<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=466592021-30112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>The ONLY time (of the few I have done) I found a 7%
difference in gas energy was when the building was essentially built into the
side of foothills. One side of the building was mostly underground wall, the
opposite side totally exposed.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=466592021-30112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=466592021-30112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Rotating the building THEN was a big deal gas wise. Yet the
direction it actually faced (West) had the lowest gas usage. So the EEMs I had
for gas showed greater that to be expected savings.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=466592021-30112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=466592021-30112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I believe Galileo had the Pope come to his house and showed
him Jupiter in the telescope. The Pope said that, yes, he could SEE it, but he
would not BELIEVE it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=466592021-30112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=466592021-30112007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Such is legislation..</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<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>Peter Alspach<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Friday, November 30, 2007 12:04 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
BLDG-SIM@gard.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building
Orientation<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=366280020-30112007>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 Brandon'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></DIV><BR>
<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>Brandon Nichols<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Friday, November 30, 2007 11:22 AM<BR><B>To:</B> BLDG-SIM@gard.com<BR><B>Cc:</B>
Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net; Leonard Sciarra<BR><B>Subject:</B> [BLDG-SIM] LEED
Building Orientation<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face="Courier New">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><U>does not
exist</U></EM>, not even in the simulation software.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face="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><U>no .SIM file for the averaged
building</U></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.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face="Courier New">Suggestions:</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face="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.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>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.</FONT></P>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face="Courier New">Wish I had more time to help out with
90.1 -- maybe next year!<BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face="Courier New">Regards<BR><BR>Brandon Nichols, PE,
LEED® AP<BR>Mechanical<BR>HARGIS ENGINEERS<BR><BR>600 Stewart Street<BR>Suite
1000<BR>Seattle, WA 98101<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></FONT><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] LEED Building 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 Brandon. 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>>
14130 Riverside Drive Suite 201<BR>><BR>> Sherman 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:* BLDG-SIM@gard.com [<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:* BLDG-SIM@gard.com<BR>> *Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building
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>> Brandon
Nichols, PE, LEED^® AP<BR>><BR>> Mechanical<BR>><BR>> **HARGIS
ENGINEERS**<BR>><BR>> 600 Stewart Street<BR>><BR>> Suite
1000<BR>><BR>> Seattle, WA 98101<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:* BLDG-SIM@gard.com [<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:* BLDG-SIM@gard.com<BR>> *Cc:* BLDG-SIM@gard.com<BR>>
*Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building 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>>
BLDG-SIM@gard.com<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>>
<BLDG-SIM@gard.com><BR>><BR>> cc<BR>><BR>>
<BR>><BR>> <BR>><BR>>
Subject<BR>><BR>> <BR>><BR>>
[BLDG-SIM] LEED Building
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 30 West Monroe Street<BR>> Chicago IL, 60603<BR>>
312.456.0123<BR>>
leonard_sciarra@gensler.com<BR>><BR>> <BR>><BR>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
--<BR>><BR>> *From:* BLDG-SIM@gard.com [<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:* BLDG-SIM@gard.com*<BR>> Cc:* keith_lane@g-g-d.com*<BR>>
Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building 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>> 621 North Ave NE<BR>> Suite C-140<BR>> Atlanta, GA,
30308<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:* BLDG-SIM@gard.com [<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:* BLDG-SIM@gard.com*<BR>> Cc:* keith_lane@g-g-d.com*<BR>>
Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building 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>> 40 Washington Street<BR>> Westborough, MA
01581<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:* BLDG-SIM@gard.com [<A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A>] *On Behalf
Of<BR>> *Keith Lane*<BR>> Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:40
PM*<BR>> To:* BLDG-SIM@gard.com*<BR>> Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building
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>> */Keith Lane,
LEED AP/*<BR>> */Mechanical Engineer/*<BR>> Garcia.Galuska.DeSousa<BR>>
/Consulting
Engineers
Inc.
/<BR>> 370 Faunce Corner Road, Dartmouth, MA 02747<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<BR><BR></DIV></FONT><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>____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
</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>