<HTML><HEAD>
<STYLE type=text/css><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>Hi,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I propose a standard on “intelligent building control” comprising
anticipating simulation (forecasting, nowcasting..) <IMG
style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none"
class="wlEmoticon wlEmoticon-winkingsmile" alt="Zwinkerndes Smiley"
src="cid:655AE95D73D04B6E8416F581F39CC00F@AdminPC"></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>cheers</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gerfried</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Please also take my survey: Solar Harvesting in multi storey buildings from
the 20th century</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HHNBJ2B">http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HHNBJ2B</A></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=juliabeabout@yahoo.com
href="mailto:juliabeabout@yahoo.com">Julia Beabout</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 13, 2011 8:22 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=jglazer@gard.com href="mailto:jglazer@gard.com">Jason
Glazer</A> ; <A title=bldg-sim@onebuilding.org
href="mailto:bldg-sim@onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@onebuilding.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=MMcGuire@taylor-engineering.com
href="mailto:MMcGuire@taylor-engineering.com">Molly McGuire (SPC 189-WG75)</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV>As a member of the ASHRAE 189.1 committee (standard for high performance
bldgs). would it be better to incorporate this type of thing into that
rather than starting from scratch? Or, perhaps the std you are talking
about could ultimately get referenced into Std 189.1. Currently, we just
switched to referencing 90.1 App G. There's a number of modelers on the
committee. One of the concerns is trying to minimize the number of
protocols a modeler would have to potentially comply with. Hopefully,
these things would ultimately converge.<BR><BR>Thoughts Molly?<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT
size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Jason Glazer
<jglazer@gard.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B>
bldg-sim@onebuilding.org<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B>
Fri, May 13, 2011 12:35:01 PM<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model
Cost<BR></FONT><BR>I have been thinking about trying to establish a new
<BR>standard at ASHRAE that I tentatively titled:<BR><BR>"Simulation Aided
Design for High Performance Buildings"<BR><BR>The new standard, once deveoped,
could be referenced by <BR>USGBC and other organizations. The concept is similar
to the <BR>direction that USGBC is considering. Attached is a draft
<BR>describing the concept. I think having a group of practicing <BR>simulation
consultants would be key to making such a <BR>standard usable and
adopted.<BR><BR>Please let me know if you have any comments and if you would
<BR>be interested in participating in developing a new standard. <BR>If I have
enough interest, I will submit the necessary <BR>paperwork to ASHRAE to get this
considered.<BR><BR>Thanks<BR><BR>Jason<BR><BR>On 5/13/2011 11:00 AM, Nick Caton
wrote:<BR>> Arpan/Omar and others, apologies for continuing to
diverge<BR>> on the original thread with this sub-topic!<BR>><BR>>
Marcus and other EA TAG members,<BR>><BR>> I have a few ‘informal’
thoughts for discussion of the draft<BR>> language below… sorry for the wall
of text, but I hope<BR>> you’ll find this useful feedback!<BR>><BR>>
1.Overall, the process described below sounds very much like<BR>> our regular
practice with certain clients, who are very into<BR>> EUI metrics (2030
challenge).<BR>><BR>> 2.I think the credit language should be expanded
(and<BR>> perhaps the onebuilding.org lists should be separately<BR>>
engaged) to suggest more examples of what may be appropriate<BR>> studies for
“Preliminary modeling.” Many will not be<BR>> familiar with the process
and be stuck for ideas of what to<BR>> explore. In my experience, such
modeling most often focuses<BR>> on early decisions regarding HVAC system
selection, envelope<BR>> materials/finishes, glazing
quantity/placement/orientation,<BR>> building shades (fixed and otherwise),
and active/passive<BR>> day lighting design. I would note that this is
often an<BR>> ideal time to investigate the energy effects of
landscaping<BR>> on the building, as site layout tends to be locked
down<BR>> early in the design process…<BR>><BR>> 3.Potential for a
game-killing conflict: A key feature of<BR>> such early modeling work
is that much of it is very fast and<BR>> “loose.” The level of
documentation/procedure involved in<BR>> today’s EAc1/EAp2 validation models
is something I’d still<BR>> call “intense,” and still takes up a large
fraction of the<BR>> time spent altogether on an energy model. I’m not
new to<BR>> the game, and I’ve certainly learned to streamline my<BR>>
workflow, but I’m sure there’s no place for *that* degree of<BR>> rigorous
documentation in the early stages of design. I<BR>> suspect many
