[Equest-users] Adding Insulationtoexistingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)

Fri Sep 9 21:50:43 PDT 2011

Thanks Joe - this is making sense now!

I'll go back to the drawing board and ensure my economizer functions are
doing what they ought to - if I find anything to the contrary I'll
report back =).

~Nick

NICK CATON, P.E.
SENIOR ENGINEER

Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
olathe, ks 66061
direct 913.344.0036
fax 913.345.0617
www.smithboucher.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Huang [mailto:YJHuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:10 PM
To: Nick Caton
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Adding
Insulationtoexistingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)

Nick,

What you're overlooking is that when it's hotter outside than inside, 
there's an immediate
short circuit through ventilation, i.e., just open the windows or, in a 
commercial building,
run the economizer. At that point, the insulation becomes irrelevant. 
That's why I say adding
insulation may not buy you much, if any, additional cooling savings, but

I don't believe that
it will cause increased cooling energy use. I've seen numerous studies 
showing that
cooling energies would go up, but in all these cases ventilation was 
either ignored
or improperly scheduled.

Joe

Joe Huang
White Box Technologies, Inc.
346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 108D
Moraga CA 94556
yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com
www.whiteboxtechnologies.com
(o) (925)388-0265
(c) (510)928-2683
"building energy simulations at your fingertips"

