto:<st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName>]
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Brandon Nichols<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, November 30, 2007
11:22 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net;
Leonard Sciarra<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> [BLDG-SIM] <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">LEED</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Building</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>
Orientation</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New"'><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->Thanks Jason,<br>
<br>
The 'burr' under my saddle on this issue is that the 'averaged buiilding', and
therefore the baseline to which all project EEMs are to be compared, <em><i><u><font
face="Courier New"><span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>does not exist</span></font></u></i></em>,
not even in the simulation software.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New"'>While we may have four perfectly good orientations, any one of
which could be used as a baseline (think .SIM file), there simply exists <em><i><u><font
face="Courier New"><span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>no .SIM file for the
averaged building</span></font></u></i></em>. It would need to be created
(as of this writing) manually, and the result could not be used easily, let
alone seamlessly, as the baseline for alternative comparisons within eQuest.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New"'>Suggestions:</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New"'>1. Allow selecting the orientation closest to, without
performing worse than, the 'average total annual energy consumption' as the
baseline. This simple change would allow all baseline numbers to reside
within the analysis software.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Courier New"'>2. Make this requirement optional, for those buildings which can
benefit from orientation optimization. In other words, promote achievable
incentives instead of enforcing arbitrary punishments.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'>Wish I had more time to help out with 90.1 -- maybe
next year!</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Regards<br>
<br>
Brandon Nichols, PE, LEED® AP<br>
Mechanical<br>
HARGIS ENGINEERS<br>
<br>
<st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">600 Stewart Street</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
<st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on">Suite</st1:Street> 1000</st1:address><br>
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Seattle</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">WA</st1:State>
<st1:PostalCode w:st="on">98101</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br>
www.hargis.biz<br>
<br>
d | 206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707<br>
o | 206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450<br>
<br>
</span></font><font size=2><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Jason Glazer [<a href="mailto:jglazer@gardanalytics.com">mailto:jglazer@gardanalytics.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 AM<br>
To: Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net; Brandon Nichols<br>
Subject: Re: [BLDG-SIM] <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">LEED</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Building</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> Orientation<br>
<br>
Peter and Brandon,<br>
<br>
This looks like an issue that you have a strong opinion so perhaps consider
contributing a better solution. Anyone can propose a change to 90.1. Further,
if you examine this history of the ECB subcommittee, I think you would find
that we are open to good ideas and are trying to balance multiple needs. The
building rotation concept replaced a much worse concept of spreading the
windows around the building evenly.<br>
Maybe you can find a better solution. I believe we need to reward those
that do make an effort to orient their building<br>
and windows to save energy and penalize those that make poor design
choices about building orientation and window placement. The building
rotation idea has traction because most of the effort needed for each rotation
is just to rerun the simulation with the building azimuth changed. We thought
that was simple. It is an issue that has been discussed many times in the
ECB subcommittee and a few times at the full committee level.<br>
<br>
I look forward to your suggestions.<br>
<br>
Jason<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/30/2007 8:34 AM, Peter Simmonds wrote:<br>
> Here here <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Brandon</st1:place></st1:City>.
