[Equest-users] Wall insulation in multifamily buildings
Maria Karpman via Equest-users
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Wed Mar 15 18:23:54 PDT 2017
Just like with plug loads that were discussed in this ever expanding
thread, there is clearly no one-size-fits-all infiltration schedule that
can work for all projects. Capturing interaction between infiltration and
mechanical ventilation is inherently complex, leakage testing is done at
conditions that are different from the actual operating conditions of the
building (as Nick has described), and the actual operating conditions are
in flux. So ideally the rules of the compliance modeling protocol should….
(a) Incentivize tighter envelop
(b) Limit performance credit from infiltration reduction, to reflect
uncertainty of the realized savings
(c) Account for the aspects of the project that are likely to have high
impact on savings
Arguably equations from the old ASHRAE Fundamentals that I included in the
email below did a better job with addressing these than the infiltration
schedule in the PNNL paper. For example, they recognized difference in
savings from tighter envelope in projects with balanced versus exhaust-only
ventilation. Even if the new mechanical code does not allow certain
configuration of ventilation systems, common scenarios should still be
accounted for in post - 90.1 2016 App G, to support its application to
existing buildings and buildings designed to meet earlier versions of 90.1.
For example LEED pilot credit uses 90.1 2016 App G to calculate improvement
over 90.1 2010.
Maria
*From:* Krishnan Gowri [mailto:krishnan.gowri at autodesk.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2017 7:38 PM
*To:* Nicholas Caton <Nicholas.Caton at schneider-electric.com>; Maria Karpman
<maria.karpman at karpmanconsulting.net>; Nathan Miller <nathanm at rushingco.com>;
Chris Jones <Christopher.Jones at rwdi.com>; David Griffin II <
DGriffin at archnexus.com>; Michael Campbell <mcamp1206 at gmail.com>; Joe Huang <
yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com>
*Cc:* equest-users at onebuilding.org
*Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Wall insulation in multifamily buildings
Nick:
Thanks for adding me to this discussion. As one of the primary authors of
the PNNL infiltration report and current ECB member (which has an addendum
in the works), I can provide the following background information:
1. The schedule fractions modify the infiltration input in E+. These
fractions are applied to infiltration rates calculated based on the design
flow rate, wind velocity (a linear coefficient is used) and zone altitude.
2. These fractions and the design flow rate in the report are provided
by the 90.1 Envelope subcommittee.
3. When HVAC systems are off, these equations work as expected.
However, when HVAC systems are operating, the assumption is that building
pressurization will decrease the infiltration (ECB is considering changes
to this based on outdoor air damper state).
All the assumptions and guidelines in the PNNL report were based on
extensive analysis of medium/large office buildings, though much of this
has been used for all building types. The primary intent is to determine
savings for air barrier requirements, by appropriately modeling envelope
air leakage rates.
Hope this helps, -krishnan
*From:* Nicholas Caton [mailto:Nicholas.Caton at schneider-electric.com
<Nicholas.Caton at schneider-electric.com>]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2017 3:23 PM
*To:* Maria Karpman <maria.karpman at karpmanconsulting.net>; Nathan Miller <
nathanm at rushingco.com>; Chris Jones <Christopher.Jones at rwdi.com>; David
Griffin II <DGriffin at archnexus.com>; Michael Campbell <mcamp1206 at gmail.com>;
Joe Huang <yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com>
*Cc:* equest-users at onebuilding.org; Krishnan Gowri <
krishnan.gowri at autodesk.com>
*Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Wall insulation in multifamily buildings
I feel like expanding just a little (*who am I kidding?*) on Maria’s quote
from the PNNL guidelines’ document regarding infiltration schedules:
*“**The total building infiltration schedule fraction will be 1.0 when all
heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems are off and 0.25
when the HVAC systems are in operation.”*
1. For extra context: That report details an exploration of options
to constructively translate 90.1 envelope subcommittee advice concerning
baseline overall air infiltration quantities (1.8 CFM/ft2 @ 75Pa) into a
procedure and set of inputs appropriate for usage with energyplus 3.1+.