On 9/9/2011 7:29 PM, Nick Caton wrote:
> Hey Joe!
>
> I may be missing something fundamental here...  can anyone set me
> straight?
>
> Understanding that "super-insulation" levels slow the passage of heat
> into a building in the hottest hours of the day, I can understand
> concluding an envelope that doesn't "breathe" thermally doesn't seem
so
> bad, but what about when interior spaces are hotter than the exterior
> during the cooling seasons (i.e. night/morning)? I speculate this
> "night-time heatsink" effect likely isn't very much present in
humid/hot
> climates, but in dry/4-season climates I think the swing seasons and
> portions of the summer can be expected to have this potential...
>
> Perhaps these effects in combination cancel each other out in some
> climates/cases, but I've found multiple times in the past that there's
a
> point where adding insulation beyond a certain point can have a
> detrimental effect on the net heating/cooling consumptions over the
> year.  Is this just a result of my limited experience pool?
>
> John: Sorry, I mis-read the tone of your posting!  I do know you to be
a
> respectful/respectable character, but I thought a caution on anonymity
> may be beneficial for the community.
>
> ~Nick
>
> NICK CATON, P.E.
> SENIOR ENGINEER
>
> Smith&  Boucher Engineers
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
> olathe, ks 66061
> direct 913.344.0036
> fax 913.345.0617
> www.smithboucher.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Joe
> Huang
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:09 PM
> To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Adding
> Insulationtoexistingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> I have to admit that I read this thread solely because the subject
line
> said,
> "UNCLASSIFIED" :-)
> However, having skimmed through what has been written, I take issue
with
> the statement that
> adding too much insulation would push up the cooling load by
"trapping"
> internal heat gains.
> As has been said, if the outside air temperature is cooler, the
internal
> heat gains can be
> flushed
> out using natural or forced ventilation, i.e., an economizer.  But
what
> about when the
> outside air
> temperature is higher than indoors?  Well, in that case the direction
of
> heat flow would
> be inwards,
> so added insulation would be beneficial!  In summary, my conclusion
has
> been that adding too
> much insulation would be ineffectual or not cost-effective, but not
> detrimental.  The one
> caveat
> would be if the increased fan electricity for the economizer is
greater
> than the savings
> in heating
> and cooling energy use.
>
> Joe
>
> Joe Huang
> White Box Technologies, Inc.
> 346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 108D
> Moraga CA 94556
> yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com
> www.whiteboxtechnologies.com
> (o) (925)388-0265
> (c) (510)928-2683
> "building energy simulations at your fingertips"
>
>
> On 9/9/2011 3:16 PM, Eurek, John S NWO wrote:
>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>> Caveats: NONE
>>
>>
>> I did not mean to sound negative towards CERL, I have their web site
>> bookmarked.  They are a great asset for information.
>>
>> I'm assuming we both made energy models.  We likely just used
> different
>> inputs (schedules, plug-loads and 1000 other variable)  I'm very open
> to the
>> idea my model/assumptions are off.
>>
>> My goal is to find what is most efficient, not to prove somebody
> wrong.  I
>> did talk to the guy for awhile, he gave me so much useful information
> that we
>> didn't dwell on the insulation topic too much.
>>
>>
>> One thing I learned from him was about the ASHRAE Datacom series.
All
> our
>> computer rooms are required to be 72 degrees.  I have seen studies
> showing
>> that a computer room temperature can be higher without endangering
the
>> equipment, the manufactures even state this.  I think having ASHRAE
> also
>> saying it may help convince owners to allow the computer room
> temperatures to
>> be set a little higher to save a lot of energy.
>>
>> http://www.ashrae.org/publications/page/1900
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wolfe, Brian [mailto:bwolfe at hksinc.com]
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:49 PM
>> To: Eurek, John S NWO; Nick Caton; David Eldridge;
>> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>> Subject: RE: [Equest-users] Adding
> Insulationtoexistingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)
>> The intent of energy modeling is to understand how to optimize a
> building's
>> efficiency and this clearly shows this is not efficient.  Where's the
>> efficiency in installing enough insulation that it drives up the
loads
> of a
>> system.  This would negate true optimization and efficiency.  Plus,
> there's a
>> waste of material and cost by adding something that is not needed.  I
> agree
>> that if you are able to optimize the outside air, that would help,
but
> this
>> sounds like a misunderstanding of true energy efficiency.  To play
off
> your
>> scenarios of examples:  2(heating and cooling loads) - 1(heating) =
>> 1(cooling) x 3(increased cooling) = 3(the amount of load caused by
> super
>> insulating)  this just isn't efficient.
>>
>> I'm on your side that super insulating is not an efficient strategy.
>> Increased load, excess materials and extra cost, it doesn't make
> sense.  I'm
>> interested in their reasoning for this strategy being a beneficial
> one.
>> Good luck.
>>
>> Brian Wolfe, CDT, LEED AP BD+C
>> Sustainable Design Coordinator
>> HKS  |  Enhancing the Human Experience
>> If you are sending large files, please use my Thru dropbox.
>> vCard
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of
> Eurek, John
>> S NWO
>> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 2:29 PM
>> To: Nick Caton; David Eldridge; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Adding Insulation
>> toexistingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)
>>
>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>> Caveats: NONE
>>
>> Today I received an e-mail with recommendations from the Construction
>> Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) and in the recommendations was
> an R-50
>> roof (super insulation).
>>
>> The recommendations were from the building I ran energy models for
and
> my
>> results showed that too much insulation increases energy use.  I hit
> 'reply
>> all' to the e-mail and told everyone that I disagree with their
> research and
>> explained what my models showed.  I received a call from a person
from
> CERL,
>> he was a little defensive.  We agreed with everything but the super
>> insulation.
>>
>> I know this will come up in a future meeting and before I go
> toe-to-toe with
>> him and tell the guy he is wrong, I want to make sure I am right.
>>
>> One of his quotes was "We want the insulation so good that you can
> heat the
>> room with a single match."  I repeatedly told him that it isn't the
> heating,
>> it is the cooling.  He responded with, "the building shouldn't depend
> on the
>> skin to remove heat". I agreed using the skin for cooling isn't the
> best
>> method, but it is what happens.
>>
>> I would agree with him that super insulation would be great IF the
> system has
>> the ability to bring in a lot of outside air.  The outside air will
be
> 'free
>> cooling' minus the fan energy.  The large amount of outside air in
> essence
>> allows you to artificially make the R value zero (just like opening
> the
>> windows)  (*snicker to myself - it is fan assisted natural
> ventilation*)
>> Will the ability to draw in outside air solve the problem of
increased
>> cooling load for a super insulated building?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, to those who are still reading - A part of the energy modeler's
> job is
