<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<title>RE: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Glenn, I couldn’t agree more.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think the advantage of energy modelling as opposed to just
pure sizing is that you can look at the normal operational loads against the
peak sizing loads. This can then allow you to look at modularisation of your
plant so that you only operate as much plant as you need and you run that plant
at optimal efficiency more of the time rather than say running a single boiler
at low part load efficiency. Thus you are not only carrying out your sizing,
but then you are checking whether it will work in practice and ensure that your
design is efficient. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>It is important to remember, that a sizing tool which is
essentially a steady state calculation tool will not take the thermal inertia
of the building into account, therefore your building could actually be hotter/cooler
than your cooling sizing calculation suggests it is and this would obviously
effect the sizing of the system. Cooling is clearly very expensive in terms of
capital expenditure, but also lifecycle running and maintenance costs therefore
should be minimised as much as possible.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steven
DiBerardine<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 21 May 2010 00:31<br>
<b>To:</b> Haynes, Glenn; ssavich@systemswestengineers.com; Eurek, John S NWO;
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>As a designer of geothermal hvac systems I
found this very relevant. For vertical closed loop systems you buy by the
foot. Over design of 5 or 10 percent adds that much cost and effects the
return on investment for the client. The ground loop is sized based on
monthy peak and total loads.<br>
<br>
Steve DiBerardine PE CGD LEED AP<br>
Strategic Energy Solutions<br>
steved@sesnet.com<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Haynes, Glenn [<a href="mailto:Glenn.Haynes@kema.com">mailto:Glenn.Haynes@kema.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 06:57 PM Eastern Standard Time<br>
To: ssavich@systemswestengineers.com; Eurek, John S NWO;
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE:
Voodoo Engineering<br>
<br>
The difference between using equipment sizing software and hourly<br>
building energy simulation software is interpretation of the peak loads.<br>
The equipment sizing software utilizes a worst case scenario of load<br>
contributing conditions to size the equipment and yields an appropriate<br>
peak system load up front - no need to beef it up except to cover errors<br>
or extenuating circumstances.<br>
<br>
A building energy simulation code yields the peak loads under the most<br>
probable conjunction of extreme conditions, so you should beef those up<br>
by some reasonable factor if you need to guarantee enough capacity under<br>
the most extreme combination of factors.<br>
<br>
Either way, you should end up with approximately the same system size<br>
without unnecessary over sizing. But if you beef up the equipment<br>
sizing software results without proper justification, and then select<br>
the next higher modular equipment size, you will probably end up with an<br>
unnecessarily oversized system; a low personal risk approach, but not<br>
the best design choice for the client who has to pay for it and live<br>
with it.<br>
<br>
Glenn<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Steven<br>
Savich<br>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:12 PM<br>
To: 'Eurek, John S NWO'; bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<br>
<br>
John,<br>
<br>
Using energy modeling programs for sizing is another topic that we'll<br>
find a lot of people on the list disagreeing about.<br>
<br>
Really, Trane Trace and Carrier HAP are equipment sizing programs that<br>
also do energy modeling.<br>
<br>
eQuest/DOE 2.2 (the program I am most familiar with) also has the option<br>
of setting design day schedules, and will give you reports that show<br>
peak Heating and Cooling loads. With sound engineering judgment, a<br>
thorough understanding of the modeling program you're using, and careful<br>
checking of your results, I believe that you can use many hourly<br>
modeling programs to size your equipment, or at least to provide a<br>
"second opinion" about the results from your primary sizing program.<br>
<br>
<br>
Steven<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Eurek, John<br>
S NWO<br>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:59 AM<br>
To: bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<br>
<br>
Brad,<br>
<br>
Using energy modeling for system
sizing would be a misuse of a<br>
tool.<br>
<br>
The energy model uses average
temperatures, design uses extreme<br>
temperatures. <br>
<br>
Another example would be a classroom
which can hold up to 40<br>
people.<br>
Actual use is estimated at 25 people, but owner would like to be able to<br>
have 40 people. The model would use 25 people (actual use) but the<br>
designer would size equipment for 40 people (worst case).<br>
<br>
Also, energy models get to count
rejected heat from office<br>
equipment and people. When sizing equipment you can not count the<br>
lighting, office equipment and people heat to assist in heating.<br>
<br>
There is more CYA in equipment
sizing. There is more liability.<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Acker, Brad<br>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:45 PM<br>
To: Paul Carey; Chris Yates; Varkie C Thomas<br>
Cc: bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<br>
<br>
I do not do modeling on a daily basis so I'm not as experience as many<br>
other here. I do agree modeling just for LEED is silly. I have seen<br>
modeling inform designs, reduce loads, and SIZE SYSTEMS. This last part<br>
is what most bugs me.<br>
Why do people put so much effort into models and then not use them to<br>
size the systems? Preventing over sizing is a great benefit of modeling.<br>
What is your experience with using models to size systems? Why do<br>
engineers fall back on the vendor based programs and 9 out of 10 times<br>
end up over sizing systems?<br>
<br>
Brad Acker, P.E.<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Paul Carey<br>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:42 AM<br>
To: 'Chris Yates'; 'Varkie C Thomas'<br>
Cc: bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<br>
<br>
Just to add a couple of points to this interesting debate.<br>
<br>
I see the problem being that, as we increasingly set more defined limits<br>
regarding energy modelling and its role in building regulation, we are<br>
seeing buildings that are being built and designed to purely meet<br>
compliance. This is in some part is useful as it brings all buildings<br>
up to a minimum standard, the flip side of that problem is that it also<br>
means, that to many developers this means there is no incentive to<br>
strive for alternatives or innovative solutions. It can also allow<br>
therefore lead to the use of simpler tools that meet those prescribed<br>