The above quote, if I am not mistaken, actually sources from the SSPC 90.1
Envelope Subcommittee… if not by direct citation. I would not aim any
specific concerns about this prescriptive language at those authors.
2. The *effects* of such a fractional schedule (uniformly for both
energyplus and in doe-2, at least) would be to:
a. reduce naturally driven infiltration (as determined each interval
between wind / temperature / stack effects) by 75% when HVAC = ON
b. not modify naturally driven infiltration when HVAC = OFF
3. The *purpose* of such a reduction is to (in broad strokes)
represent the effects of aggregate building pressurization as is typically
intended with new commercial HVAC design. If my building interior is
positively pressurized relative to the exterior, less air should infiltrate
in.
4. This reduction as prescribed is intended to occur every hour that
fans achieving building pressurization are in operation. 24/7 = correct
for multifamily with centrally-driven ventilation/pressurization (typical
multifamily design for some locales, but not in all markets).
5. To the best of my knowledge, 75% *is a dart on the wall*. I’m not
aware of any study that informed this directly, but it follows logic that
generally infiltration still happens with pressurized buildings, sometimes,
so any aggregate reduction should remain under 100%. I’m personally
convinced there is no single number that would be appropriately applied to
all buildings/systems, however. Indeed situations exist where the systems
in operation actually de-pressurize the building interior and would
therefore *amplify* infiltration (by design, coincidence, or accident).
This same schedule however is *also* the primary vector to factor in
“higher than design state” naturally driven infiltration. This occurs for
example in scenarios where buildings that have doors that could open for
people to enter and exit.
So what is this “design state?” Depends on who you ask - I’d offer 2
perspectives:
1. Open windows & doors are not normally considered by well-meaning
mechanical engineers designing for building pressurization. If I may reach
a bit (I’m sure I cannot speak for everyone), the broad assumption is that
doors, windows, and other openings are considered in an effectively closed
state *most* of the time, and when they are open all bets are off. While
we can compartmentalize and try to mitigate the effects, we cannot
generally design buildings to be effectively pressurized to combat
infiltration on a macro level while many doors/windows are open, else those
doors would never close and the windows would whistle all day.
2. From a prescriptive/compliance M+V perspective, leakage through
windows and doors are for practical reasons deliberately excluded to ensure
the air-tightness of the rest of the envelope assembly is what’s being
measured in isolation (I’m sure this varies based on locally
prescribed/normal protocol). Such openings are taped/sealed off to ensure
they do not impact blower door testing results.
I suspect this phenomenon of building operation (operable doors/windows)
was for justifications including the above *also* not a concern of the
envelope committee when prescribing infiltration schedule factors no higher
than 1.0 during occupied/unoccupied hours. …And that’s *totally fine* for
those interested in setting an arbitrary bar for something like compliance
modeling/testing: By the book, that reality has been pushed off the table
for discussion and so shouldn’t be a concern or part of the conversation
(unless someone with a big stick changes their mind on the matter).
The reality of operable doors/windows *can* however be a meaningful thing
to miss if you are trying to calibrate and/or determine realistic savings
potential for directly-affected ECM scope (including adding
vestibules/compartmentalization to entryways, general envelope re-sealing
packages, and addressing dysfunctional/non-existent building pressurization
situations).
Some suggestions for those concerned about getting infiltration schedules
“right” for reasons beyond compliance:
1. Windows/doors/and other operable envelope openings are not always
in closed state. Consider increasing naturally driven infiltration rates
above those expected/measured for “fully closed” states during hours where
you can expect openings. Typical elementary school should see values above
1.0 when school lets in & out (doors/vestibules are held open), and perhaps
also seasonally during nice weather where windows are operable & actually
used.
2. Another dart on the wall to consider: Depending on the occupancy
type, eQUEST wizards seems to suggest hourly factors approaching 1.25 (25%
increase in naturally driven infiltration) around hours where you’d
typically expect heavier foot traffic around entries (at start/close of
typical weekday occupancy patterns and around lunch hours, generally). I
call it a “dart on the wall” again because I’m not certain if this is based
on any specific study.
