<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;color:#b45f06">It occurs to me that every energy modeler "worth his / her salt" recognizes the limitations of a "baseline" model. It's a reference point intended to compare with another reference. It's a relative, not an absolute, comparison.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;color:#b45f06"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large;color:#b45f06">The models which compare predicted versus actual (e.g., utility bill) performance are a different matter. At that point, you start trying to gain understanding about why the model differs from reality. Until you have actual data, however, it's all relative and may bear little resemblance to reality.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Nicholas Caton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ncaton@catonenergy.com" target="_blank">ncaton@catonenergy.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Lots of strong points raised so far – I think this “conversation/debate” is one we must have all faced at some point. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I don’t have much else to add to what’s already been suggested, except to note many of the critical assumptions of occupant behavior / plug load density / system operations have an additional layer of obfuscation that shouldn’t be missed for new construction calibration: NC buildings’ actual energy bills immediately after occupancy are usually NOT representative of “typical” usage (for which Appendix G models are necessarily/justifiably based upon). The occupants are settling into, learning to operate, and calibrating/messing with/breaking the building’s systems. System commissioning is working the bugs out of actual system operations to match (or improve upon) the original design. I’ve also run into it taking some years to wrestle with the local utility when the wrong rates are applied to the building. Whenever I am tasked with calibrating from a newly occupied building (LEED/App.G or otherwise), it’s a high priority to determine at what extent the available utility metering/bills may be skewed by such “growing pains.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">With all this said however, all these “shortcomings” for mis-applying 90.1 Appendix G models to the task of “predicting” actual energy costs help to frame what they are actually very GOOD for. I think it might behoove you to at least outline that purpose in contrast:</span></p><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">[<i>insert G1.2 here</i>]</span></p><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Correctly developed 90.1 App. G models make very decent “platforms” from which to develop a calibrated model down the road. </span></p><p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d"><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">They have the advantage of a structured set of assumptions which can be transformed into a checklist for surveying actual operations. </span></p><p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1f497d"><span>o<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">For developing a calibrated model “from scratch,” much of the first stages of development are ready-made with a Proposed Appendix G model. Geometries, construction/window types, LPD’s, and mechanical systems are first defined referencing available construction documentation. From there, a brief review of “as-built” documentation (including submittals) should highlight some initial variances for evaluation. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#561782"><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">For the intended/stated purpose: developing a performance rating well before actual operations can be known, 90.1/Appendix G (in combination with the additional requirements of LEED and rigor of GBCI simulation review) is a fine option. Analogous standards I’ve worked with do some things better and some things worse, and there will likely always be room for improvement, but for all that we talk of problems/holes in the standard as applied to the “real world” of modern building design, the standard covers quite a bit well enough.</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#561782"></span></b></p><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#561782"><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">“Design phase” modeling, inclusive of the Appendix G protocol, is perhaps most critically useful in determining <u>relative</u> (not absolute) performance for design alternatives to inform the design process. In my experience, it’s a slippery slope to quantify design alternatives in terms other than relative % performance increases. Presenting such results in terms of $$$ savings supports the fallacy that such early results are founded upon something other than a broad range of (probably incorrect) assumptions. This is not a comfortable concept for most to grasp, but energy simulations are sometimes at their most informative when they are “wrong.” I have found it a difficult issue to explain for those outside our field, so I usually try to guide conversations around such sticky matters. The broader point I am trying to make in this bullet is that “relative” performance metrics have a distinct value from absolute cost predictions, and relative metrics translate better into informing the design process. Maybe someone else can make the point more eloquently… ?</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#561782"></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I hope that adds to the discussion for some =)!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">~Nick</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#561782"> </span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#561782"> </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">NICK CATON, P.E.</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><br></span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#561782">Owner</span></b></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#561782"> </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#561782">Caton Energy Consulting</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><br></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> 1150 N. 192<sup>nd</sup> St., #4-202</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> Shoreline, WA 98133<br> office: <a href="tel:785.410.3317" value="+17854103317" target="_blank">785.410.3317</a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#561782"><a href="http://www.catonenergy.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:#561782">www.catonenergy.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#561782"></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Bldg-sim [mailto:<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alfonso Hernandez<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 21, 2015 8:34 AM<br><b>To:</b> Maria Karpman; 'Brooks, Alamelu'; 'Jim Dirkes'; 'Nathan Kegel'; Jacob Dunn</span></p><div><div class="h5"><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings</div></div><p></p></div></div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jacob et al: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Some more points to the mix: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">1) Increased infiltration/exfiltration due to seasonal changes in wind patterns, which mostly affect high-rises, is not modeled very often. The changing nature of wind (more or less cold or hot wind coming from a given direction) will affect cooling and heating loads. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">2) Not every software can model the thermal mass of concrete or brick. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">3) Microclimatic conditions (the urban overshadowing Jacob was mentioning) have to do also with air movement (urban canyon effect), and are not modeled often.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">4) Buildings with Occupancy/Vacancy sensors are usually not modeled with accuracy. App G just gives a 10% LPD reduction when using them (in theory you could model them if you know the exact patterns of occupancy before construction, which never happens).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">5) Daylight Harvesting and Electrochromic glass are too dynamic systems to be modeled accurately (unpredictable occupancy again).