<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>Indeed, count me in on submitting a
change proposal. If I recall, everything we need is on the ASHRAE web site. I
would be happy to have what I posted used a starting point or initial draft for
that and hope that others have ideas for making the proposed changes better
still. After all, if incorporated, you would all be working with it somewhere
down the road. Now is thus a great time to comment or make
suggestions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#000080
size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#000080 size=2>Thanks, Jason, for your
questions regarding my proposal. In response to your last question asking,
"would it be fair for two identical buildings that are located on two different
sites, one constrained and one not, to get different scores?: There are many
situations in which the opportunities related to a site dictate some aspects of
how well optimized the design can be. Given what I proposed, the situation
you're asking about would occur only when the <EM>more</EM> constrained site of
the two was such that it forced a beneficial orientation. In such cases, the
team with the unconstrained site would be able to compare to a worse baseline
building, and thus could get a higher score for the same design. They would be
permitted to do so only because their site included to opportunity to
neglect orientation---and thus they could have done worse, but they chose to
make the best of it and chose to do the extra work to get credit for that. The
incentive is a carrot, not a stick, and LEED is full of carrots that are not
consistently available to everyone at all times.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#000080
size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>Thanks, Brandon, for your comments
(pasted in below) in response to Jason's point/question about how "perhaps
choosing a bad site that offers limited opportunities to face the building in a
good direction should carry a negative consequence." I couldn't agree more with
what you had to say.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>The idea of punishment for a choice
that we do not always have the luxury of making is at the root of the issues
discussed over the last few days. If one <EM>does</EM> overlook the opportunity
to choose a better site, they will already be faced with the
consequences of having to design for a worse condition than they could have.
And, someone else will get the opportunity of choosing the better site they
overlooked. My take on this is that added design challenge and lost return on
investment are sufficiently negative consequences (if and when one actually has
the option to choose otherwise). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>It seems to me that the language of
negative consequences stems in part from the historical regulatory compliance
perspective of 90.1, which is to prevent designers and builders from making
really bad buildings, rather than to encourage them to make really good ones.
Where it is feasible to take advantage of building and/or glazing orientation,
this needs to be rewarded. My proposal is aimed at doing this without
problematic attempts to punish those who are less attentive to (or less
fortunate) regarding this aspects of site selection.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>If 90.1 Appendix G is to be
effective, it is essential to avoid provisions that inevitably do as much or
more harm than good. A penalty for having a large west-facing
exposure to deal with is very different than, for example, a penalty to
using excessive glass area or requirement for a given level of insulation
in a particular climate, since the design team will, in <EM>all</EM> cases, have
the opportunity to reduce glazing area and to select insulation with an
appropriate R-value. However, in the case of building sites, if, for example,
they were all distributed evenly along different sides of a rectangular
city block with high development density, then, depending on climate and
building type, somewhere between 50% and 75% of the sites would be penalized for
being "bad." If this city block happened to be in an established
part of Chicago or Milwaukee, for example, where city blocks tend to have
their long axis oriented N-S, the odds of having to build on a "bad" site are
even higher. Where then is the incentive for making the most of a
less-than-ideal situation?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>Where the starting point, and thus
opportunities to "do the right thing," may vary with arbitrary external
conditions, the Performance Rating Method needs to focus on positive incentives
for encouraging teams to make the most of what they have to work with. After
all, someone has to build on that SW corner site. So, let's re-focus the method
on rewarding designs that turn a crummy site into a great building. Those who
are fortunate enough to be able to choose a really good site will still get the