3. Working building pressurization systems can be rendered ineffective
over time due to bad pressure sensors / controls / envelope degradation: a
75% reduction may be too aggressive
4. Building pressurization systems can be TOO effective for similar
causes – ever notice doors blowing open or not shutting well? 75% may
overly conservative in those cases
5. A fractional schedule appropriate for perimeter infiltration is
probably not appropriate for core zones without vertical exterior exposures
(if you presume any infiltration loads are seen there to begin with).
6. Accounting for the effects of adding vestibules, rotating doors,
and similar compartmentalization ECM’s requires at least acknowledging
naturally driven infiltration floats above “everything closed” or “design”
levels of infiltration, so that you can make appropriate relative
reductions.
In closing, I guess I want to emphasis for tone: this is mostly just my
opinion, man! I am not a certified blower door technician, nor an
energyplus developer, nor a standard/compliance language-crafter… Just a
fellow with a few thoughts I feel others could benefit from considering.
My sincere hope is someone out there can benefit/grow from some of these
perspectives and/or return the favor someday by setting me straight if/when
I’m going down the wrong path.
~Nick
*Nick Caton, P.E., BEMP*
Senior Energy Engineer
Regional Energy Engineering Manager
Energy and Sustainability Services
Schneider Electric
D 913.564.6361
M 785.410.3317
F 913.564.6380
E nicholas.caton at schneider-electric.com
15200 Santa Fe Trail Drive
Suite 204
Lenexa, KS 66219
United States
*From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
<equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf Of *Maria Karpman
via Equest-users
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:53 AM
*To:* Nathan Miller <nathanm at rushingco.com>; Chris Jones <
Christopher.Jones at rwdi.com>; David Griffin II <DGriffin at archnexus.com>;
Michael Campbell <mcamp1206 at gmail.com>; Joe Huang <
yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com>
*Cc:* equest-users at onebuilding.org
*Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Wall insulation in multifamily buildings
To David’s comment about infiltration (“Lower infiltration will save you
more energy than any other envelope ECM.”), there are a few caveats.
a) To document infiltration-related savings in App G models (e.g. for
LEED), the baseline air leakage would be modeled as 0.4 CFM/SF *@ 75Pa*
(90.1 2013 G3.1.1.4). 90.1 2013 Table G further requires that infiltration
inputs in the simulation tool are adjusted to account for factors such as
weather and “…. HVAC system operation….“. 90.1 leaves these adjustments to
the modeler, but PNNL’s Infiltration Modeling Guidelines for Commercial
Building Energy Analysis
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.510.8703&rep=rep1&type=pdf>
mentions in passing (Note 2 on p.6) that “The total building infiltration
schedule fraction will be 1.0 when all heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems are off and 0.25 when the HVAC systems are in
operation.” (It’s good that they used Energy Plus for the study, so results
must still be accurate in spite of this seemingly arbitrary assumption
J.) Since
HVAC systems are operating 24/7 in multifamily, infiltration schedule in
the baseline and proposed design would have to be set to 0.25 of the peak
if we follow the PNNL study, which very significantly reduces
infiltration-related heating load in the model. (The infiltration load is
shown in LS-F report.) As a side note, with LEED v3 and v4,
infiltration-reduction credit can be claimed via exceptional calculation
methods, or by using LEED pilot credit
<http://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction-core-and-shell-schools-new-construction-retail-new-construction-healthc-110>
which is based on 90.1 2016 Appendix G modeling rules with the appropriate
adjustment to performance targets and point scale. (I recommend that you
check out this credit, as it simplifies the baseline model.)
b) Potential savings from infiltration reduction should be considered
in conjunction with the specified ventilation strategy. In North East, it
is overwhelmingly common to have 100% OA units serving multifamily
corridors with no exhaust, and continuously running rooftop exhaust fans
serving kitchens and bathrooms in apartments on one vertical stack with no
make-up. Both supply and exhaust rates are often grossly oversized compared
to the minimum CFM required by code, and since the relevant code
(summarized here
<https://buildingscience.com/sites/default/files/document/ba-1507_ventilation_guidance_final_measure_guideline.pdf>)
requires that apartments are compartmentalized and envelope is air-tight,
it creates an interesting conundrum for air J. Balanced ventilation is
still a rarity in NE even in high performance buildings. Old editions of
ASHRAE Fundamentals had a way of taking into account this dynamics (see
below), which was crude but better than “one size fits all” approach in the
PNNL study. So I’d use ASHRAE’s method in lieu of PNNL’s to model
infiltration savings for LEED, and to decide whether tighter envelope
should be pursued for a given project.