architects would be quick to drop the idea of<BR>> engaging their energy
modelers early on if they become a<BR>> “ball and chain” holding up the
design process. It would<BR>> appear on this draft of the language that
someone has this<BR>> issue in mind, but I wanted to vocalize this
concern<BR>> separately so that this doesn’t get missed!<BR>><BR>>
4.Regarding metrics: EUI, due to the 2030 challenge, is the<BR>> driving
force causing local architects to engage us so early<BR>> on projects, and
for that I have to give it props... While<BR>> metrics like EUI &
Carbon footprint may be the best metric<BR>> for measuring impact on polar
bear habitats (?), the best<BR>> metric with regard to most building owners,
and their<BR>> perception of the “validity” of the whole process, is<BR>>
unquestionably utility bills. I wouldn’t discourage the<BR>> use of
alternative metrics, but I’d caution against<BR>> requiring any alternative
metrics that may be at odds with<BR>> the owner’s best
interests...<BR>><BR>> 5.Validation models based on the construction
documents (as<BR>> they exist today) are not a bad thing. They are
necessary<BR>> to prevent value engineering from decimating an
otherwise<BR>> great building towards the end of design. I would be
wary<BR>> of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If
preliminary<BR>> modeling is going to be incorporated into LEED, it
should<BR>> start out as either as a prerequisite or as a separate<BR>>
credit (perhaps pulling points from the large pool available<BR>> under
EAc1)… not as a replacement of the validation model.<BR>> At some point in
the future, they may become one and the<BR>> same credit, but I think
standards broader than 90.1<BR>> Appendix G will need to be written and
established first,<BR>> which incorporate practices and procedures for
preliminary<BR>> modeling (as others are saying).<BR>><BR>> 6.I LIKE
the inclusion of the ability to use past<BR>> studies/design. This
mirrors real-world practice and<BR>> permits/encourages proven design to
carry into multiple<BR>> projects. Keep that!<BR>><BR>> 7.I LIKE
the focus being on the analysis, not the decisions<BR>> made. This also
reflects real-world decision making, which<BR>> always balances budget and
other constraints against<BR>> relative energy impact.<BR>><BR>>
8.Julia’s concern regarding prescribing a set # of<BR>> studies/analyses is
pertinent and deserves consideration.<BR>> Not all projects require a huge
investment of time in<BR>> preliminary studies, and not all projects would
benefit…<BR>> then again, these sorts of studies sometimes cause
design<BR>> teams to learn something they didn’t set out to
explore.<BR>> The bar has to be set somewhere, and I can’t think of
a<BR>> better alternative than a minimum number of<BR>> studies/iterations
per building area (envelope/glazing/HVAC<BR>> options, etc…).<BR>><BR>>
To the broader concern of inefficient strip mall/prototype<BR>> projects –
I’d agree LEED likely isn’t the tool to reign<BR>> that issue in…
Developers award this sort of work to design<BR>> teams who are fast and
efficient at cranking out a design<BR>> that will pass review and minimize
first costs/CA. They<BR>> don’t budget for weeks on quality energy
modeling. The only<BR>> effective tools to drive down such
“fire-and-forget”<BR>> projects are the prescriptive energy codes, and
their<BR>> effective/actual enforcement by local reviewers.
Those<BR>> codes and their adoption/enforcement drive the market to<BR>>
produce better products at an economical price point.<BR>><BR>> Hope that
helps!<BR>><BR>> ~Nick<BR>><BR>>
cid:489575314@22072009-0ABB**<BR>><BR>> **<BR>><BR>> *NICK CATON,
E.I.T.***<BR>><BR>> PROJECT ENGINEER<BR>><BR>> Smith & Boucher
Engineers<BR>><BR>> 25501 west valley parkway<BR>><BR>> olathe ks
66061<BR>><BR>> direct 913 344.0036<BR>><BR>> fax 913
345.0617<BR>><BR><SPAN>> <A href="http://www.smithboucher.com__"
target=_blank>www.smithboucher.com__</A></SPAN><BR>><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<BR>> Of *Julia Beabout<BR>> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 9:22
AM<BR>> *To:* <A href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com"
ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</A>;<BR>>
<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] Energy Model Cost<BR>><BR>> Omar,<BR>> This
is cracking me up. I don't think I've ever seen this<BR>> much traffic on one
issue! LOL.<BR>> Regarding the manhours for a LEED model - my opinion is
that<BR>> the amount of time has much more to do with the level of<BR>>
certification the project is going for, at what point the<BR>> modeling
services are engaged in the design, and the type<BR>> and complexity of the
building (systems). That's not to say<BR>> the number of manhours is
completely independent of building<BR>> size (square footage), but its not
particularly sensitive to<BR>> it. I find that that there is a high "low" and
low "high"<BR>> for modeling. In other words, it's hard to complete
an<BR>> energy model in less than 60-80 hours (all said and done -<BR>>
paperwork, LEED responses etc), but it rarely take more than<BR>> 250 hours.