added benefit of being able to design for that condition and, in some cases,
lowering their operating costs, improving return on investment, and racking up a
few more percentage points toward EAc1.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>Does anyone else have comments or
suggestions in support of a continuous maintenance/change proposal to ASHRAE? As
I suggested above, now would be a good time to make your voice
heard.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2>Timothy</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#000080 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>******************************************<BR>Timothy
Moore<BR>Integrated Sustainable Design Consultant<BR>LEED AP</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Whole Systems Design<BR>910 Indian Rock Ave.<BR>Berkeley, CA
94707<BR>Ph: (510) 525-4809<BR>Fx: (413) 480-7252<BR>Cell: (303) 324-1044<BR><A
href="mailto:tmoore@whole-systems-design.com">tmoore@whole-systems-design.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Jason,<BR><BR>The paradigm that we must 'punish bad sites' is one of the
actual thorns on the burr under my saddle. Why MUST we punish bad
sites? Why not reward designs making the best of a bad site, and sites
where changing the building orientation is an achievable option?<BR><BR>In my
humble opinion Timothy's proposals are right on the money in terms of how
projects work in the real world, and what LEED/ASHRAE 90.1's objectives ought to
be -- namely, reward achievement of attainable objectives. On the
contrary, it's the arbitrary enforcement of this rotation requirement and the
whole punishment-mindset behind it that actually "misses" something.<BR><BR>OK,
who wants to collaborate with me in drafting-up a change proposal? First
off, does anyone have a copy of a previous change proposal for formatting,
contact info etc. reference? Enough talk, time for
action!<BR><BR>Regards<BR> <BR>Brandon Nichols, PE, LEED®
AP<BR>Mechanical<BR>HARGIS ENGINEERS<BR>600 Stewart Street<BR>Suite
1000<BR>Seattle, WA 98101<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.hargis.biz/">www.hargis.biz</A><BR>d | 206.436.0400 c |
206.228.8707<BR>o | 206.448.3376 f |
206.448.4450<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Jason Glazer
[mailto:jglazer@gardanalytics.com] <BR>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:47
AM<BR>To: <A href="mailto:tcm@berkeley.edu">tcm@berkeley.edu</A><BR>Cc: Brandon
Nichols; <A href="mailto:Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net">Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net</A>;
'Leonard Sciarra'; <A
href="mailto:chien.harriman@iesve.com">chien.harriman@iesve.com</A><BR>Subject:
Re: [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=BrandonN@Hargis.biz href="mailto:BrandonN@Hargis.biz">Brandon
Nichols</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=BLDG-SIM@gard.com
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:42
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building
Orientation</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>All,<BR><BR>Enough talk, time for action! Who wants
to collaborate in drafting-up a change proposal? Timothy, it sounds like
you're on board. <BR><BR>First off, does anyone have a copy of a
previous change proposal for formatting, contact info etc.
reference?<BR><BR>Regards<BR> <BR>Brandon Nichols, PE, LEED®
AP<BR>Mechanical<BR>HARGIS ENGINEERS<BR>600 Stewart Street<BR>Suite
1000<BR>Seattle, WA 98101<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.hargis.biz">www.hargis.biz</A><BR>d | 206.436.0400 c |
206.228.8707<BR>o | 206.448.3376 f |
206.448.4450<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Jason Glazer
[mailto:jglazer@gardanalytics.com]<BR>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:47
AM<BR>To: <A href="mailto:tcm@berkeley.edu">tcm@berkeley.edu</A><BR>Cc:
Brandon Nichols; <A
href="mailto:Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net">Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net</A>; 'Leonard
Sciarra'; <A
href="mailto:chien.harriman@iesve.com">chien.harriman@iesve.com</A><BR>Subject:
Re: [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation<BR><BR>Timothy,<BR><BR>One issue that
your proposals miss is that perhaps choosing a bad site that offers limited
opportunities to face the building in a good direction should carry a negative
consequence. Shouldn't a building that is on a good site and oriented in such
a way to reduce energy use be rated better than a building located on a poor
site that cannot be oriented well? Also would it be fair for two
identical buildings that are located on two different sites, one constrained
and one not, to get different scores?<BR><BR>Again, please feel free to submit
a continuous maintenance proposal to ASHRAE.<BR><BR>Jason<BR><BR>On 12/3/2007
3:06 AM, Timothy Moore wrote:<BR>> Jason, Brandon, and others doing
building simulation for LEED:<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Great
