<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><DIV>I have noted that the number of hours as per the % shown in the BEPS report is always slightly high than the actual. In a situation where you are close to 300 hours or 50 hours as applicable, it is best to check the SS-F reports and calculate the highest number of hours under-cooled or under-heated in any zone for each month. Adding the highest number for undercooled in each month for each zone and the highest number for underheated in each month for each zone will give the total number of unmet hours.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Consider only the highest number. Do not add all hours. That could be even higher than 8760.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV>Ruju Rathod.</DIV>
<DIV>Kirksey</DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.kirkseygreen.com">www.kirkseygreen.com</A> <BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif">----- Original Message ----<BR>From: Jay Keazer <JKeazer@tmecorp.com><BR>To: Dan Russell <danr@engineeringinc.com>; Brandon Nichols <BrandonN@Hargis.biz>; bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<BR>Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:15:30 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Spam:Re: LEED NC Submittal Template, Heating/Cooling Hours Loads Not Met<BR><BR>I am not certain, but I think the unmet load hours on the BEPS report is<BR>consistent with the definition in Addendum a. The BEPS report says "Percent<BR>of hours any system zone outside of throttling range." To me this is the<BR>same as "one or more zones" being out of range for a particular hour. <BR><BR>Adding up the unmet load hours of every zone would count a lot of coincident<BR>unmet hours and could get large with a lot of systems (note this is what SS-R<BR>does for multiple zone systems). It could be
greater than 8760, and I don't<BR>think this is what appendix G is looking for. If a lot of zones are out of<BR>range during an hour (say an exceptionally cold night) that should only count<BR>as 1 hour.<BR><BR>I don't think that the number on the BEPS is for the "worst case zone." I<BR>just checked a SIM file I had open and the BEPS report listed 3.3% unmet load<BR>hours, so 289 hours (actually anywhere from 285-293). Looking through SS-R<BR>for each zone, the worst case had 177 hours under heated + 24 hours under<BR>cooled, so 201 total unmet hours.<BR><BR>I have always gone by the BEPS (i.e. 3.4% or less is good), but have never<BR>known how to find more detailed output regarding how many are cooling vs. how<BR>many are heating. Theoretically I think you could do this with an hourly<BR>report for every zone and some postprocessing, but I don't really want to go<BR>there. Anybody have a more practical
approach?<BR><BR><BR>Jay Keazer, EI<BR>Energy Engineer<BR>TME, Inc.<BR>2039 N Green Acres Road<BR>Fayetteville, AR 72703<BR> <BR>ph 479.521.8634<BR>fax 479.521.1014<BR><A href="mailto:jkeazer@tmecorp.com" ymailto="mailto:jkeazer@tmecorp.com">jkeazer@tmecorp.com</A><BR><A href="http://www.tmecorp.com/" target=_blank>www.tmecorp.com</A><BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: <A href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>[mailto:<A href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A>] On Behalf Of Dan Russell<BR>Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:12 PM<BR>To: Brandon Nichols; <A href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>Subject: Spam:Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED NC Submittal Template,Heating/Cooling Hours<BR>Loads Not Met<BR><BR>Brandon, I have been on the same page regarding this issue, and have<BR>submitted for successful LEED certifications using those assumptions ...<BR>until I read Addendum a to 90.1-2004, which adds the definition of<BR>"unmet load hour" to Section 3.2. The definition is:<BR><BR>unmet load hour: an hour in which one or more zones is outside of the<BR>thermostat setpoint range.<BR><BR>Unfortunately this seems to clearly indicate the unmet load hour value<BR>asked for refers to all zones at once. <BR><BR>My previous assumptions to only consider the worst-case zone were based<BR>on the example set forth by the USGBC's document titled "Example LEED-NC<BR>v2.1 Energy & Atmosphere Credit 1 Submittal", which I referenced back<BR>when I did my first LEED
submittal in 2005. This document is still<BR>available from their server at the following address:<BR><BR><A href="http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2423" target=_blank>http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2423</A><BR><BR>This document uses the following paragraph to demonstrate compliance<BR>with the unmet load hour requirement:<BR><BR>"The worst-case zone in the budget case is a North classroom. This zone<BR>is under-heated 40 hours out of the year in the Energy Cost Budget case<BR>and 0 hours per year in the Design Energy Cost case. This is within the<BR>50 hour per year limit required by ASHRAE 90.1-1999."<BR><BR>Now, if Addendum a were not used in any part as basis for LEED submittal<BR>one could possibly argue using the quoted precedent above. Granted, the<BR>above precedent applied to the 1999 version of 90.1 and the 2.1 version<BR>of LEED, but it seems to reasonable that the implications made there<BR>should
carry over until otherwise directed (as in Addendum a).<BR>Furthermore, it is my opinion that 90.1-2004 (not including addendums)<BR>does not clearly resolve the issue. The ASHRAE technical committee must<BR>have agreed, hence the inclusion of the new definition for "unmet load<BR>hour" in Addendum a.<BR><BR>So, if Addendum a is not used, there may be a possibility to consider<BR>unmet load hour only on a worst-zone basis. However, if Addendum a is<BR>used it seems clear that the unmet load hour applies to all zones at<BR>once.<BR><BR>Certainly larger project simulations with multiple zones will suffer<BR>from this added definition.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR><BR>Dan Russell, EIT <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: <A href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>[mailto:<A
href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A>] On Behalf Of Brandon<BR>Nichols<BR>Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:22 AM<BR>To: <A href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED NC Submittal Template,Heating/Cooling Hours<BR>Loads Not Met<BR><BR><BR>All,<BR><BR>"Table 1.3 -- Advisory Messages" of the LEED NC Submittal Template<BR>requests "number of hours heating loads not met" and "number of hours<BR>cooling loads not met". We've taken a vote here in the office, and its<BR>2-0 in favor of reporting the worst case zone as shown on the BEPS<BR>report.<BR><BR>But we have some lingering doubts... can anyone say definitively what<BR>numbers are being asked to for here? our runner-up in the voting was<BR>the total of all zone hours
out of throttling range -- however this<BR>could easily exceed the limit of 300 hours on a large project with many<BR>zones. <BR><BR>As 300 hours is less than 5% (3.4% actually) of 8760, we think that the<BR>300 hours is "per zone", not a total limit for the entire project. <BR><BR>Comments appreciated....<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Bldg-sim mailing list<BR><A href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org" target=_blank>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</A><BR>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to<BR><A href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Bldg-sim mailing list<BR><A href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org"
target=_blank>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</A><BR>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to<BR><A href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Bldg-sim mailing list<BR><A href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org" target=_blank>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</A><BR>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <A href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</A><BR></DIV></DIV></div><br>
</body></html>