A building is a building and that’s that. I have<br>
> sat through many charette’s on ‘tree hugging’
projects to hear how<br>
> the buildings orientation can affect the cooling and heating load, let<br>
> alone natural daylighting. Only to hear the wise men of 90.1 (who have<br>
> never designed a building) to come up with some ‘weighted’
average to<br>
> change the results. The designer ends up doing four different runs<br>
> only to find out that the architect didn’t have clue what he was<br>
> trying to do in the first place.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Long live sanity.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Peter Simmonds Ph.D.<br>
><br>
> Associate<br>
> IBE Consulting Engineers<br>
><br>
> <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">14130 Riverside Drive Suite
201</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
><br>
> <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sherman</st1:place></st1:City>
Oaks, CA 91423<br>
> p: (818) 377-8220<br>
> f: (818) 377-8230<br>
> m: (818) 219-1284<br>
> IDEAS FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT <BLOCKED::<a
href="http://www.ibece.com/">http://www.ibece.com/</a>><br>
><br>
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of<br>
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged<br>
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution<br>
> is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact<br>
> the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.<br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> --<br>
><br>
> *From:* <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName> [<a
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] *On Behalf Of<br>
> *Brandon Nichols<br>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:48 PM<br>
> *To:* <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName><br>
> *Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">LEED</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Building</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> Orientation<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> All,<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> The building rotation requirement is utterly nonsensical. For a<br>
> full-text rant on the subject, see my previous post:<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.gard.com/ml/bldg-sim-archive/msg04038.html">http://www.gard.com/ml/bldg-sim-archive/msg04038.html</a><br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> In summary:<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 1) In the case of many new buildings (90% or more I would estimate),<br>
> there is very little latitude for changing the orientation.<br>
> For example the main street and therefore the lobby and entryway may<br>
> be on one side and one side only of the building, the aspect ratio of<br>
> the building may not fit on the lot in two of the four orientations, etc.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 2) The fictitious, etheral 'averaged' building does not exist even in<br>
> the computer code of the best analysis programs we have at our<br>
> disposal to date.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 3) All baseline numbers for each of the four orientations would need<br>
> to be extracted from the analysis software, and averaged on a spreadsheet.<br>
> Similarly each and every EEM would need to be extracted, and the<br>
> project's comparative analysis done on a spreadsheet instead of the<br>
> within the analysis software itself. Thanks, but I have a life, wife<br>
> and family.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> 4) If this requirement still sounds like a good idea from the comfort<br>
> of your tenured office, I say come on out and run couple of dozen<br>
> real-life energy code and LEED compliance simulations for me within<br>
> budget and on deadline in Q1-Q2 2008 and you'll begin to understand<br>
> what I'm talking about.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Why not simply allow selecting the orientation closest to, without<br>
> performing worse than, the 'average' as the baseline? This simple<br>
> change would allow the baseline numbers to reside within the analysis<br>
> software.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Alternatively the eQuest developers are rumored to be working on a<br>
> 90.1 Appendix G compliance module. Upon release, if it automates the<br>
> averaging I may be inclined retire some portion of this diatribe.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Best idea yet, drop this as a requirement, and make it optional where<br>
> it makes sense to do so. Utilize by default the far more intuitive<br>
> (and useful in terms of energy incentives) 'code minimum' baseline<br>
> building, oriented identically to the proposed. This is the approach<br>
> I've been able to convince our state energy code and utility rebate<br>
> reviewers to accept -- its just hardened LEED extremists who still<br>
> seem to have their head in the sand on this.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Brandon Nichols</st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">PE</st1:State></st1:place>, LEED^® AP<br>
><br>
> Mechanical<br>
><br>
> **HARGIS ENGINEERS**<br>
><br>
> <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">600 Stewart Street</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
><br>
> Suite 1000<br>
><br>
> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Seattle</st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">WA</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">98101</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br>
><br>
> www.hargis.biz<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> *d |* 206.436.0400 *c | *206.228.8707<br>
><br>
> *o |* 206.448.3376 *f |* 206.448.4450<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> --<br>
><br>
> *From:* <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName> [<a
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] *On Behalf Of<br>
> *Edward.A.Decker@jci.com<br>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:59 PM<br>
> *To:* <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName><br>
> *Cc:* <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName><br>