to see all of the discussion this topic is generating. It seems <BR>> well
worth considering how better to provide an incentive for <BR>> orientation
without needless hassles and penalties. If you're <BR>> interested in doing
so, please read on and comment.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The
90.1-2004 Appendix G requirement for averaging the results of four <BR>>
baseline building orientations is, as described by previous comments <BR>>
in this discussion, a somewhat arbitrary and often problematic means <BR>>
of attempting to give credit (or penalty) for building orientation. It
<BR>> can also be a time-consuming pain either when overshadowing from
<BR>> adjacent buildings is modeled (fixed shades), and thus the site shape
<BR>> and coordinate origin may not make sense for a rotated building, or
<BR>> when attempting to compare benefits over the baseline model related
to <BR>> specific strategies (i.e., baseline+X vs. baseline+Y,
acknowledging <BR>> that relative comparisons of strategies can and should
most often <BR>> still be made without ever rotating anything).<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Of potentially even greater concern, in some
cases, such as on a very <BR>> narrow site with N-S major axis, the current
requirement needlessly <BR>> penalizes (i.e., /deducts/ credit from) a
design that may be making <BR>> the best of a constrained situation. Thus,
even if the process of <BR>> generating and averaging baseline performance
results for all four <BR>> orientations were /fully/ automated in the
simulation tools, which <BR>> would alleviate the time and hassle, the
current approach would still <BR>> impose an unfair and unhelpful penalty
on certain projects that are <BR>> forced to orient their building along a
N-S axis or with a large SE, SW, or W exposure, etc.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> However, I agree that we /do/ need some method of
encouraging and <BR>> rewarding beneficial building orientations where
applicable.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> It appears the draft
Addendum R language that was never approved was <BR>> one idea for how to
address some of the issues described above. I <BR>> would hazard a guess
that it was not approved because of the tendency <BR>> for such language of
"exceptions" to become a loophole open to <BR>> interpretation and gaming,
and thus something likely to weaken the <BR>> performance rating method and
generate more work for reviewers, not to <BR>> mention superfluous LEED
credit interpretation rulings.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I
support the idea of a positive incentive or opportunity offered by <BR>>
the /_option_/ for comparing to the averaged results for the rotated <BR>>
baseline building, plus a similar /_option_/ with respect to glazing <BR>>
orientation, /if/ and /when/ permitted by straightforward criteria. I <BR>>
would propose the following requirements be met for the /optional/ use
<BR>> of such averaged values for the baseline building...<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The project would need to show simple
documentation that one of the <BR>> two options was indeed applicable, and
thus they should be permitted <BR>> to use the associated method for
adjusting the baseline building results:<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> *Option 1)* Demonstrate via a simple sketch or other graphic <BR>>
representation that there is space on the site for the same total <BR>>
building footprint area to be re-shaped to be either more nearly <BR>>
square in terms of solar orientation OR to be rotated at least 60 <BR>>
degrees (or similar value TBD) from the design orientation---thus _it <BR>>
would have been possible and plausible to neglect building <BR>>
orientation_. In this case the team would be permitted to compare to <BR>>
an average of rotated baseline building results as in 90.1-2004 <BR>>
Appendix G. As with Appendix G, overshadowing from adjacent buildings,
<BR>> etc. would need to be modeled as a fixed shading item that does not
<BR>> rotate with the building. For cases where the proposed building
<BR>> orientation is elongated and rotated by something less than 60
degrees <BR>> (or whatever similar threshold was established for this
option)---for <BR>> example, rotated 45 degrees from the orientation of the
major axis of <BR>> the site, adjacent road, adjacent buildings, etc.---and
there is not <BR>> enough space on the site to rotate it a full 60 degrees,
the team <BR>> should be permitted (if they see fit) to compare to a
baseline result <BR>> that is the average of just two orientations of the
very same<BR>> footprint: the proposed orientation and whatever they
believe to be <BR>> the worst orientation of the /same/ /footprint shape/
that would <BR>> actually still fit on the site. If Option #1 were
selected, doing so <BR>> would eliminate Option #2 in order to avoid double