(Although, some rare complex projects going for<BR>> platinmum could take up
to 350 hours). Like others, I find<BR>> the norm for a reasonably complex
bldg going for LEED silver<BR>> or gold typically requires between 120 and
160 hours.<BR>><BR>> Marcus<BR>> Here's my two cents on below. I will
look for the public<BR>> comment period as well. Thanks for the heads
up.<BR>> I think the idea of incentivizing modeling early in the<BR>>
design is a great idea, but I think requiring it is<BR>> completely
inappropriate. Perhaps it could be encouraged by<BR>> awarding an extra
(innovation? or EA cr 1?) point for<BR>> starting modeling in schematic
design. Or, perhaps the<BR>> credit could be restructured similar to the CX
credits where<BR>> in order to get the enhanced CX credits, you have to
have<BR>> the CX agent involved early in the design. In some ways,
the<BR>> current set up already does this though with the progress<BR>>
points for increased levels of saving. Quite frankly, if you<BR>> are going
for 50% savings, you're not gonig to get there<BR>> unless you start modeling
really early in the process.<BR>><BR>> I also think prescribing a certain
minimum number of ECMs to<BR>> look at is inappropriate and would probably
have the adverse<BR>> effect of discouraging energy modeling. The
appropriate<BR>> number of ECMs is highly project dependent - based
on<BR>> building size, scope, complexity, type, level of LEED<BR>>
certification shooting for, and not least of all the owner's<BR>> budget.
Let's face it, the vast majority of bldgs out there<BR>> and that consume
most of the energy in the US are (strip)<BR>> malls, grocery stores,
restaurants etc. These projects<BR>> barely event have a schematic, design
and CD phase. While we<BR>> all love to work on the exotic, platinum level,
cutting<BR>> edge, bldgs that are likely to have a large budget for<BR>>
design, these are not the majority of bldgs consuming<BR>> energy. I think we
should be doing more to encourage<BR>> modeling and energy savings amongst
the every day projects<BR>> than the "sexy" projects. It seems to me the best
way to do<BR>> this is to offer incentives in this direction in lieu
of<BR>> prescriptive requirements that could discourage/put off<BR>>
smaller projects from even attempting to incorporate modeling.<BR>><BR>>
Julia<BR>><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<BR>> Of *Will Mak<BR>> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 8:14
AM<BR>> *To:* <A href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com"
ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</A>;<BR>>
<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] Energy Model Cost<BR>><BR>> Do you know where we
can get a copy of the existing draft?<BR>> I’d like to look more into the new
wordage for EAp2/EAc1 and<BR>> how energy modeling will have to evolve once
that new rating<BR>> system is released.<BR>><BR>> *William Mak, LEED
Green Associate*<BR>> Mechanical Design Engineer<BR>><BR>>
*EPSTEIN*<BR>> Architecture<BR>> Interiors<BR>> Engineering<BR>>
Construction<BR>><BR>> 600 West Fulton Street<BR>> Chicago, Illinois
60661-1259<BR>><BR>> D: (312) 429-8116<BR>> F: (312)
429-8800<BR>><BR>> E:<A href="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com"
ymailto="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com">wmak@epsteinglobal.com</A> <mailto:<A
href="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com"
ymailto="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com">wmak@epsteinglobal.com</A>><BR><SPAN>>
W:<A href="http://www.epsteinglobal.com" target=_blank>www.epsteinglobal.com</A>
<</SPAN><A href="http://www.epsteinglobal.com/"
target=_blank>http://www.epsteinglobal.com/</A>><BR>><BR>> þEpstein is
a firm believer in sustainability. We ask that<BR>> you please consider the
environment before printing this e-mail.<BR>><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<BR>> Of *Marcus Sheffer<BR>> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 7:17
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:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<BR>><BR>> If anyone has any
good ideas about how to structure the LEED<BR>> credits to end the practice
of validation models at the end<BR>> and encourage/require design phase
modeling the folks on the<BR>> USGBC EA TAG would love to hear them. The
current proposed<BR>> credit language from the first public comment phase
is<BR>> listed below.<BR>><BR>> NC, CS, SCHOOLS, RETAIL, WAREHOUSE
& DISTRIBUTION CENTERS,<BR>> HOSPITALITY<BR>><BR>> Establish an
energy performance target no later than the<BR>> schematic design phase. The
