Any reason these efforts cannot be merged with BEMbook? I feel the community really wants something like BEMbook as soon as possible.<div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Jeff Haberl <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jhaberl@tamu.edu">jhaberl@tamu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Jason.<br>
<br>
I'd suggest you think about an ASHRAE protocol, or Guideline first, then a standard. I also think IBPSA/USA could easily get behind this. I'd be happy to be a part of the group.<br>
<br>
Jeff<br>
BB 8=! 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=( 8=) :=') 8=) 8=) 8=? BB<br>
<br>
Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D., P.E., <a href="mailto:FASHRAE...................jhaberl@tamu.edu">FASHRAE...................jhaberl@tamu.edu</a><br>
<br>
Professor......................................................Office Ph: <a href="tel:979-845-6507" value="+19798456507">979-845-6507</a><br>
<br>
Department of Architecture.......................Lab Ph: <a href="tel:979-845-6065" value="+19798456065">979-845-6065</a><br>
<br>
Energy Systems Laboratory.......................FAX: <a href="tel:979-862-2457" value="+19798622457">979-862-2457</a><br>
<br>
Texas A&M University..............................77843-3581<br>
<br>
College Station, Texas, USA.......................URL: <a href="http://www-esl.tamu.edu" target="_blank">www-esl.tamu.edu</a><br>
<br>
BB 8=/ 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=() 8=) 8=? 8=) 8=) 8= BB<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: Jason Glazer [mailto:<a href="mailto:jglazer@gard.com">jglazer@gard.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Fri May 13 11:35:01 2011<br>
To: <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@onebuilding.org</a> <<a href="mailto:bldg-sim@onebuilding.org">bldg-sim@onebuilding.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost<br>
<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 <a href="http://onebuilding.org" target="_blank">onebuilding.org</a> 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 <a href="tel:913%20344.0036" value="+19133440036">913 344.0036</a><br>
><br>
> fax <a href="tel:913%20345.0617" value="+19133450617">913 345.0617</a><br>
><br>
> www.smithboucher.com__<br>
><br>
> *From:*<a href="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">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">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>;<br>
> <a href="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">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="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">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a>;<br>
> <a href="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: <a href="tel:%28312%29%20429-8116" value="+13124298116">(312) 429-8116</a><br>
> F: <a href="tel:%28312%29%20429-8800" value="+13124298800">(312) 429-8800</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:E%3Awmak@epsteinglobal.com">E:wmak@epsteinglobal.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:wmak@epsteinglobal.com">wmak@epsteinglobal.com</a>><br>
> W:<a href="http://www.epsteinglobal.com" target="_blank">www.epsteinglobal.com</a> <<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">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="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">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>
> <a href="tel:717-292-2636" value="+17172922636">717-292-2636</a>, <a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target="_blank">www.sevengroup.com</a> <<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">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">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">cmg750@gmail.com</a>><br>
> *To:* <a href="mailto:sheffer@energyopportunities.com">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a><br>
> *Cc:* <a href="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">sheffer@energyopportunities.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="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>
> <a href="tel:717-292-2636" value="+17172922636">717-292-2636</a>, <a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sheffer@sevengroup.com">sheffer@sevengroup.com</a>><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.sevengroup.com" target="_blank">www.sevengroup.com</a> <<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">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="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">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="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">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="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">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="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">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="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">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="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. <a href="tel:%28787%29%20224-6537" value="+17872246537">(787) 224-6537</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:odelgado@enermechpr.com">odelgado@enermechpr.com</a> <<a href="http://odelgado" target="_blank">http://odelgado</a>@<a href="http://enermechpr.com" target="_blank">enermechpr.com</a>><br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:info@enermechpr.com">info@enermechpr.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:info@enermechpr.com">info@enermechpr.com</a>><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.enermechpr.com" target="_blank">www.enermechpr.com</a> <<a href="http://www.enermechpr.com/" target="_blank">http://www.enermechpr.com/</a>><br>
><br>
> cid:image004.gif@01CAF34A.CAB15830 /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">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="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">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
<br>
--<br>
Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair<br>
Admin for <a href="http://onebuilding.org" target="_blank">onebuilding.org</a> building performance mailing lists<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">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div><br></div><div><font size="2"><br></font></div><div><p>Arpan Bakshi,<span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:arial, sans-serif"><i> </i>LEED AP BD+C</span><span style="color:rgb(64, 64, 64);font-size:12px;font-weight:normal"></span></p>
</div><br>
</div>