counting.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> *Option 2)* Demonstrate
with simple table of summed values that the <BR>> glazing fraction or
window-to-wall ratio (WWR) for the facades on the <BR>> proposed design is
asymmetric in terms of orientation (e.g., <BR>> differences are greater
than 5%), AND confirm that this is NOT an <BR>> outcome forced by an
immediately adjacent building or other constraint <BR>> of the physical
building site, but rather a deliberate design <BR>> strategy---thus _the
design /could/ have neglected any such <BR>> orientation of WWR_. In this
case the team would be permitted to <BR>> compare their design to a
baseline with /identical/ WWR for all façade <BR>> orientations---i.e.,
evenly distributed glazing as indicated by WWR (but /not/ a rotated building,
as in Option #1).<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The idea here is to
permit teams to get credit for either building <BR>> orientation OR glazing
orientation on the building _if they believe it <BR>> to be significant_
AND _it would have been possible to neglect it_.<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> If neither of these options were applicable and implemented,
the <BR>> baseline building would simply be modeled in the same orientation
as <BR>> the proposed design and with the same proportional distribution of
<BR>> WWR, in keeping with 90.1 WWR limits.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> I do not believe it is workable to penalize those who neglect
<BR>> orientation, as the present Appendix G attempts to do, without
<BR>> creating other inappropriate penalties and deterrents that we all
<BR>> really could do without. The penalty for those who neglect
orientation <BR>> where there was a significant potential to benefit from
doing <BR>> otherwise would, in what I have proposed, simply be the
foregone <BR>> opportunity to do better and get credit for it. Thus
building <BR>> orientation would be recognized and treated in much the same
manner as <BR>> most other performance-related architectural design
strategies.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I'm interested in what
others think of these ideas as possible means <BR>> of addressing concerns
raised in this discussion. Perhaps, Jason, you <BR>> could forward this to
the 90.1 committee people that are involved <BR>> specifically with the
Performance Rating Method (along with related or <BR>> subsequent comments
from others on the BLDG-SIM forum). Hopefully we <BR>> can move this
forward.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Best,<BR>> <BR>>
Timothy<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Timothy Moore,<BR>>
<BR>> LEED AP, Design Consultant, Building Performance Simulation<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Whole Systems Design<BR>> <BR>> 910
Indian Rock Ave.<BR>> <BR>> Berkeley, CA 94707<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> Office: 510-525-4809<BR>> <BR>> Mobile:
303-324-1044<BR>> <BR>> eFax: 413-480-7252<BR>> <BR>> <A
href="mailto:tmoore@whole-systems-design.com">tmoore@whole-systems-design.com</A><BR>>
<<A
href="mailto:tmoore@whole-systems-design.com">mailto:tmoore@whole-systems-design.com</A>><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
--<BR>> *From:* <A href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A>
[mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com] *On Behalf Of <BR>> *Brandon Nichols<BR>>
*Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 11:22 AM<BR>> *To:* <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A><BR>> *Cc:* <A
href="mailto:Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net">Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net</A>; Leonard
Sciarra<BR>> *Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation<BR>>
<BR>> Thanks Jason,<BR>> <BR>> The 'burr' under my saddle on this
issue is that the 'averaged <BR>> buiilding', and therefore the baseline to
which all project EEMs are <BR>> to be compared, /_does not exist_/, not
even in the simulation software.<BR>> <BR>> While we may have four
perfectly good orientations, any one of which <BR>> could be used as a
baseline (think .SIM file), there simply exists <BR>> /_no .SIM file for
the averaged building_/. It would need to be <BR>> created (as of
this writing) manually, and the result could not be <BR>> used easily, let
alone seamlessly, as the baseline for alternative comparisons within
eQuest.<BR>> <BR>> Suggestions:<BR>> <BR>> 1. Allow selecting the
orientation closest to, without performing <BR>> worse than, the 'average
total annual energy consumption' as the baseline.<BR>> This simple change
would allow all baseline numbers to reside within <BR>> the analysis
software.<BR>> <BR>> 2. Make this requirement optional, for those
buildings which can <BR>> benefit from orientation optimization. In
other words, promote <BR>> achievable incentives instead of enforcing
arbitrary punishments.<BR>> <BR>> Wish I had more time to help out with
