<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16544" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=421255409-05122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#000080>There's no better time than the present to start doing things
differently. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=421255409-05122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#000080></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=421255409-05122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#000080>Thinking through and getting feedback from other users of Appendix
G regarding a proposed change (before submitting a formal continuous maintenance
proposal to ASHRAE) is just the first step in that
direction.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=421255409-05122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#000080></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=421255409-05122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#000080>Timothy</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=421255409-05122007><FONT face=Arial
color=#000080></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#000080></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> Michael Rosenberg
[mailto:Michael.Rosenberg@state.or.us] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 04,
2007 5:23 AM<BR><B>To:</B> BLDG-SIM@gard.com; tcm@berkeley.edu<BR><B>Cc:</B>
chien.harriman@iesve.com; Peter.Simmonds@ibece.net; Sciarra',
'Leonard<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building
Orientation<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I think it is great that the topic of building orientation is generating so
much conversation. But the way to get this thing changed is to submit a formal
continuous maintenance proposal to ASHRAE. If you make a convincing enough
argument, the committee will approve the change. I see lots of great ideas from
this list about what is wrong with Appendix G, but few change proposals
ever get submitted to ASHRAE.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mike </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Michael Rosenberg<BR>Oregon Department of Energy<BR>625 Marion St.
N.E.<BR>Salem, OR 97301-3742<BR>Phone : (503) 373-7809<BR>Fax: (503)
373-7806<BR><BR>>>> "Timothy Moore" <tcm@berkeley.edu> 12/3/2007
1:06:32 AM >>><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="COLOR: #000000"><FONT color=#000080>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=312544323-30112007><FONT face=Arial
size=2><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><SPAN
class=125503403-01122007>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Jason,
<st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Brandon</st1:place></st1:City>, and
others doing building simulation for LEED:</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Great
to see all of the discussion this topic is generating. It seems well worth
considering how better to provide an incentive for orientation without needless
hassles and penalties. If you’re interested in doing so, please read on and
comment.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">The
90.1-2004 Appendix G requirement for averaging the results of four baseline
building orientations is, as described by previous comments in this
discussion, a somewhat arbitrary and often problematic means of
attempting to give credit (or penalty) for building orientation. It can
also be a time-consuming pain either when overshadowing from adjacent buildings
is modeled (fixed shades), and thus the site shape and coordinate origin may not
make sense for a rotated building, or when attempting to compare benefits
over the baseline model related to specific strategies (i.e., baseline+X vs.
baseline+Y, acknowledging that relative comparisons of strategies can and should
most often still be made without ever rotating anything). </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Of
potentially even greater concern, in some cases, such as on a very narrow
site with N-S major axis, the current requirement needlessly penalizes (i.e., <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">deducts</I> credit from) a design that may
be making the best of a constrained situation. Thus, even if the process of
generating and averaging baseline performance results for all four orientations
were <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">fully</I> automated in the
simulation tools, which would alleviate the time and hassle, the current
approach would still impose an unfair and unhelpful penalty on certain projects
that are forced to orient their building along a N-S axis or with
a large SE, SW, or W exposure, etc. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><SPAN
class=125503403-01122007>However, </SPAN>I agree that we <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">do</I> need some method of encouraging
and rewarding beneficial building orientations where
applicable. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">It
appears the draft Addendum R language that was never approved was one idea
for how to address some of the issues described above. I would hazard a
guess<SPAN class=125503403-01122007> </SPAN>that it was not approved because of
the tendency for such language of "exceptions" to become a loophole open to
interpretation and gaming, and thus something likely to weaken the performance
rating method and generate more work for reviewers, not to mention
superfluous LEED credit interpretation rulings. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">I
support the idea of a positive incentive or opportunity offered by the
<I><U>option</U></I> for comparing to the averaged results for the rotated
baseline building, plus a similar <EM><U>option</U></EM> with respect
to glazing orientation, <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">if</I> and <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">when</I> permitted by straightforward
criteria. I would propose the following requirements be met for the
<I>optional</I> use of such averaged values for the baseline
building…<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">The
project would need to show simple documentation that <SPAN
style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic">one</SPAN> of the two options was
indeed applicable, and thus they should be permitted to use the
associated method for adjusting the baseline building
results: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Option
1)</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">
Demonstrate via a simple sketch or other graphic representation that there is
