[Equest-users] 90.1 G3.1.1 and Manufacturing Facilities

[Marcus Eliason]

Nick,

Thanks for the insight.  I was able to find an ASHRAE interpretation (IC 90.1-2007-05) that is some help, but as the manufacturing area is the predominant condition, changing it for the G.3.1.1 exceptions does not appear applicable.  I did find a few LEED CIRs (#5313 and #2423) that say that if the HVAC serving a “process” space is to meet process requirements, and not occupant comfort, than modeling the systems neutral between the Proposed and Baseline is still allowed.  I think either way it is going to be a fight with LEED though.  Thanks again for your help.

Regards,


Marcus T Eliason, PE, LEED AP
Consultant

Apollo BBC
Better Building Consultants

713.869.0000
5116 Bissonnet, No 262
Bellaire, Texas 77401
www.apollobbc.com


Better Answers.

> On Apr 28, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Nicholas Caton <ncaton at catonenergy.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marcus,
> 
> Noting the phrase "predominant condition" sources from the subnotes of Table
> G3.1.1A, and addresses separate issues from those tackled by the exceptions
> under section G3.1.1, it is my impression you should be free to leverage
> G3.1.1 exception 'b' for the zones with atypical process loads, even if
> those zones make up the majority of the facility by area.  I can't speak for
> LEED precedent in this circumstance, but your proposal  passes my gut check
> for what it's worth.
> 
> That said, you should ideally:
> 1. Spend at least one hot coffee mug trawling through
> http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations to collect/review any directly
> applicable precedents.  If you come up empty, a cursory review of
> http://www.leeduser.com/discuss may be illuminating, but be mindful even
> though GBCI/USGBC staff participate there, those discussions are not
> considered "official" and are less cite-able.
> 2. Take the stance/tone of "does not seem appropriate" and develop that into
> a strong justification to leverage this exception.  Have a discussion with
> the mechanical designer(s) so that you can concisely address why a CV system
> makes sense for the actual design in lieu of a VAV system, and further
> outline how the substantially different process/occupancy loads in play
> support this descision.
> 3. Present that justification and proposal to use a Baseline system type #4
> for those spaces to GBCI prior to submission (read: well in advance of your
> own submission deadline), to get an official response you can directly cite
> in documentation.  Leverage the "certification question" button here:
> http://www.usgbc.org/contactus
> 
> A related point/suggestion: in the past I've handled the conundrum of
> process-heavy facilities of this nature, where the incident process loads
> drown out the otherwise substantially energy-efficient building systems.  I
> have since resolved that next time I am handling one of these projects under
> LEED-NC, I would open a discussion with GBCI to propose applying the LEED-CS
> alternative compliance path (ACP) for EAp2/EAc1.  From putting that to
> practice, it strikes me as a very fair and appropriate alternative framework
> to adjust LEED EAc1 point thresholds, rewarding efficient design
> hidden/muted behind substantial process loads which the building owner may
> have little/zero influence or control over.
> 
> Just food for thought - though that may be a battle you might want to pass
> on ;)
> 
> Best of luck,
> 
> ~Nick
> 
> 
> NICK CATON, P.E.
> Owner
> 
> Caton Energy Consulting
>  1150 N. 192nd St., #4-202
>  Shoreline, WA 98133
>  office:  785.410.3317
> www.catonenergy.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On
> Behalf Of Marcus Eliason
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 7:26 AM
> To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: [Equest-users] 90.1 G3.1.1 and Manufacturing Facilities
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am modeling a large, conditioned manufacturing facility with attached
> offices.  The baseline building is modeled as System 8, “VAV with PFP
> Boxes.”  The proposed building uses constant volume RTUs.  From a design
> perceptive, I see how a VAV system makes sense for a standard office
> building, but using VAV for a large and tall manufacturing space does not
> seem appropriate.   Does anyone have any experience using the exceptions in
> Section G3.1.1 to allow for a constant volume system (similar to Sys 4) in a
> manufacturing space?
> 
> The manufacturing area will have higher process and occupancy loads than the
> offices, but is the predominant condition when compared to the office
> spaces.  I did see some 90.1 interpretations that indicate that only the
> smaller spaces (<25,000 sqft) would be eligible for the G3.1.1 exceptions,
> but wanted to see if anybody had a different experience arguing it to LEED.
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> 
> Marcus T Eliason, PE, LEED AP
> Consultant
> 
> Apollo BBC
> Better Building Consultants
> 
> 713.869.0000
> 5116 Bissonnet, No 262
> Bellaire, Texas 77401
> www.apollobbc.com
> 
> 
> Better Answers.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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