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">However, I do agree with Prof. Reinhart about calibrating design models with as much real time data as possible. That way we could recreate other scenarios (climate change, systems decay, the impact of a change of occupancy, etc.). </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="ES-US" style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alfonso E. Hernandez, LEED AP</span></b><span lang="ES-US" style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:red">Kirksey</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:red"> |</span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> Architecture</span><span style="color:black"></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Bldg-sim [<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Maria Karpman<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:55 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'Brooks, Alamelu'; 'Jim Dirkes'; 'Nathan Kegel'<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings</span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">There is a section in Appendix G (G1.2) addressing this:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Neither the <i>proposed building performance </i>nor the</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">baseline building performance </span></i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">are predictions of</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">actual <i>energy </i>consumption or costs for the <i>proposed</i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">design </span></i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">after <i>construction</i>. Actual experience will differ</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">from these calculations due to variations such as occupancy,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">building operation and maintenance, weather,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">energy </span></i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">use not covered by this procedure, changes in</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">energy </span></i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">rates between design of the building and occupancy,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">and the precision of the calculation tool.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">You may also want to check out articles on building labeling systems that discuss differences between asset (theoretical, modeling-based) and operational (based on actual utility bills) ratings, such as the one attached (see p.4-6). Both have value as long as they are interpreted correctly. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Maria</span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">-- </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666">Maria Karpman </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666">LEED AP, BEMP, CEM</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666">________________</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666">Karpman Consulting</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666"><a href="http://www.karpmanconsulting.net/" target="_blank">www.karpmanconsulting.net</a> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#666666">Phone </span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#666666;background:white"><a href="tel:860.430.1909" value="+18604301909" target="_blank">860.430.1909</a> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#666666">41C New London Turnpike</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#666666">Glastonbury, CT 06033</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </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 [<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Brooks, Alamelu<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:43 AM<br><b>To:</b> Jim Dirkes; Nathan Kegel<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings</span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I believe Appendix G is not meant to measure the performance of the existing building. ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G Technical Committee is the right source to answer this question. They can clarify the intention of the APP G modeling methodology.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Best,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Alamelu</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Alamelu Brooks LEED AP (BD+C), HBDP, BEAP, EIT| Senior Associate | <a href="tel:%2B1.443.718.4881" value="+14437184881" target="_blank">+1.443.718.4881</a> direct | <a href="mailto:Alamelu.Brooks@icfi.com" target="_blank">Alamelu.Brooks@icfi.com</a> | <a href="http://icfi.com" target="_blank">icfi.com</a> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">ICF INTERNATIONAL | 7125 Thomas Edison Drive, Suite 100, Columbia, MD 21046 USA </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:2.25pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Connect with us on <a href="http://www.icfi.com/social" target="_blank">social media</a>.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span></p><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 [<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jim Dirkes<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:36 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nathan Kegel<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:18.0pt;color:#b45f06">I agree fully with all of the above comments and would like to add these:</span></p></div><div><ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:#b45f06">Even buildings that are commissioned properly will see their performance erode over time. There are hundreds of reason for this, ranging from poor maintenance to well-intentioned maintenance people not having time to monitor operations well. There is NO BUILDING that operates well for long.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:#b45f06">Buildings often see changes in operation, occupancy and schedule. These are oftimes gradual changes over a period of years, but can be substantial</span></li></ul></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Nathan Kegel <<a href="mailto:nathan.kegel@iesve.com" target="_blank">nathan.kegel@iesve.com</a>> wrote:</p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="14d77933ec5d59cc_14d76db336d12194__MailEndCompose"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Climate files used in the simulations versus the actual weather.</span></a><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I’m in the midst of a project that shows a variance in EUI of up to 200% just by changing the climate file for the DOE primary school. Full results to be presented in September.</span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Add in all the other factors already mentioned, and if your 90.1 model comes anywhere close the real buildings’ it’s far more likely that the 90.1 model was extremely “lucky” than it is that the model used accurate assumptions.</span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Regards,</span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Nathan</span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><table border="0" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" width="463" style="width:347.25pt"><thead><tr><td valign="top" style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.iesve.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="61" height="61" src="cid:image001.png@01D093A9.2F938EE0"></span></a></p></td><td valign="top" style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67">Nathan Kegel</span></b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67"><br></span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67">Business Development Manager</span></b></p></td><td valign="top" style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67">O:</span></p></td><td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67"> <a href="tel:763.276.9981" target="_blank">763.276.9981</a></span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67">M:</span></p></td><td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67"> <a href="tel:415.420.9314" target="_blank">415.420.9314</a></span></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.iesve.