target must be established as<BR>> kBTU per square foot-year of source energy
use. This target<BR>> must be mapped on the same scale as the baseline
and<BR>> proposed buildings, if the project follows Option 1.<BR>><BR>>
OPTION 1. Whole Building Energy Simulation<BR>><BR>> Analyze a minimum of
at least nine efficiency measures<BR>> during the design process and account
for the results in<BR>> design decision-making. Analysis can include
energy<BR>> simulation of efficiency opportunities, application of
past<BR>> energy simulation analyses for similar projects to the<BR>>
project, or application of published data from energy<BR>> analyses performed
for similar projects to the project (such<BR>> as AEDGs).<BR>><BR>> A
minimum of six energy efficiency measures focused on load<BR>> reduction
strategies appropriate for the facility must be<BR>> analyzed. This analysis
must be performed during the<BR>> schematic design phase.<BR>><BR>> A
minimum of three energy efficiency measures focused on<BR>> HVAC related
strategies must be analyzed (passive measures<BR>> are acceptable). This
analysis must be performed before the<BR>> conclusion of the design
development phase.<BR>><BR>> The results of the analysis must be
summarized in a brief<BR>> report or memorandum.<BR>><BR>> The next
version of LEED will be going out for public<BR>> comment again in July, I
think, so please comment formally<BR>> as well as discussing
here.<BR>><BR>> Marcus Sheffer<BR>><BR>> Energy Opportunities, Inc/a
7group Company<BR>><BR>> 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA
17365<BR>><BR>> 717-292-2636, <A href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com"
ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</A><BR>>
<mailto:<A href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com"
ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</A>><BR>><BR><SPAN>>
<A href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target=_blank>www.sevengroup.com</A>
<</SPAN><A href="http://www.sevengroup.com"
target=_blank>http://www.sevengroup.com</A>><BR>><BR>> *From:*John
Aulbach [mailto:<A href="mailto:jra_sac@yahoo.com"
ymailto="mailto:jra_sac@yahoo.com">jra_sac@yahoo.com</A>]<BR>> *Sent:*
Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:46 PM<BR>> *To:* Carol Gardner; Marcus
Sheffer<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] Energy Model Cost<BR>><BR>> OK, Carol..now you
threw the "bait" out there..older than<BR>> dirt, eh?<BR>><BR>> I have
done very limited LEED "type" modeling where you<BR>> compare 20 walls and 40
windows types (well, it seemed that<BR>> way). Correct me if I am wrong, but
a Base model must be<BR>> built to comply with a certain level of ASHRAE 90.1
(now up<BR>> to 2010 ??). With all of the nuisances of eQuest 3.64, I
am<BR>> going to build the model from scrathc and put in all the<BR>>
relevant baseline data in by hand. And, by the way, the<BR>> ASHRAE baseline
model might be an entirely different system.<BR>> I am just completing an
EPACT evaluation (ASHRAE 90.1-2001)<BR>> and the Baseline HVAC was screwe
chillers, whereas the<BR>> Actual building was packaged units with Turbocor
compressors<BR>> (ask me how I did that).<BR>><BR>> It very much
depends on the complexity of the building. A<BR>> 40,000 sf office or a
500,000 sf hotel with casino facilites.<BR>><BR>> I am unfamiliar with the
LEED paperwork to be filled out<BR>> after the modeling has been done. But I
would not do<BR>> anything of this type in under 120 hours, preferably
160<BR>> hours. If the client thinks he can do better, let
him.<BR>><BR>> Contingency, contingency.<BR>><BR>> We won't discuss
how old CAROL might be..<BR>><BR>> John A.<BR>><BR>>
------------------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>>
*From:*Carol Gardner <<A href="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com">cmg750@gmail.com</A>><BR>> *To:* <A
href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com"
ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</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>>
*Sent:* Thu, May 12, 2011 2:59:12 PM<BR>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy
Model Cost<BR>><BR>> Marcus,<BR>><BR>> You have inadvertently hit
upon why IBPSA worked with ASHRAE<BR>> to create a BEMP certification. That's
Building Energy<BR>> Modeling Professional (BEMP).<BR>><BR>> Some of us
who have been in the field for awhile began to<BR>> worry a couple of years
ago when so many new energy modelers<BR>> began appearing on the listserv
with questions. Their<BR>> questions indicated a lack of training and
experience that<BR>> was worrisome. What made it worrisome was that they
