[Equest-users] Complicated school baseline system type question

Mon Nov 16 22:47:03 PST 2020

Hi Steve!

  1.  I think the details of the “main” baseline system should be determined using the corresponding building area, not the gross building area.
  2.  I personally would not pursue more than two baseline system types generally, as a matter of poor potential “gains” (if that is the right word) vs. time invested (primarily in documentation).  This stance is however, like many things, flexible and adaptable to the situation at hand.  I would encourage other energy modelers of all experience/skill levels to (pro)actively take stock of their time/resource limitations, and invest your efforts where it makes the most difference.  In any case, if an exception pulls a space below the previously “cleared” 20ksf threshold, I would consider such exceptions to be “downstream/secondary” to establishing the main/secondary baseline types, so I would not care much as a model developer or reviewer… but that caveat is to highlight that this, like many things, is ultimately interpretable (your reviewer/AHJ is going to have the final say).
  3.  With respect to “official” guidance on “interpretable” situations, there are a couple places I am used to considering as strong “citable” sources:
        *   ASHRAE maintains discussions and addenda specific to each standard/year here* https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/standards-and-guidelines/standards-interpretations
        *   LEED maintains a similar database of interpretations on their website, typically (but not always) with queries/answers tailored specifically with the context/application of LEED projects in mind.  For projects outside of the LEED sphere, this remains a relatively “citable” source requiring little introduction for experienced reviewers.
        *   Discussions opened and documented/archived here on onebuilding.org have served me well as citable sources as well, in matters of a relatively technical nature.  Seeing 5 out of 6 practicing experts agree on something easy to argue 2 ways is something many reviewers will recognize as a rarity.  This is the “messiest” source to compose/cite clearly, but a PDF inclusive of original thread/signature  formatting and images has been my go-to for a few cases.  If ever anyone needs a specific thread in the archives reconstructed with full formatting/attachments, please just make the request here and I or others can often bring that to the table!

Philosophically (and constructively) I would treat none of these sources as “absolute truth” or cause to treat any AHJ/reviewer with aggression/belligerence.  Standards/Codes should ideally be clear, minimizing the need for interpretation, but ALWAYS remain subject to interpretation in order to fit the case at hand if and when the intent/application to the real world may not align with what the authors’ intended.  In a world where all building codes were applied blindly and without active consideration/reason/understanding, construction projects would in broad strokes suffer new levels of inefficiencies in design, analysis, construction, and even endanger the safety/health of the public.  Our ability to understand and *interpret* codes/standards makes our time and skillsets much more valuable.  Let’s not run away from that =).

I hope this is helpful!

~Nick

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D6BCF4.23B1B820]
Nick Caton, P.E. (US), BEMP
  Senior Energy Engineer
  Energy Manager, Yokota Airbase
  ESS - Energy & Sustainability Services
M US
M JP
Email
  +1 . 785 . 410 . 3317
+81 . 070 . 2450 . 8101
nicholas.caton at se.com<mailto:nicholas.caton at se.com>
15200 Santa Fe Trail Drive
Suite 204
Lenexa, KS 66219   USA

ニック　ケートン, P.E. (US), BEMP
シニアエネルギーエンジニア
横田基地エネルギーマネージャー
ESS - エナジー持続可能性サービス
M US
M JP
Email
  +1 . 785 . 410 . 3317
+81 . 070 . 2450 . 8101
nicholas.caton at se.com<mailto:nicholas.caton at se.com>
Schneider Electric
Oase Shibaura Building
2-15-6 Shibaura, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-0023   Japan
[cid:image002.png at 01D6BCF4.23B1B820]
[cid:image003.png at 01D6BCF4.23B1B820]

From: Equest-users <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> On Behalf Of Steve Jacobs via Equest-users
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2020 11:57 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] Complicated school baseline system type question

________________________________

I am modeling a school that is 156,000 SF under 90.1-2007. The majority of the school is treated with electric heat pumps but about 26,000 SF of the building is heated with natural gas furnaces.

So the approach I would take is that the predominant condition is electric heating, so that should be the main baseline system type. Then per G3.1.1(a) the natural gas systems are large enough to have their own baseline system.

My first question is do you think the main baseline should be based on the whole school area of 156,000 SF, or the 130,000 SF. This is the difference between system type 6 or 8.

Then, the 26,000 SF is large enough to qualify for the system type 5. But most of these spaces are large single zone systems (i.e. cafeteria, gymnasium, ect). And some could qualify for the single zone exceptions. Which would bring the area under 25,000 SF. How would you account for this area?

And in general if spaces qualify for exceptions in G.3.1.1(b) or G3.1.1(c) do you think the single zone systems should match the baseline energy source or the proposed building energy source. For example if you have a school that is heated by natural gas, but you have a small server room that is conditioned with an electric heat pump. Should the baseline system in that single zone system  be electric? Or an electrically heated school with natural gas in the kitchen. Should the kitchen single zone system be natural gas like the proposed or electric because that is the baseline fuel source.

I couldn't find any clarifications to this issue, but if there has been any official guidance please let me know.

Thanks in advance,
Steve

______________________________________________________________________
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/20201117/b3aff7ce/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1794 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20201117/b3aff7ce/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1947 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20201117/b3aff7ce/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6510 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20201117/b3aff7ce/attachment-0005.png>