>> to understand what is happening then explaining it to others. (Even
>> architects)
>> The analogies below all involve this building with massive internal
> loads.
>> The architect insisted that you can reduce energy use by optimizing
> the
>> orientation.  I ran the model, it only made a 0.05% difference.
>>
>> -I told him "It is like trying to get better gas mileage by turning
> down the
>> radio in your car.  The skin load is tiny compared to the servers,
> lights and
>> computer loads."
>> -Later I told somebody "It is like trying to make a bull-doze
> aerodynamic,
>> this building is a work horse.  If it were an empty house I would
> agree
>> rotation matters more."
>> -And "With this much insulation, the orientation doesn't matter as
> much. If
>> you on the beach in a speedo it matters. If you are in a parka
covered
> head
>> to toe, not so much."
>>
>>
>> John Eurek PE, LEED AP
>> Mechanical Engineer,
>> US Army Corps of Engineers
>> Omaha District CENWO-ED-DA
>> 1616 Capitol Avenue
>> Omaha, NE 68102
>> Phone: (402) 995-2134
>> email: john.s.eurek at usace.army.mil
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick
> Caton
>> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 2:52 PM
>> To: David Eldridge; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Adding Insulation
>> toexistingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)
>>
>> David,
>>
>> Remind me never to ask you how a thermos works ^_^.
>>
>> John,
>>
>> I wrote most of this yesterday and David beat me to the punch... I'm
> echoing
>> much of the same from his response but maybe it'll help as well??
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Economizers work just as you describe, and are great energy savers
> when the
>> OA temps are conducive to comfort... (moving air generally takes less
> energy
>> than moving heat + air)
>>
>> But sometimes it's 110F+ at your RTU in the dead heat of the
summer...
>> In our local climate and I'm sure many others, the brunt of the
> cooling
>> season has OA temps well above what we want to supply to achieve
> comfort
>> inside.  Economizer function isn't terribly helpful in this
situation.
>> With too much insulation, you still run into the same fundamental
> problem of
>> "too much heat inside," with no options but to reject the heat using
> your
>> cooling equipment outside, even if you do have an economizer.
>>
>> Your assertion holds true, that super-insulation can be a non-issue
> when you
>> have an economizer, but only for specific times in the year when the
> outside
>> conditions are cooperating.  Where having an economizer (or not) may
> have a
>> dampening effect on the relative impact/problem of "super-insulating"
> on an
>> annual basis, it could only remove the issue for the brunt of the
> cooling
>> season in a specific sort of cool, temperate climate.
>>
>> Even in such a climate, blasting tons of extra air into the building
> to "get
>> around" someone's decision to over-insulate the envelope doesn't seem
>> ideal... every building should have an envelope construction where
> "enough is
>> enough."
>>
>> There is an easy answer to your office's water query: "it depends."
>> (haha, I'll be here all night!)
>>
>> There unfortunately isn't a blanket rule here because the answer does
> depends
>> on efficiency of the pumps (or fans), which itself is dependent on
the
> piping
>> (or duct) static being overcome (variability of that comes into play
> for some
>> systems), and the efficiency of the cooling equipment as well - be it
> a
>> chiller plant or rooftop DX refrigeration...
>> everything balances out and playing with different supply temps/flow
> rates
>> will return a unique answer for every project if you take the time to
> play
>> with it.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> As David concludes, this is indeed why modelers are ultimately such
> popular
>> characters =)!
>>
>> ~Nick
>>
>> NICK CATON, P.E.
>> SENIOR ENGINEER
>>
>> Smith&   Boucher Engineers
>> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
>> olathe, ks 66061
>> direct 913.344.0036
>> fax 913.345.0617
>> www.smithboucher.com
>>
>>
>>
>> NICK CATON, P.E.
>> SENIOR ENGINEER
>>
>> Smith&   Boucher Engineers
>> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
>> olathe, ks 66061
>> direct 913.344.0036
>> fax 913.345.0617
>> www.smithboucher.com
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of
David
>> Eldridge
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:50 PM
>> To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Adding Insulation to
>> existingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)
>>
>> Nick, my analogy when I talk about coffee thermoses is a metal
> building with
>> internal loads and varying insulation levels.
>>
>> Anyway - back to the original poster, this phenomenon could more
often
> be
>> true where generally it is cooler outside than inside for much of the
> year.
>> To reply to John E.'s subsequent post -- there likely will still be
> some
>> hours where it is cooler outside than inside (and the insulation is
> now a
>> detriment) even if there is an  economizer.  Even while the air
system
> is
>> providing cooling (whether compressor-based or economizer) the walls
> may
>> still be conducting energy -- they don't stop based on the HVAC
system
>> status.
>>
>> Certainly the availability of an economizer can mitigate this
problem,
> but
>> might not make it go away completely.
>>
>> But that's why we have energy models -- insulation that looks great
at
> both
>> design days will still have some hours in the middle where it might
> make
>> energy use higher -- run a model and find out what the net is.
>> (Unless the building is on Mercury...then always add as much as
>> possible.)
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
> Grumman/Butkus
>> Associates
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
>> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick
> Caton
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:00 PM
>> To: Eurek, John S NWO; mikef at facilitymgt.com;
>> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Adding Insulation to existing
>> building(UNCLASSIFIED)
>>
>> Agreeing with John per usual...
>>
>> Any building with internal loads will have some break-point where
> adding more
>> insulation to the envelope will be detrimental to annual energy
> consumption.
>> It's a bigger deal whenever your internals are relatively high.  The
> behavior
>> you're describing is fundamentally sound.
>>
>> A good thermos keeps my coffee hot longer (great in the wintertime),
> but it's
>> not the ideal container when my coffee is scalding-hot and I want the
>> contents to cool down.
>>
>> I've yet to settle on a favorite analogy myself... this just comes to
> mind
>> because I need to make a new pot here at work...
>>
>> NICK CATON, P.E.
>> SENIOR ENGINEER
>>
>> Smith&   Boucher Engineers
>> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
>> olathe, ks 66061
>> direct 913.344.0036
>> fax 913.345.0617
>> www.smithboucher.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Equest-users mailing list
>>
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
>> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>> _______________________________________________
>> Equest-users mailing list
>>
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
>> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>>
>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>> Caveats: NONE
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Equest-users mailing list
>>
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
>> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>>
>>
>>
>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>> Caveats: NONE
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Equest-users mailing list
>>
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>