limits, but really don't push the boundaries of engineering design<br>
enhancement of buildings.<br>
<br>
The correct implementation and use of energy modelling need not be a<br>
hindrance to projects nor be seen as a necessary "extra" or evil if
you<br>
consider the design process as a whole. If you use the tools at the<br>
concept or schematic design phases, this can quantitatively confirm an<br>
engineer's instinct or gained experience in way that will enable them to<br>
show compliance later on. It will then allow the team to come to a<br>
decision on the most energy efficient but also compliant route of design<br>
earlier on in the design stage and should stop the repeat iteration of<br>
designs as the building design progresses and therefore reduce design<br>
costs and with luck increase productivity and profit accordingly.<br>
Fanciful dream perhaps, but it does work.<br>
<br>
I visited an architect a while back and he said to me "Why do I need to<br>
do modelling, I know the principles of good low energy design, I can<br>
read books<br>
and learn more if I need to". To which I replied, "Well
every time you<br>
send me a job to check for building regulation compliance 3 weeks before<br>
it goes before a planning team, I normally have to tell you what you<br>
need to do in terms of meeting compliance as your buildings are<br>
consistently failing and you then have to rush to make those changes. I<br>
am effectively designing your buildings for you, so if you want to<br>
continue without using energy modelling then please carry on, and I'll<br>
continue to design your buildings."<br>
As you can imagine this was one of those Eureka moments for this<br>
Architect, as I waved my red rag in front of his face.<br>
<br>
My tuppence worth.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
[<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Chris Yates<br>
Sent: 20 May 2010 07:55<br>
To: Varkie C Thomas<br>
Cc: bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<br>
<br>
Varkie<br>
<br>
Vast subject. Kudos for condensing it whilst conveying all the necessary<br>
meaning.<br>
<br>
We are now at a point where Energy Modellers are at the very least<br>
specialist engineers. In fact, you could say the best are indeed<br>
"wizards"!<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
On 19 May 2010, at 21:35, Varkie C Thomas <thomasv@iit.edu> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Since my response has ended up on Bldg-Sim, I might as well include<br>
> the attachment with the response which gave my views<br>
> <Building-Energy-Programs-VCT.doc><br>
> I am including the attachment that I included with my earlier response<br>
<br>
> to John Eurek. Using energy programs is like voodoo engineering if you<br>
<br>
> don't understand its engineering basis. It analyzes the various<br>
> options quantitatively. It cannot be used as a magic black box.<br>
> Experience and judgement have to applied to the results.<br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: Eric O'Neill <elo@MichaelsEngineering.com><br>
> Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:03 pm<br>
> Subject: RE: Voodoo Engineering<br>
><br>
>> John,<br>
>><br>
>> The purpose of energy modeling is to identify differences between two<br>
<br>
>> energy related setups. The idea is to tell you how much you could<br>
>> conceivably save by switching from one design to another. This is<br>
>> usefulfor a payback analysis or life cycle cost analysis.<br>
>><br>
>> Hope this helps, (I'm really not trying to be inflammatory :) )<br>
>><br>
>> Eric<br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Eurek, John S NWO [<a href="mailto:John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil">mailto:John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil</a>]<br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:19 AM<br>
>> To: Varkie C Thomas<br>
>> Cc: Eric O'Neill; cmg750@gmail.com<br>
>> Subject: RE: Voodoo Engineering<br>
>><br>
>> Varkie, I read your attached paper.<br>
>><br>
>> "Energy programs are external to the design process. The results
are<br>
>> not used to generate construction drawings." This may be my
#1 beef<br>
>> with energymodeling. What is the purpose?<br>
>><br>
>> If you say, to save energy... It does not.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> John Eurek<br>
>> LEEP AP<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Varkie C Thomas [<a href="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu">mailto:thomasv@iit.edu</a>]<br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:08 AM<br>
>> To: Eurek, John S NWO<br>
>> Subject: Voodoo Engineering<br>
>><br>
>> Academia institutions and research centers tend to attach<br>
>> disproportionate amount of importance to energy modeling. Most
them<br>
>> have not dealt withreal buildings. Attached are my views on
energy<br>
>> modeling.<br>
>><br>
>> ----- Original Message -----<br>
>> From: "Eurek, John S NWO"
<John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil><br>
>> Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:14 am<br>
>> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set for Oregon<br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I would prefer Lynn work to ban/destroy/do-away-with energy<br>
>> modeling.><br>
>>> Any chance this voo-doo engineering will go away any time soon?<br>
>>> It is only<br>
>>> statistical analysis with no meaningful/useful results for anyone.<br>
>>><br>
>>> As a community I think we are going in the wrong direction for<br>
>> the<br>
>>> rightgoals.<br>
>>><br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
>>> [<a href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
On Behalf Of<br>
>> Carol<br>
>>> Gardner<br>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:30 AM<br>
>>> To: Scott Criswell<br>
>>> Cc: equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org; curt.strobehn@eesinet.com<br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set for Oregon<br>
>>><br>
>>> All,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Lynn Bellenger will soon be the first female president of ASHRAE..<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Bldg-sim mailing list<br>
> <a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to<br>
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bldg-sim mailing list<br>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to<br>
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bldg-sim mailing list<br>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to<br>
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bldg-sim mailing list<br>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to<br>
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bldg-sim mailing list<br>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to<br>
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bldg-sim mailing list<br>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to<br>
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bldg-sim mailing list<br>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>