<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)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Stylus BT";
panose-1:2 14 4 2 2 2 6 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-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.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.style2
{mso-style-name:style2;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="2050" />
</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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hi Christian,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>A LEED reviewer brought up this issue
for a heated/ventilated-only garage space recently. Owner did not want a
cooling system beyond ventilation, and one was not designed. Ultimately, our
reviewer cited TG3.1.1.b / G3.1.10 directly, and I conceded to model
baseline-esque cooling systems in both models. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I’m not sure section 2.2
is a great defense as it states the standard doesn’t apply to *envelopes*
without a heating/cooling system… not ventilation systems (2.2.b.).
A better defense is if your warehouse is by 90.1 glossary terms an <i><u>unconditioned
space</u></i>, by virtue of not meeting any of the three <i><u>conditioned
space</u></i> definitions. In that case, I think you could flatly reject
TG3.1.1.b as “not applicable” if it were brought up. In our
garage space above, this wasn’t an option as it was definitely a <i><u>heated
space</u></i> (see glossary for underlined terms).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I’d agree modeling both
models with ventilation only is the intuitive thing to do in the context of a
validation (LEED) model. The intent of this language however, if I’m
not mistaken, is to discourage/punish design decisions to omit heating and/or cooling
systems entirely to save energy. Never mind that’s actually a very effective
strategy, under the right circumstances and in moderation… I’ve
got some contrarian opinions in this department, so I’ll keep my mouth
shut =).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>~Nick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><img width=119 height=37
id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CC2037.893BF5C0"
alt="cid:489575314@22072009-0ABB"></span><b><span style='font-family:"Stylus BT","sans-serif";
color:#2D4D5E'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Stylus BT","sans-serif";
color:#2D4D5E'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Stylus BT","sans-serif";
color:#2D4D5E'>NICK CATON, E.I.T.</span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Stylus BT","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;color:#CC9900'>PROJECT ENGINEER<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>Smith &
Boucher Engineers</span><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#CC9900'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>25501 west
valley parkway<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>olathe ks 66061<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>direct 913
344.0036<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>fax 913
345.0617<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><a href="www.smithboucher.com"
title="blocked::www.smithboucher.com"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>www.smithboucher.com</span></a></span><u><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'> </span></u><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
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>christian
stalberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 01, 2011 5:32 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Bldg-sim] ventilation only & LEED<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>The
warehouse section of our facility in El Salvador is to be ventilated
only. The textile section of the same building will be cooled and
humidity will be controlled. Other areas such as offices and cafeteria will be
cooled. There is no heating load in El Salvador. I reviewed inquiry 5088 (copy
below) which would suggest the warehouse should be modeled with air
conditioning in both the base case and the proposed case even though no cooling
will be provided. Our building is a little different than the building in
inquiry 5088 in that it has no heating load. Therefore by the 90.1
standard, the standard does not apply (section 2.2) and it is an unconditioned
space. We feel the ventilated section of our building should be rated
based on energy savings of standard ventilation equipment versus the proposed
high efficiency fans and louvers that we are providing for ventilation.
We would like to proceed with the ventilated enclosures being included in the
model without heating or cooling. Please advise.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellpadding=0>
<tr>
<td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Inquiry
Number: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><strong><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>5088</span></strong><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>MPR/Prerequisite/Credit:
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>EAc1:
Optimize Energy Performance </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Posting
date: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>11/27/2007
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>It
is not acceptable to allow spaces to exceed the unmet load hour requirements of
the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 Appendix G methodology. This is a similar situation to
naturally <span style='background:yellow'>ventilated spaces</span>, which are
required to include cooling systems to meet space loads in the proposed case
even if the actual building will contain no cooling. Building owners may always
choose to turn off HVAC systems, or not have them installed at all to conserve
energy, but the ASHRAE modeling protocol assumes that cooling systems will be installed
and run with sufficient capacity to meet space loads. The applicant may use a
set-point of 80 degrees Fahrenheit for the maintenance bays, but cooling system
capacity must be increased until the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 section
G3.1.2.2 are met. The project may still receive credit for using an efficient
cooling system as compared to the ASHRAE baseline cooling system.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'> <span
class=style2>Inquiry </span>[<img border=0 id="_x0000_i1025"
src="https://www.usgbc.org/images/LI/Minus.GIF">] </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellpadding=0>
<tr>
<td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</td>
<td style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"'>Our
project is located in Las Vegas and consists of a combination of office
spaces and maintenance bays for earth-moving equipment. The owner is a large
agency that sells, rents and repairs such equipment; these repairs are done
both inside and outside the building envelope. The maintenance bays are
occupied by mechanics and will be conditioned with evaporative coolers and
gas furnace heat, the system supplies 100% outside air. This cooling system
provides conditioning of the spaces but is not able to meet all peak loads
for a climate such as Las Vegas even when these spaces are modeled with
higher setpoint at 80 degrees. In reality, if the maintenance bays go above
the temperature setpoints, the mechanics will continue work in the warmer
conditions or take a break. This is not difficult for maintenance bays, where
some of the work will also done outdoors with no conditioning at all. The
owner does not want to fully condition the maintenance bays with the
intention of achieving high levels of energy efficiency. We propose the
following modeling approach for EA Credit 1. -Baseline model will have a
mechanical system based on Table G3.1.1A of Appendix G with 80 degree
temperature setpoint for the maintenance bays. -Proposed Design model will
have the system as designed in the building that provides partial
conditioning with the same 80 degree temperature setpoint. We will not model
additional compressor cooling for hours where the system is not able to meet
loads. This approach will result in exceeding the difference in the unmet
load hours beyond 50 as required by Appendix G. However, this is a conscious
decision by the owner who wants to maximize energy efficiency by providing
limited conditioning through evaporative cooling for the maintenance bays,
and allow the temperatures to float higher during peak conditions. We feel
that this approach appropriately captures the intent of the design, and gives
credit to the energy efficiency measures being taken. It also provides a way
for demonstrating the value of an energy efficient approach to the community in
Las Vegas where compressor cooling is increasingly used, often
indiscriminately; this is a desert climate and a different approach to
comfort and conditioning is possible. Is this approach acceptable? If not,
can you advise us on an alternative approach that addresses the desire of the
owner to demonstrate high levels of energy efficiency for using such a
system?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>