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67">http://www.iesve.com</span></a><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67"> </span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67">Integrated Environmental Solutions Limited. Registered in Scotland No. SC151456<br>Registered Office - Helix Building, West Of Scotland Science Park, Glasgow G20 0SP</span></p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.iesve.com/disclaimer.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67">Email Disclaimer</span></a><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#305c67"> </span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Bldg-sim [mailto:<a href="mailto:bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">bldg-sim-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Maria-Lida Kou<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:17 AM<br><b>To:</b> Jacob Dunn<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings</span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Jacob,</span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Happy to hear that other people are thinking the same. </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I was into this subject on my own thoughts recently.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I would like to add in your list: Occupants' behavior actually which is not in the stage to be included into the prediction.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I would add commissioning as well along with controls simulation and controls operation.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Apologies because I haven't worked with LEED projects but I think the above applied in general to "the performance gap".</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Really looking forward to hearing more about this subject as I am not that experienced engineer yet, but really interested in "the performance" side of buildings.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Best,</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Maria-Lida Kounadi</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">2015-05-21 15:04 GMT+01:00 Jacob Dunn <<a href="mailto:jdunn@eskewdumezripple.com" target="_blank">jdunn@eskewdumezripple.com</a>>:</span></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Bldg-Sim Community – <span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">I’m trying to compile a list of why it might be inappropriate to compare Appendix G models to actual consumption data. This comes about because I recently got into a debate with one of my co-workers when looking at the infamous NBI chart/study that shows little correlation to predicted and actual energy values of LEED buildings. I was trying to explain that the Appendix G model’s intent is NOT to be compared to actual consumption, as it is a modeling protocol aimed at creating consistent relative comparisons for LEED points. <span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Here are the reasons thus far that support this notion (that App G models shouldn’t be compared to actual data). Does anyone know of any resources out there that expand upon this? Or can you think other reasons?<span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p>-<span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>Appendix G does not take into account external shading, which can be critical in urban environments for accurate energy predictions<span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p>-<span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>Schedules are typically not created with the intent of being predictive. Overall building hours are adhered to, but detailed schedule creation is not usually in the scope of a LEED model (or is it, in your experience?). For instance, typical plug load base values during unoccupied times are .3, this is a pretty big assumption.<span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p>-<span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>The App G model uses a TMY weather file, which can vary from the current weather year (I wonder on average by how much?)<span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p>-<span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>Infiltration values are assumed, unless blower door testing has been done (which is rare for commercial buildings).<span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p>-<span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span>Thermostat values are modeled as consistent across the building, which is rarely the case in an actual operating building<span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Any additional insight is much appreciated!<span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7d7773;letter-spacing:.3pt">Jacob Dunn LEED AP BD+C</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#a9aa23;letter-spacing:.3pt">ESKEW+DUMEZ+RIPPLE, APC</span></b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;letter-spacing:.3pt"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;line-height:110%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7d7773;letter-spacing:.3pt">2014 AIA National Architecture Firm Award</span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7d7773;letter-spacing:.3pt"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7d7773;letter-spacing:.3pt">365 Canal Street Suite 3150 </span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7d7773;letter-spacing:.3pt">New Orleans LA 70130</span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7d7773;letter-spacing:.3pt"><a href="tel:504.561.8686" target="_blank">504.561.8686</a></span><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#7d7773;letter-spacing:.3pt"><a href="http://www.eskewdumezripple.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#7d7773">eskewdumezripple.com</span></a></span></u><span lang="EN-GB"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-GB"></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-GB"><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" target="_blank">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></span></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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" target="_blank">BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br><br clear="all"></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div><p class="MsoNormal">-- </p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">James V Dirkes II, PE, BEMP, LEED AP<br>CEO/President<br>The Building Performance Team Inc.<br>1631 Acacia Dr, GR, Mi 49504<br><br>Direct: <a href="tel:616.450.8653" value="+16164508653" target="_blank">616.450.8653</a><br><a href="mailto:jim@buildingperformanceteam.com" target="_blank">jim@buildingperformanceteam.com</a><br><br><a href="http://buildingperformanceteamcom" target="_blank">Website </a>l <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jim-dirkes/7/444/413" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a></p><p style="margin-top:6.0pt"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue;background:white">The truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if <i>everyone</i> believes it.</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><hr size="1" width="100%" noshade style="color:#a0a0a0" align="center"></div><p class="MsoNormal">No virus found in this message.<br>Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4311/9832 - Release Date: 05/21/15</p></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"></span></p>James V Dirkes II, PE, BEMP, LEED AP<br>CEO/President<br>The Building Performance Team Inc.<br>1631 Acacia Dr, GR, Mi 49504<br><br>Direct: 616.450.8653<br><a href="mailto:jim@buildingperformanceteam.com" target="_blank">jim@buildingperformanceteam.com</a><br><br><a href="http://buildingperformanceteamcom" target="_blank">Website </a>l <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jim-dirkes/7/444/413" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a><p align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center"><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"MS Reference Sans Serif","sans-serif""> </span></i></b><span style="font-family:"MS Reference Sans Serif","sans-serif""></span></p><p style="vertical-align:middle">
</p><p style="margin-top:6.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><font size="4" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" color="#0000ff">The
truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if <i>everyone</i>
believes it.</font><span style="font-size:10pt"></span></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>