90.1 -- maybe next year!<BR>> 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>> <A
href="http://www.hargis.biz">www.hargis.biz</A><BR>> <BR>> d |
206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707<BR>> o | 206.448.3376 f |
206.448.4450<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: Jason Glazer
[mailto:jglazer@gardanalytics.com]<BR>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007
8:04 AM<BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net">Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net</A>; 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 <BR>> consider contributing a better
solution. Anyone can propose a change <BR>> to 90.1. Further, if you
examine this history of the ECB subcommittee, <BR>> I think you would find
that we are open to good ideas and are trying <BR>> to balance multiple
needs. The building rotation concept replaced a <BR>> 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 <BR>> those
that do make an effort to orient their building<BR>> and
windows to save energy and penalize those that make poor design <BR>>
choices about building orientation and window placement. The building
<BR>> rotation idea has traction because most of the effort needed for each
<BR>> rotation is just to rerun the simulation with the building azimuth
<BR>> changed. We thought that was simple. It is an issue that has
been <BR>> discussed many times in the ECB subcommittee and a few times at
the <BR>> 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,<BR>> let > alone natural daylighting. Only to hear the wise
men of 90.1 <BR>> (who have > never designed a building) to come
up with some <BR>> 'weighted' average to > change the results. The
designer ends up <BR>> doing four different runs > only to find
out that the architect <BR>> didn't have clue what he was > 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::http://www.ibece.com/>
><BR>> > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the
sole use<BR>> of > the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and <BR>> privileged > information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure, <BR>> or distribution > is prohibited. If
you are not the intended <BR>> recipient, please contact > the
sender by reply e-mail and destroy <BR>> all copies of the original
message.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
> --<BR>> ><BR>> > *From:* <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A>
[mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com] *On Behalf Of<BR>> > *Brandon Nichols
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:48 PM ><BR>> *To:* <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A> > *Subject:*
[BLDG-SIM] LEED Building <BR>> Orientation > >
> > All, > > > > The building
rotation <BR>> requirement is utterly nonsensical. For a >
full-text rant on the <BR>> 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 <BR>> estimate), > there is very little latitude for
changing the orientation.<BR>> > For example the main street and
therefore the lobby and entryway <BR>> may > be on one side and
one side only of the building, the aspect <BR>> ratio of > 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
<BR>> in > 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 <BR>> need > to be extracted from the
analysis software, and averaged on a <BR>> 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 <BR>> comfort > of your tenured office,
I say come on out and run couple of <BR>> dozen > real-life energy
code and LEED compliance simulations for me <BR>> within > budget
and on deadline in Q1-Q2 2008 and you'll begin to <BR>> understand
> 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<BR>> analysis >
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<BR>> the > 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 <BR>> where > it makes sense to
do so. Utilize by default the far more <BR>> intuitive > (and
useful in terms of energy incentives) 'code minimum'<BR>> baseline
> building, oriented identically to the proposed. This is <BR>>
the approach > I've been able to convince our state energy code and
<BR>> utility rebate > reviewers to accept -- its just hardened
LEED <BR>> extremists who still > 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>> > <A
href="http://www.hargis.biz">www.hargis.biz</A><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > *d |*
206.436.0400 *c | *206.228.8707 > > *o |*
206.448.3376 *f<BR>> |* 206.448.4450 > >
> > > > > ><BR>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
> --<BR>> ><BR>> > *From:* <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A>
[mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com] *On Behalf Of<BR>> > <A
href="mailto:*Edward.A.Decker@jci.com">*Edward.A.Decker@jci.com</A> >
*Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:59<BR>> PM > *To:* <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A> > *Cc:* <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A> > *Subject:*