Nathan, thanks for clarifying your plug load observations. Your explanation
makes total sense. On the related note, the latest LEED EAc1 template
includes the following info (based on ASHRAE Applications handbook) for the
impact of occupant demographics on HW usage. Perhaps you can reference this
data (also used in EPA HRMF program) to justify modeling lower plug loads
for certain projects. But I can also see that rating authorities may reject
this logic and insist on using “typical” plug loads in the model,
recognizing that occupant demographics may change over the life of the
building.
*From:* Nathan Miller [mailto:nathanm at rushingco.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:38 AM
*To:* Chris Jones <Christopher.Jones at RWDI.com>; David Griffin II <
DGriffin at archnexus.com>; Maria Karpman <maria.karpman at karpmanconsulting.net>;
Michael Campbell <mcamp1206 at gmail.com>; Joe Huang <
yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com>
*Cc:* equest-users at onebuilding.org
*Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Wall insulation in multifamily buildings
I can’t think of the last high-rise project I worked on that stayed
anywhere near 25% WWR. 40-50% is very much the norm in Seattle (climate
where I do most of my modeling work). Owners want 60%+. Mid-rise resi (and
mixed use), I do tend to see 25-35% WWR as typical.
When we do the envelope sensitivity analysis on high rise multifamily
projects, honestly the glazing percentage isn’t as bad a penalty as you’d
think. Like on the order of 0.1-0.25% energy penalty for each 1% increase
in glazing when we are already in the 40%+ glazing band, meaning we are
comparing extra glazing to opaque wall. This is with a WSHP system serving
residences. If it is more of a traditional hydronic job, that penalty seems
to go up a little, but still isn’t a killer.
Using standard ESMFHRSG plug loads we see the conditioning load of the
buildings driven by internal loads, ventilation, and infiltration, not
envelope. Related to the previous comment in this thread from Maria:
“I am curious about the reasoning behind Nathan’s comment that “… many of
us in the Seattle market are starting to believe the standard plug/misc
load assumptions from the Energy Star MF High Rise Sim Guidelines
overestimate that energy use”. EPA’s plug loads are 4 times lower than
COMNET’s for Multifamily/Residential, and are also lower than the loads in
PNNL High Rise Apartment prototype. Passive house protocols are the only
two sources that I know off that prescribe lower in-unit loads -
Passivehaus Institute (PHI) loads are less than half of EPA’s, and US
passive house off-shoot (PHIUS) loads are 15% lower than EPA’s. In general,
in-unit electricity consumption can vary significantly depending on
occupant demographics (by factor of 10 based on some papers), so both
COMNET and PHI may be correct for *some* apartments. We compared EPA
assumptions to the in-unit electricity usage in several apartment complexes
in NJ, and the numbers were in the right ballpark, so appear to represent
reasonable averages.”
Her comment made me realize I’m suffering a bit from selection-bias. The
projects I tend to model are the newest multifamily projects to hit the
market. These projects in Seattle are almost all studios and 1 BR, with a
few 2 BR and penthouses sprinkled in. They aren’t serving as housing for
families, but more professionally-employed individuals, who don’t cook
much, who probably concentrate their electronics (laptop plus maybe a flat
screen) more than the typical American family, and certainly do less
laundry. Some of the trend on housing design seems to be minimal living
space and more amenities. That is probably why the national averages for
dwelling unit plug loads seem high for THE TYPE OF PROJECTS I WORK ON.
Hope that makes more sense (given some reflection).
