<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<STYLE type=text/css>DIV {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16890" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=321194715-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>John,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=321194715-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=321194715-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Looks like I might have awakened a sleeping giant...been
around awhile, huh? Are you going to tell us how it worked
out?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=321194715-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=321194715-21052010><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Glenn</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> John Aulbach [mailto:jra_sac@yahoo.com]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 21, 2010 11:34 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Haynes, Glenn;
Chris; backer@uidaho.edu; paul@zed-uk.com; thomasv@iit.edu<BR><B>Cc:</B>
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE:
Voodoo Engineering<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">
<DIV>I did all that 30 years ago using the Meriwether ESAS program for Hilton
Hotels. Before DOE-2. Before DOE-1 !!<BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> "Haynes, Glenn"
<Glenn.Haynes@kema.com><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Chris <chris@zed-uk.com>;
backer@uidaho.edu; paul@zed-uk.com; thomasv@iit.edu<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B>
bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Fri, May 21, 2010 8:22:53
AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd:
Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<BR></FONT><BR>Chris,<BR><BR>You make a good point,
and it also can apply to centrifugal chillers,<BR>which are sometimes most
efficient at 60-80% loaded. But you still have<BR>to remember that the
client has to pay for the larger equipment, which<BR>costs more, plus larger
system components (which cost more) and more<BR>space (which costs
more).<BR><BR>You also maake a good point about the system loads 90% of the
time,<BR>which raises an interesting question regarding sizing for
optimum<BR>operating efficiency. What if we sized certain types of
equipment to<BR>meet the most predominant loads within their most efficient
capacity<BR>ranges? That is not difficult when using hourly simulation
software.<BR>Of course, you have to keep an eye on peak loads and
capacities. I<BR>haven't thought this through yet, but I'll bet someone
else has.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Glenn<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
"Chris" [mailto:<A href="mailto:chris@zed-uk.com"
ymailto="mailto:chris@zed-uk.com">chris@zed-uk.com</A>] <BR>Sent: Thursday, May
20, 2010 7:13 PM<BR>To: Haynes, Glenn; <A href="mailto:backer@uidaho.edu"
ymailto="mailto:backer@uidaho.edu">backer@uidaho.edu</A>; <A
href="mailto:paul@zed-uk.com"
ymailto="mailto:paul@zed-uk.com">paul@zed-uk.com</A>; <A
href="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu"
ymailto="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu">thomasv@iit.edu</A><BR>Cc: <A
href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>Subject:
Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Re: RE: Voodoo Engineering<BR><BR>Glenn,<BR><BR>Oversize
isn't always bad! A condensing boiler is generally at its most<BR>efficient at
< 20% of its capacity.<BR><BR>All the same, the mid-season is largely ignored
when it comes to sizing.<BR>Ridiculous really, when you think this is where the
plant will be 90% of<BR>the time.<BR><BR>Perhaps this is more of an issue when
you are shifting large amounts of<BR>chilled water to various pieces of zone
equipment but has anybody<BR>considered Valve Authority? Unfortunately my
experience is limited when<BR>it comes to the nitty gritty of piping networks.
But, I do know one<BR>thing: valve response is not linear, especially if there
is a<BR>substantial head in the system. My hunch is mid season control could
get<BR>really messed up if plant has spare capacity but designers haven't
been<BR>quite as generous with pipe sizes.<BR><BR>Such questions should be in
the domain of simulation in the next few<BR>years.<BR><BR>Chris<BR><BR>on
20/5/10 8:15 PM, "Haynes, Glenn" <<A href="mailto:Glenn.Haynes@kema.com"
ymailto="mailto:Glenn.Haynes@kema.com">Glenn.Haynes@kema.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR>> Brad,<BR>><BR>> I did HVAC design consulting for 14
years, and I used to oversize <BR>> systems just like everyone else.
Now I am an energy conservation <BR>> programs evaluator, and have discovered
the extent and negative <BR>> impacts of over sizing. Not speaking for
all designers who oversize, <BR>> I did it mainly out of willful
ignorance. It was easier for me to <BR>> loosely calculate the peak
loads and then beef those estimates up <BR>> enough to safely cover and
mistakes or false assumptions than it was <BR>> to calculate the loads with
enough confidence to properly size the <BR>> systems. I believed in the
old adage that too much is just right from<BR><BR>> my perspective, because
it minimized risk.<BR>><BR>> But now I have to measure the effects of
excessive over sizing and see<BR><BR>> the results, some of which are poor
humidity control, short cycling, <BR>> reduced system operating efficiency
and higher first cost to the<BR>owner.<BR>> My DOE2 models usually indicate
peak (I mean absolute hourly peak <BR>> loads) at about 20% less than Manual
J loads, on average, for <BR>> residential applications. But even
Manual J allows up to 20% above <BR>> their calculated loads, which have
already been calculated using <BR>> conservative estimates for most inputs
that are not explicitly <BR>> defined. The observed<BR>> (measured)
field results have proven the average residential AC system<BR><BR>> to be
about 70% to 75% oversized, with some as high as 200% (that's 3 <BR>> times
the peak load). 20% to 25% over ASHRAE's 2.5% design standard <BR>> is
acceptable to me now, but anything above 25% without some <BR>> overriding
owner requirement (plans to add on to the current building,<BR><BR>> etc.)