> *Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">LEED</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Building</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> Orientation<br>
><br>
><br>
> Can you not apply various fenestrations and shading to the model<br>
> without having to change its orientation? For an existing building,<br>
> including LEED EB, what additional benefit could be gained by rotating<br>
> the model since you cannot change the orientation?<br>
> _____________________________________________<br>
> Edward A. Decker<br>
><br>
><br>
> *"Leonard Sciarra" <leonard_sciarra@gensler.com>* Sent by:<br>
> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName><br>
><br>
> 11/29/2007 06:18 PM<br>
><br>
> Please respond to<br>
> leonard_sciarra@gensler.com<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> To<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <<st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName>><br>
><br>
> cc<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Subject<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> [BLDG-SIM] <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">LEED</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Building</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> Orientation<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> This is true, however, even with an existing building, you as the<br>
> designer/engineer have the option of "working" the facades and<br>
> applying appropriate fenestration, shading, etc... you can still make<br>
> good/bad decisions and the fact that your footprint is fixed should<br>
> not give the design team a waiver from the fact that the sun still<br>
> rises in the east and sets in the west. In fact it may be a benefit<br>
> if perhaps your building is shaded on the west by itself.<br>
> <br>
> Leonard Sciarra, AIA, LEED ap<br>
> 312.577.6580 (Dir)<br>
> G E N S L E R | Architecture & Design Worldwide <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address
w:st="on">30 West Monroe Street</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Chicago</st1:City> <st1:State
w:st="on">IL</st1:State>, <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">60603</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br>
> 312.456.0123<br>
> leonard_sciarra@gensler.com<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> --<br>
><br>
> *From:* <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName> [<a
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] *On Behalf Of<br>
> *Ross-Bain, Jeff*<br>
> Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:40 PM*<br>
> To:* <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName>*<br>
> Cc:* keith_lane@g-g-d.com*<br>
> Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">LEED</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Building</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> Orientation<br>
><br>
> Here is my question to and response from the USGBC regarding this issue:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Dear LEED Info,<br>
> <br>
> There has been a lot of chat on this item and I wonder if there is a<br>
> USGBC position – I found no reference to this in the CIR’s:<br>
> <br>
> Do existing buildings undergoing renovation require the four-point<br>
> compass orientation analysis?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Jeffrey,<br>
> <br>
> If the existing building being renovated is pursuing LEED-NC rather<br>
> than LEED-EB, then it would indeed be required to undergo the<br>
> specified analysis. This analysis is used to establish the baseline<br>
> for energy performance using the ASHRAE standard. LEED doesn’t
have<br>
> any specific exemptions for existing buildings in this requirement,<br>
> but if ASHRAE has some kind of exemption, we will honor that.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> So I guess the question then becomes an interpretation of the Appendix<br>
> G (Table G3.1 (f)) comment for existing buildings. Rotate or not?<br>
> <br>
> My take has always been that new buildings have the option to consider<br>
> orientation but existing buildings cannot be re-oriented so rotating<br>
> the model does not really prove anything.<br>
> <br>
> Any 90.1 code committee members or others out there have an
interpretation?<br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> */Jeffrey G. Ross-Bain, PE, LEED/*<br>
> Smith Dalia Architects<br>
> <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">621 North Ave NE</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
> Suite C-140<br>
> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Atlanta</st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">GA</st1:State>, <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">30308</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br>
> 404-892-2443 _<br>
> _www.smithdalia.com <<a href="http://www.smithdalia.com/">http://www.smithdalia.com/</a>><br>
><br>
> P *Consider the environment.* *Please don't print this e-mail unless<br>
> you really need to.*<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> --<br>
><br>
><br>
> *From:* <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName> [<a
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] *On Behalf Of<br>
> *Neuhauser, Ken*<br>
> Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:31 PM*<br>
> To:* <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName>*<br>
> Cc:* keith_lane@g-g-d.com*<br>
> Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">LEED</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Building</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> Orientation<br>
> <br>
> I am not the authority, Keith, but I believe that your interpretation<br>
> (that existing buildings do not get rotated in the baseline) is<br>
> consistent with the intent of Appendix G. In new construction, the<br>
> decisions regarding building orientation will affect performance and<br>
> that performance should be measured against the baseline (although,<br>
> there are cases, such as a building that adjoins buildings to either<br>
> side, where rotating the baseline through all four orientations does<br>