space on the site for the same total building footprint area to be re-shaped to
be either more nearly square in terms of solar orientation OR to be rotated
at least 60 degrees (or similar value TBD) from the design orientation---thus
<U>it would have been possible and plausible to neglect building
orientation</U>. In this case the team would be permitted to compare to an
average of rotated baseline building results as in 90.1-2004 Appendix G. As with
Appendix G, overshadowing from adjacent buildings, etc. <SPAN
class=125503403-01122007>would </SPAN>need to be modeled as a fixed shading item
that does not rotate with the building. For cases where the proposed building
orientation is elongated and rotated by something less than 60 degrees
(or whatever similar threshold was established for this option)---for
example, rotated 45 degrees from the orientation of the major axis of the
site, adjacent road, adjacent buildings, etc.---and there is not enough
space on the site to rotate it a full 60 degrees, the team should be
permitted (if they see fit) to compare to a baseline result that is the
average of just two orientations of the very same footprint: the proposed
orientation and whatever they believe to be the worst orientation of the
</SPAN><I><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">same</SPAN></I><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">
</SPAN><I><SPAN style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">footprint
shape</SPAN></I><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">
that would actually still fit on the site. If Option #1 were selected,
doing so would eliminate Option #2 in order to avoid double
counting.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Option
2)</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">
Demonstrate with simple table of summed values that the glazing fraction or
window-to-wall ratio (WWR) for the facades on the proposed design is
asymmetric in terms of orientation (e.g., differences are greater than 5%), AND
confirm that this is NOT an outcome forced by an immediately adjacent building
or other constraint of the physical building site, but rather a deliberate
design strategy---thus <U>the design <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">could</I> have neglected any such
orientation of WWR</U>. In this case the team would be permitted to
compare their design to a baseline with <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">identical</I> WWR for all façade
orientations---i.e., evenly distributed glazing as indicated by WWR (but
<I>not</I> a rotated building, as in Option #1).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">The
idea here is to permit teams to get credit for either building
orientation <SPAN class=125503403-01122007>OR </SPAN>glazing orientation on
the building <U>if they believe it to be significant</U> AND <U>it would have
been possible to neglect it</U>. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">If
neither of these options were applicable and implemented, the baseline building
would simply be modeled in the same orientation as the proposed design and
with the same proportional distribution of WWR, in keeping with 90.1 WWR
limits. </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">I
do not believe it is workable to penalize those who neglect orientation, as the
present Appendix G attempts to do, without creating other inappropriate
penalties and deterrents that we all really could do without. The penalty for
those who neglect orientation where there was a significant potential to
benefit from doing otherwise would, in what I have proposed, simply be
the foregone opportunity to do better and get credit for it. Thus
building orientation would be recognized and treated in much the same
manner as most other performance-related architectural design
strategies.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">I'm
interested in what others think of these ideas as possible means of addressing
concerns raised in this discussion. Perhaps, Jason, you could forward this to
the 90.1 committee people that are involved specifically with the Performance
Rating Method (along with related or subsequent comments from others on the
BLDG-SIM forum). Hopefully we can move this forward.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Best,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Timothy<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: green; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Timothy
Moore,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: green; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">LEED
AP, Design Consultant, Building Performance Simulation</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: green; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Whole
Systems Design</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><st1:Street
w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><SPAN
style="COLOR: green; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">910
Indian Rock Ave.</SPAN></st1:address></st1:Street><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City
w:st="on"><SPAN
style="COLOR: green; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Berkeley</SPAN></st1:City><SPAN
style="COLOR: green; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">,
<st1:State w:st="on">CA</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode
w:st="on">94707</st1:PostalCode></SPAN></st1:place><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: green; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Office:
510-525-4809</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on"><SPAN
style="COLOR: green; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Mobile</SPAN></st1:place></st1:City><SPAN
style="COLOR: green; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">:
303-324-1044</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: green; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">eFax:
413-480-7252</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="COLOR: green; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><A
href="mailto:tmoore@whole-systems-design.com"><SPAN
style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">tmoore@whole-systems-design.com</SPAN></A></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT><BR> </P></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> BLDG-SIM@gard.com
[mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>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>=====================================================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></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>