<BR>> [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation > > >
Can you not apply <BR>> various fenestrations and shading to the
model > without having to <BR>> change its orientation? For an
existing building, > including LEED <BR>> EB, what additional
benefit could be gained by rotating > the model <BR>> since you
cannot change the orientation?<BR>> >
_____________________________________________<BR>> > Edward A.
Decker<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > *"Leonard
Sciarra" <<A
href="mailto:leonard_sciarra@gensler.com">leonard_sciarra@gensler.com</A>>*
Sent by:<BR>> > <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A><BR>>
><BR>> > 11/29/2007 06:18 PM<BR>> ><BR>>
> Please respond to<BR>> > <A
href="mailto:leonard_sciarra@gensler.com">leonard_sciarra@gensler.com</A><BR>>
><BR>> > <BR>>
><BR>> > To<BR>> ><BR>>
> <BR>> ><BR>> >
<<A href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A>><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>> > 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 <BR>> Street > Chicago IL, 60603 >
312.456.0123 > <BR>> <A
href="mailto:leonard_sciarra@gensler.com">leonard_sciarra@gensler.com</A>
> > > ><BR>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
> --<BR>> ><BR>> > *From:* <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A>
[mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com] *On Behalf Of<BR>> > *Ross-Bain, Jeff*
> Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:40 PM* ><BR>> To:* <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A>* > Cc:* <A
href="mailto:keith_lane@g-g-d.com">keith_lane@g-g-d.com</A>* >
Subject:* <BR>> [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation > >
Here is my question to and <BR>> 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 <BR>> a > 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 <BR>> Appendix > 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 <BR>> consider >
orientation but existing buildings cannot be re-oriented <BR>> so
rotating > the model does not really prove anything.<BR>>
><BR>> > Any 90.1 code committee members or others out there
have an <BR>> 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>>
> > P *Consider <BR>> the environment.* *Please don't print
this e-mail unless > you really <BR>> need to.* >
> > ><BR>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
> --<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > *From:* <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A>
[mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com] *On Behalf Of<BR>> > *Neuhauser, Ken*
> Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:31 PM* ><BR>> To:* <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A>* > Cc:* <A
href="mailto:keith_lane@g-g-d.com">keith_lane@g-g-d.com</A>* >
Subject:* <BR>> [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation > >
I am not the authority, <BR>> Keith, but I believe that your
interpretation > (that existing <BR>> buildings do not get rotated
in the baseline) is > consistent with <BR>> the intent of Appendix
G. In new construction, the > decisions <BR>> regarding
building orientation will affect performance and > that <BR>>
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<BR>> windows > or windows that are clearly
not serviceable we model as per <BR>> the ASHRAE > 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>> > <A
href="http://www.csgrp.com">www.csgrp.com</A> <<A
href="http://www.csgrp.com/">http://www.csgrp.com/</A>> >
> > > > > ><BR>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
> --<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > *From:* <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A>
[mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com] *On Behalf Of<BR>> > *Keith Lane* >
Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:40 PM* > To:*<BR>> <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com">BLDG-SIM@gard.com</A>* > Subject:*
[BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation<BR>> > > I am modeling an
existing building for Energy & Atmosphere Credit<BR>> 1:<BR>>
> Optimize Energy Performance. In LEED and table G3.1 No. 5(a) of <BR>>
ASHREA > Standard 90.1-2004, it states that "the baseline building
<BR>> performance > shall be generated by simulating the building
with its <BR>> actual > orientation and again after rotating the
entire building 90, <BR>> 180, 270 > degrees, then averaging the
results". However table G3.1 <BR>> No. 5(f) of > ASHREA Standard
90.1-2004 states: "for existing <BR>> building envelopes, > the
baseline building design shall reflect <BR>> existing conditions
prior > 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 <BR>> the > four orientations? It just
doesn't seem to make sense to <BR>> simulate the > building in
such a manner if it is existing. I am new <BR>> energy modeling >
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>> <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM</A> mailing list. To
unsubscribe from this mailing list<BR>> > send a blank message to <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</A>
> > ><BR>> ================== > You received
this e-mail because you are <BR>> subscribed to the > <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM</A> mailing list. To
unsubscribe <BR>> from this mailing list > send a blank message to
<BR>> <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</A>
> > ================== > You received <BR>> this
e-mail because you are subscribed to the > <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM</A> <BR>> mailing
list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list > send a blank
<BR>> message to <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</A>
> > > > <BR>>
=====================================================You received this<BR>>
> e-mail because you are subscribed to the <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM</A> mailing <BR>> >
list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
<BR>> > <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</A>
> > > > > >
================== <BR>> > > You received this e-mail because
you are subscribed > > to the<BR>> <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM</A> mailing list. To
unsubscribe > > from this <BR>> mailing list send a blank
message to > > <BR>> <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</A>
> > > <BR>>
======================================================<BR>> > You
received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the > <BR>> <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM</A> mailing list. To
unsubscribe from this mailing list<BR>> > send a blank message to <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</A><BR>>
<BR>> --<BR>> Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair Admin
of BLDG-SIM <BR>> list for building simulation users<BR>> <BR>>
==================<BR>> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the <BR>> <A href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM</A>
mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list <BR>> send a
blank message to <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</A><BR><BR>--<BR>Jason
Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair Admin of BLDG-SIM list for
building simulation users<BR><BR><BR><BR>==================<BR>You received
this e-mail because you are subscribed <BR>to the <A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM</A> mailing list. To
unsubscribe <BR>from this mailing list send a blank message to <BR><A
href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><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>