> not make sense). If you’re improving an existing building, the<br>
> existing conditions of building enclosure components, including<br>
> orientation, are an appropriate baseline. When we apply Appendix G
to<br>
> existing buildings, we have also found that “existing building
envelopes”<br>
> sometimes needs to be parsed into existing building envelope components.<br>
> For example, in a mill rehab, the bearing walls may be serviceable<br>
> and appropriately modeled “as is” in the baseline, but missing
windows<br>
> or windows that are clearly not serviceable we model as per the ASHRAE<br>
> minimum compliance.<br>
> <br>
> You should note, also, that an addendum to the standard has removed<br>
> the provision in the table under G3.1, 5c to distribute windows<br>
> uniformly in horizontal bands across the four orientations. That<br>
> should make all of our lives easier.<br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
> Ken Neuhauser, M.Arch, MSc.Arch, LEED AP /Architectural Project<br>
> Manager/ Conservation Services Group, Inc.<br>
> <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">40 Washington Street</st1:address></st1:Street><br>
> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Westborough</st1:City>, <st1:State
w:st="on">MA</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">01581</st1:PostalCode></st1:place><br>
> Ph. 508 836-9500 ext. 13226<br>
> Fax 508 836-3181<br>
> www.csgrp.com <<a href="http://www.csgrp.com/">http://www.csgrp.com/</a>><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> --<br>
><br>
><br>
> *From:* <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName> [<a
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</a>] *On Behalf Of<br>
> *<st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Keith Lane</st1:address></st1:Street>*<br>
> Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:40 PM*<br>
> To:* <st1:PersonName w:st="on">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</st1:PersonName>*<br>
> Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">LEED</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Building</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> Orientation<br>
> <br>
> I am modeling an existing building for Energy & Atmosphere Credit 1:<br>
> Optimize Energy Performance. In LEED and table G3.1 No. 5(a) of ASHREA<br>
> Standard 90.1-2004, it states that “the baseline building
performance<br>
> shall be generated by simulating the building with its actual<br>
> orientation and again after rotating the entire building 90, 180, 270<br>
> degrees, then averaging the results”. However table G3.1 No. 5(f) of<br>
> ASHREA Standard 90.1-2004 states: “for existing building envelopes,<br>
> the baseline building design shall reflect existing conditions prior<br>
> to any revisions that are part of the scope of work being evaluated.”<br>
> Would this mean that you do not need to simulate the building for the<br>
> four orientations? It just doesn’t seem to make sense to simulate
the<br>
> building in such a manner if it is existing. I am new energy modeling<br>
> for LEED credit and sincerely appreciate any assistance.<br>
> <br>
> Thank you,<br>
> <br>
> */<st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Keith Lane</st1:address></st1:Street>,
LEED AP/*<br>
> */Mechanical Engineer/*<br>
> Garcia.Galuska.DeSousa<br>
> /Consulting
Engineers
Inc.
/<br>
> <st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on">370 Faunce Corner Road</st1:Street>,
<st1:City w:st="on">Dartmouth</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">MA</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode
w:st="on">02747</st1:PostalCode></st1:address><br>
> p.508.998.5700
f. 508.998.0883<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ==================<br>
> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the<br>
> BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing
list<br>
> send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ==================<br>
> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the<br>
> BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing
list<br>
> send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM<br>
><br>
> ==================<br>
> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the<br>
> BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing
list<br>
> send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> =====================================================You received this<br>
> e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing<br>
> list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to<br>
> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> ==================<br>
><br>
> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed<br>
><br>
> to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe<br>
><br>
> from this mailing list send a blank message to<br>
><br>
> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM<br>
><br>
><br>
> ======================================================<br>
> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the<br>
> BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing
list<br>
> send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM<br>
<br>
--<br>
Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair Admin of BLDG-SIM list for
building simulation users<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<pre><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>==================<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed <o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe <o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>from this mailing list send a blank message to <o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>____________________________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>==================<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>You received this e-mail because you are subscribed <o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe <o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>from this mailing list send a blank message to <o:p></o:p></span></font></pre><pre><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM<o:p></o:p></span></font></pre></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></body>
</html>