*Nathan Miller, PE, LEED AP BD+C** – **Mechanical Engineer/Senior Energy
Analyst*
*RUSHING* | *O* 206-285-7100 | *C* 207-650-3942
*www.rushingco.com <http://www.rushingco.com/>*
*From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On
Behalf Of *Chris Jones via Equest-users
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 14, 2017 7:46 AM
*To:* David Griffin II <DGriffin at archnexus.com>; Maria Karpman <
maria.karpman at karpmanconsulting.net>; Michael Campbell <mcamp1206 at gmail.com>;
Joe Huang <yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com>
*Cc:* equest-users at onebuilding.org
*Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Wall insulation in multifamily buildings
My only comment is that developers and contractors like curtain wall
(window wall for high rise MURBS) because it is less expensive to install
and can be installed in any weather. This may be the main reason we see
glass towers north of the 49th.
[image: Title: RWDI - Description: RWDI logo]
<http://www.rwdi.com/assets/logos/RWDI-logo.gif>
*Christopher Jones, **P.Eng. *| Senior Energy Analyst
*RWDI*
901 King Street West, Suite 400, Toronto, ON M5V 3H5 Canada
Tel: (519) 823-1311 ext 2052
rwdi.com <http://www.rwdi.com/>
*From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
<equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf Of *David Griffin
II via Equest-users
*Sent:* Monday, March 13, 2017 7:46 PM
*To:* Maria Karpman; Michael Campbell; Joe Huang
*Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
*Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Wall insulation in multifamily buildings
I thought I might chime in on this discussion as well to drive a few points
home.
I have attached a file illustrating a graph to explain Joe’s comment below.
It shows diminishing returns from increased insulation. When it comes to
effective envelope ECMs for projects. I focus on two very important things:
1) Lower infiltration will save you more energy than any other
envelope ECM. However, it is hard to get an owner to buy off on this and
enforce the requirement with the contractor. Typically, an envelope
consultant will be brought in to assist the architect with details,
supervise the contractor during construction, and test the building (or a
portion thereof) to verify performance. You can see how something like this
is hard sell to an owner because it can be a costly process, and if the
building fails the blower door test, the contractor has a $$ issue and the
a lot of rework.
2) Window-to-Wall Ratio (WWR) reduction is great. On the curve
illustrated in the attached file, you essentially replace an expensive
window with a cheaper wall assembly and saving more energy! It’s a true
win-win-win. However, windows exist for more reasons than daylight
controls. Comfort and views are essential for occupants. Some architects
may also argue they are essential for aesthetics as well, so you have to
have a target in mind for the project you are willing to negotiate. On
commercial projects, I generally shoot for 25% WWR.
3) Window upgrades are next since they have the most potential to save
energy on the illustrated curve. Since you tried to minimize the WWR on #2,
this ECM will be cheaper than it would have been otherwise – always saving
the client $$ J This includes glazing and frames.
4) After all three of the above items are addressed, I start to talk
about added insulation in the walls, roof, etc.
Anyway, this is my approach on new construction. Is this what you guys see,
or am I missing something?
Let me know.
[image: Image removed by sender. ARCH | NEXUS] <http://www.archnexus.com>
DAVID W. GRIFFIN II
BEMP
ENERGY ANALYST
2505 E Parleys Way
Salt Lake City, UT 84109
*Office* 801.924.5028
archnexus.com <http://www.archnexus.com>
[image: Image removed by sender. Twitter]
<https://twitter.com/arch_nexus>[image:
Image removed by sender. Facebook]
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Architectural-Nexus/179588705397563?ref=ts&fref=ts>[image:
Image removed by sender. Youtube]
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYRPWKF-yp-AUiI8ia2XfKw?feature=mhee>[image:
Image removed by sender. LinkedIn]
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/architectural-nexus>
*From:* Maria Karpman via Equest-users [
mailto:equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
<equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>]
*Sent:* Friday, March 10, 2017 9:24 PM
*To:* Michael Campbell; Joe Huang
*Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
*Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Wall insulation in multifamily buildings
Few more thoughts on this:
1) I agree with Joe and David that R-19 “…has already captured most of
the energy losses (or savings) for the wall”. R-19 is better than 90.1 2016
requirements for steel-framed wall in climate zone 4A, and since 90.1
requirements are set taking into account cost effectiveness, it is not
surprising that further improvement does not often pay off.