begins to waste the owner's resources (from first cost to energy<BR><BR>> and
maintenance costs) and reduce the lifetime of the equipment while <BR>> at
the same time decreasing his overall level of comfort through <BR>> limited
latent performance.<BR>><BR>> There! You obviously rubbed a sore
spot in my emotional make-up, but <BR>> I appreciate the opportunity to make
a point. And the point is this: <BR>> no matter how good your modeling
software is, the outcome is still in <BR>> the hands of the
user.<BR>><BR>> Glenn<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 Acker, <BR>> Brad<BR>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:45
PM<BR>> To: Paul Carey; Chris Yates; Varkie C Thomas<BR>> Cc: <A
href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><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><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 <BR>> part is what
most bugs me. Why do people put so much effort into <BR>> models and then not
use them to size the systems? Preventing over <BR>> sizing is a great benefit
of modeling. What is your experience with <BR>> using models to size systems?
Why do engineers fall back on the vendor<BR><BR>> based programs and 9 out of
10 times end up over sizing systems?<BR>><BR>> Brad Acker,
P.E.<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 Paul <BR>> Carey<BR>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:42
AM<BR>> To: 'Chris Yates'; 'Varkie C Thomas'<BR>> Cc: <A
href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><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 <BR>> limits
regarding energy modelling and its role in building regulation,<BR><BR>> we
are seeing buildings that are being built and designed to purely <BR>> meet
compliance. This is in some part is useful as it brings all <BR>>
buildings up to a minimum standard, the flip side of that problem is <BR>>
that it also means, that to many developers this means there is no <BR>>
incentive to strive for alternatives or innovative solutions. It can
<BR>> also allow therefore lead to the use of simpler tools that meet those
<BR>> prescribed limits, but really don't push the boundaries of
engineering<BR><BR>> design 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 <BR>> you
consider the design process as a whole. If you use the tools at <BR>>
the concept or schematic design phases, this can quantitatively <BR>> confirm
an engineer's instinct or gained experience in way that will <BR>> enable
them to show compliance later on. It will then allow the team <BR>> to come
to a decision on the most energy efficient but also compliant <BR>> route of
design earlier on in the design stage and should stop the <BR>> repeat
iteration of designs as the building design progresses and <BR>> therefore
reduce design costs and with luck increase productivity and<BR>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 <BR>> to
do modelling, I know the principles of good low energy design, I <BR>> can
read books<BR>> and learn more if I need to". To which I replied, "Well
every time<BR>you<BR>> send me a job to check for building regulation
compliance 3 weeks <BR>> before it goes before a planning team, I normally
have to tell you <BR>> what you need to do in terms of meeting compliance as
your buildings <BR>> are consistently failing and you then have to rush to
make those <BR>> changes. I am effectively designing your buildings for
you, so if you<BR><BR>> want to continue without using energy modelling then
please carry on, <BR>> and I'll 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>> -----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 Chris <BR>> Yates<BR>> Sent: 20 May 2010 07:55<BR>> To:
Varkie C Thomas<BR>> Cc: <A href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><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 <BR>> necessary 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 <<A href="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu"
ymailto="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu">thomasv@iit.edu</A>>
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 <BR>>>
response<BR>><BR>>> to John Eurek. Using energy programs is like voodoo
engineering if <BR>>> 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 <<A
href="mailto:elo@MichaelsEngineering.com"
ymailto="mailto:elo@MichaelsEngineering.com">elo@MichaelsEngineering.com</A>><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
<BR>>>> 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 [mailto:<A
href="mailto:John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil"
ymailto="mailto:John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil">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; <A href="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com">cmg750@gmail.com</A><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><BR>>>> not used to generate
construction drawings." This may be my #1 beef<BR><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 [mailto:<A
href="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu"
ymailto="mailto:thomasv@iit.edu">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><BR>>>> have not dealt withreal buildings. Attached are
my views on energy <BR>>>> modeling.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
----- Original Message -----<BR>>>> From: "Eurek, John S NWO" <<A
href="mailto:John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil"
ymailto="mailto:John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil">John.S.Eurek@usace.army.mil</A>><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: <A
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>>>>>
[mailto:<A href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">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: <A
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</A>;
<A href="mailto:curt.strobehn@eesinet.com"
ymailto="mailto:curt.strobehn@eesinet.com">curt.strobehn@eesinet.com</A><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"
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>>
_______________________________________________<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>><BR>><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>