didn't<BR>> seem to realize that they were as inexperienced as they<BR>>
were; they didn't appear to be pursuing training to learn<BR>> how to do what
they were doing; and we were uncertain as to<BR>> how or if they were
practicing quality control. We hoped<BR>> that by creating a path to
certification that we would give<BR>> clients one more qualification to look
for in their modelers.<BR>><BR>> If you have been in this industry for any
length of time,<BR>> and by industry I mean the overall construction
industry,<BR>> you know that you don't get a lot of chances if your
work<BR>> doesn't pan out. If your energy model says I have a LEED<BR>>
Gold building and I'm going to save $4,000/year and what I<BR>> really get is
LEED Silver and $1,000/year, I am not going to<BR>> be happy. So, I will
probably not give you any more work<BR>> but, even worse for all of us, I'll
start expressing doubts<BR>> about the whole process. LEED - what is it good
for?<BR>><BR>> So, now we all have more training, right? We read our
ASHRAE<BR>> Handbooks and technical manuals so we know how to model
the<BR>> difficult stuff. We can find any topic in the DOE2 Manuals,<BR>>
all of which are one line, available, and easily searchable.<BR>><BR>> So
now we are so good we can do these models in 40-80 hours.<BR>> Really? Not me
and I've been doing it longer than everyone,<BR>> except you, John Aulbach.
So I'm going to join Marcus in his<BR>> rant because he's on to
something.<BR>><BR>> It's up to us to not under bid this work. It's up to
us to<BR>> educate our clients about the importance of quality in
this<BR>> process. If they think they are getting the same analysis
in<BR>> 40 hours that they used to get in 120 hours, they need to be<BR>>
led around to rethinking that and to be reminded that GIGO.<BR>><BR>>
Cheers,<BR>><BR>> Carol<BR>><BR>><BR>> Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:31
PM, Marcus Sheffer<BR>> <<A href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com"
ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</A><BR>>
<mailto:<A href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com"
ymailto="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</A>>>
wrote:<BR>><BR>> In our experience a final model, done
right, would take<BR>> about 80
hours.<BR>><BR>> WARNING – frustrated modeling rant to
follow:<BR>><BR>> Doing just a final model however
completely misses the<BR>> point as to why we model – it is
to guide design decisions!<BR>><BR>> If I saw this RFP
and all it asked me for was a model to<BR>> determine LEED
points, during or after design, I would<BR>> try to educate
the potential client about the purpose of<BR>>
modeling.<BR>><BR>> Unfortunately too many projects
pursuing LEED are only<BR>> doing the minimum when it comes
to modeling and almost<BR>> completely missing all the
benefits. Too often the<BR>> “market” transforms only based
on a least first cost<BR>> denominator basis that results
in little real<BR>> transformation. Doing models to
determine LEED points<BR>> does not transform the market,
save any energy, and just<BR>> circumvents the purpose
behind LEED. (the next version<BR>> actually requires
design phase modeling!)<BR>><BR>> Any “modeler” who does
only final models without<BR>> attempting to explain to the
owner why this is a bad<BR>> idea should be “drummed out of
the corp” in my humble<BR>>
opinion.<BR>><BR>> The problem is that if you respond to
this RFP with 120<BR>> or 160 or more hours to really do
the design phase<BR>> modeling right, you will go up
against the “modeler” who<BR>> claims to be able to do it
in far less time. So how do<BR>> we get the folks who issue
the RFPs to ask for a proper<BR>> scope of work so that
they can compare fees on a level<BR>> playing field? It is
unfortunate that we are even having<BR>> a discussion about
doing modeling work in opposition to<BR>> its
purpose.<BR>><BR>> Sorry for the rant but I feel better
now. J<BR>><BR>> Marcus
Sheffer<BR>><BR>> Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group
Company<BR>><BR>> 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville,
PA 17365<BR>><BR>> 717-292-2636, <A
href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com"
ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</A><BR>>
<mailto:<A href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com"
ymailto="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</A>><BR>><BR><SPAN>>
<A href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target=_blank>www.sevengroup.com</A>
<</SPAN><A href="http://www.sevengroup.com/"