2) Overwhelming majority of high performance multifamily projects have
efficient heating systems, often condensing boilers or VRF HPs, which
lowers heating costs and potential savings from envelope improvements.
3) Most multifamily projects in North East have gas heating, and gas
is cheap compared to electricity. For example EPA EStar MFHR projects in NY
typically use $0.15/kWh and $1/Therm in performance rating calculations,
which effectively makes BTU of electricity ~4.4 times more expensive than
BTU of gas. This further shrinks contribution of heating toward the total
building energy $, and reduces potential savings from envelope
improvements. (Using source energy instead of $ in performance rating
calculations makes envelope improvements more appealing, because with EPA
PM site-to-source conversions BTU of electricity has only ~ 3 times greater
weight than BTU of gas.)
4) I am curious about the reasoning behind Nathan’s comment that “…
many of us in the Seattle market are starting to believe the standard
plug/misc load assumptions from the Energy Star MF High Rise Sim Guidelines
overestimate that energy use”. EPA’s plug loads are 4 times lower than
COMNET’s for Multifamily/Residential, and are also lower than the loads in
PNNL High Rise Apartment prototype. Passive house protocols are the only
two sources that I know off that prescribe lower in-unit loads -
Passivehaus Institute (PHI) loads are less than half of EPA’s, and US
passive house off-shoot (PHIUS) loads are 15% lower than EPA’s. In general,
in-unit electricity consumption can vary significantly depending on
occupant demographics (by factor of 10 based on some papers), so both
COMNET and PHI may be correct for *some* apartments. We compared EPA
assumptions to the in-unit electricity usage in several apartment complexes
in NJ, and the numbers were in the right ballpark, so appear to represent
reasonable averages.
*From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On
Behalf Of *Michael Campbell via Equest-users
*Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:55 PM
*To:* Joe Huang <yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com>
*Cc:* equest-users <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Wall insulation in multifamily buildings
Wow, thank you everyone for the extremely helpful responses.
To answer a few of the questions... the project is in NJ, Climate Zone 4A.
I did account for the thermal bridging of the walls studs. This project
has some metals studs and some wood studs and I accounted for both using
Appendix A of ASHRAE 90.1-2013.
Nathan, thanks for the input specifically regarding the Energy Star
Multifamily High Rise inputs values. This particular project is
participating in the ESMFHR Program so I am using their guidelines for
equipment/plug loads.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Joe Huang via Equest-users <
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org> wrote:
I'd say the message is that R-19 wall insulation has already "captured"
most of the energy losses (or savings) for the wall.
(leaning heavily on my cane...) Back in 1986, I did a project in support of
ASHRAE and DOE residential energy standards where I did what then seemed an
endless number of DOE-2 simulations (~ 20,000) for five prototypical
residences in 45 US climates, from which using regression analyses I came
up with the component loads (KBtu/ft2) for various components of the
building (walls, roofs, internal loads, windows, etc.). Just picking out
the wall component loads for an apartment in Seattle, Miami, and DC, I get
the following:
Seattle Miami Washington DC
HL CL HL CL HL CL
R-0 28.8 0.8 1.1 4.7 23.1 1.5
R-11 10.9 0.4 0.3 1.5 8.9 0.8
R-19 7.1 0.3 0.2 0.9 5.9 0.5
R-34 3.9 0.2 0.1 0.5 3.2 0.3
So, by R-19, you're already on the flat part of the curve and more
insulation buys you very little.
Incidentally, this data base of component loads was then turned into a PC
program called PEAR (Program for Energy Analysis of Residences) that then
multiplied the regression curves by the component scalar (ft2 of wall,
e.g.), and added them up to derive the heating and cooling energy use of a
house.
PEAR is now so out-of-date technologically that the display no longer
functions, but I still think there's some good basic information contained
in the data base. David - maybe something that could be updated and
maintained by IBPSA? Or better yet, put it on the Web ?
source: "Technical documentation for a Residential Energy Use Data Base
Developed in Support of ASHRAE Special Project 53", Huang, Ritschard, and
Bull,
LBL-24306, November 1987.
Joe Huang
White Box Technologies, Inc.
346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 205A
Moraga CA 94556
yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com
http://weather.whiteboxtechnologies.com for simulation-ready weather data
(o) (925)388-0265 <(925)%20388-0265>
(c) (510)928-2683 <(510)%20928-2683>
"building energy simulations at your fingertips"
On 3/9/2017 2:07 PM, David Eldridge via Equest-users wrote:
R-19 is not the worst starting point, I’d expect diminishing returns going
from good insulation to great insulation, but a much bigger jump in
efficiency from poor to good insulation levels.
Make sure you are modeling the cavity insulation accurately including any
equivalent assembly resistance due to the studs. i.e. continuous insulation
requirements are there because the cavity insulation is de-rated quite a
bit from the studs and which can be important in colder climates.
In terms of an overall percentage difference due to envelope changes you
may also see that window performance dominates if the WWR is relatively
high.
David
David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
*Grumman/Butkus Associates*
*From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
<equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Miller
via Equest-users
*Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2017 2:52 PM
*To:* Michael Campbell <mcamp1206 at gmail.com> <mcamp1206 at gmail.com>
*Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
*Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Wall insulation in multifamily buildings
Don’t know where your building is located, but on the Seattle area
multifamily projects we routinely model, envelope has very little impact on
building energy use. DHW and ventilation seem to be the items we have the
most influence over that really can change the energy consumption.
FWIW, many of us in the Seattle market are starting to believe the standard
plug/misc load assumptions from the Energy Star MF High Rise Sim Guidelines
(if you are using them) overestimate that energy use, and result in more
“free heat” in the building and thus less sensitivity to envelope changes
(among other implications).
*Nathan Miller, PE, LEED AP BD+C** – **Mechanical Engineer/Senior Energy
Analyst*
*RUSHING* | *O* 206-285-7100 <(206)%20285-7100> |*C* 207-650-3942
<(207)%20650-3942>
*www.rushingco.com <http://www.rushingco.com/>*
*From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
<equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf Of *Michael
Campbell via Equest-users
*Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2017 3:44 PM
*To:* equest-users <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
*Subject:* [Equest-users] Wall insulation in multifamily buildings
Hello eQUEST Users,
I've been working on a model for a multifamily building, 5 stories,
approximately 300,000 square feet. I've been running a few iterations of
the model to see how changes to the wall assembly affect the model
results.
What I've found is that changes in the wall assembly seem to have a minimal
impact on the model results. I just did a comparison where I took an
assembly with R-19 cavity insulation and 2" rigid insulation and compared
that to the same assembly but without the rigid insulation. This was
applied to the entire building. What I found was only a 0.4% increase in
total energy cost after taking out the rigid insulation. I'm wondering if
others have found similar results in multifamily buildings?
Any input is appreciated.
Thank you,
Mike Campbell
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------
*RWDI - A Platinum Member of Canada's 50 Best Managed Companies*
This communication is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it was
addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or
confidential. Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to this email and delete the message without
retaining any hard or electronic copies of same. Outgoing emails are
scanned for viruses, but no warranty is made to their absence in this email
or attachments. If you require any information supplied by RWDI in a
different format to facilitate accessibility, contact the sender of the
email, email solutions at rwdi.com or call +1.519.823.1311.
------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
______________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20170315/8618f558/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2511 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20170315/8618f558/attachment-0014.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5332 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20170315/8618f558/attachment-0015.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 73582 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20170315/8618f558/attachment-0016.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 29147 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20170315/8618f558/attachment-0017.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2231 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20170315/8618f558/attachment-0018.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20170315/8618f558/attachment-0019.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image014.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 347 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20170315/8618f558/attachment-0020.jpg>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list