target=_blank>http://www.sevengroup.com/</A>><BR>><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>><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><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<BR>> Behalf Of *Demba Ndiaye<BR>>
*Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 4:28 PM<BR>> *To:* Omar
Delgado; <A href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>>
<mailto:<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] Energy Model Cost<BR>><BR>>
Omar,<BR>><BR>> I would expect, for a building this
size, approximately<BR>> 40 hours (multiply by your hourly
rate). The 40 hours<BR>> include EAp2/EAc1 LEED
documentation, and any review you<BR>> may have to respond
to later.<BR>><BR>> Now, given that you have never done
a LEED model, it<BR>> will take you more time, possibly up
to 40 more hours.<BR>><BR>>
HTH,<BR>><BR>>
_______________<BR>><BR>> Demba
NDIAYE<BR>><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>><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><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<BR>> Behalf Of *Omar Delgado<BR>>
*Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:08 PM<BR>> *To:* <A
href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org"
ymailto="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</A><BR>>
<mailto:<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] Energy Model Cost<BR>><BR>>
Greetings everyone,<BR>><BR>> I have a question
regarding the cost of an energy model<BR>> for a LEED
project. Every energy model I've done so far<BR>> has been
for<BR>><BR>> existing buildings, mainly for
optimization purposes.<BR>> However, I received an RFP to
model a five-story, 41,500<BR>> sq. ft.
building<BR>><BR>> that's currently on the design phase
and is pursuing the<BR>> LEED-NC Silver certification. I
really have no idea what<BR>> would be a
fair<BR>><BR>> price for this model since I'm going to
have to use<BR>> Appendix G (ASHRAE 90.1) to evaluate the
difference<BR>> between the
base<BR>><BR>> and proposed buildings. I don't know how
much extra<BR>> effort this will take. I know the
procedure, just<BR>> haven't done it
before.<BR>><BR>> Can you shed any light on this
issue?<BR>><BR>> Thanks in
advance!<BR>><BR>> /Omar A. Delgado Colón, P.E., MEnvM.,
LEED AP BD&C/<BR>><BR>> /Vice
President/<BR>><BR>>
*EnerMech*<BR>><BR>> PMB
340<BR>><BR>> 130 Winston Churchill
Ave.<BR>><BR>> San Juan, PR
00926-6018<BR>><BR>> Cel. (787)
224-6537<BR>><BR>> <A
href="mailto:odelgado@enermechpr.com"
ymailto="mailto:odelgado@enermechpr.com">odelgado@enermechpr.com</A> <<A
href="http://odelgado@enermechpr.com"
target=_blank>http://odelgado@enermechpr.com</A>><BR>><BR>>
<A href="mailto:info@enermechpr.com"
ymailto="mailto:info@enermechpr.com">info@enermechpr.com</A> <mailto:<A
href="mailto:info@enermechpr.com"
ymailto="mailto:info@enermechpr.com">info@enermechpr.com</A>><BR>><BR><SPAN>>
<A href="http://www.enermechpr.com" target=_blank>www.enermechpr.com</A>
<</SPAN><A href="http://www.enermechpr.com/"
target=_blank>http://www.enermechpr.com/</A>><BR>><BR>>
cid:<A href="mailto:image004.gif@01CAF34A.CAB"
ymailto="mailto:image004.gif@01CAF34A.CAB">image004.gif@01CAF34A.CAB</A>15830
/Please consider your<BR>> environmental responsibility
before printing this e-mail/<BR>><BR>> This Email is
covered by the Electronics Communications<BR>> Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is legally<BR>>
priviliged. The information in this email is personal<BR>>
and confidential and is intended solely for the<BR>>
addressee(s). Access to this email by anyone else is<BR>>
unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient,
you<BR>> must not read, use or disseminate the
information<BR>> contained in the email. Any views
expressed in this<BR>> message are those of the individual
sender and may be<BR>> subject to Attorney/Client privilege
and/or Work<BR>> Product. You are hereby notified that any
dissemination,<BR>> distribution or copying of this
communications is<BR>> strictly
prohibited.<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<BR>>
message to <A href="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
ymailto="mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</A><BR>>
<mailto:<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>>
--<BR>> Carol Gardner PE<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><BR>--
<BR>Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair<BR>Admin for
onebuilding.org building performance mailing lists<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Bldg-sim mailing
list<BR>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org<BR>To
unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>