<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I nodded somewhat along with Karen's email but we probably need
to sharpen the saber in addition to rattling it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Demand Controlled Ventilation (DCV) is a control approach.
Std 62.1 is a largely about quantitative ventilation thresholds. Std 90.1
requires DCV in some instances but control approach, It does not reference
specific maximum or minimum, design or operating ventilation thresholds. So a 90.1
compliant design can use DCV to modulate between thresholds set by professional
judgment, local code, exhaust/pressurization concerns, or even an owner
requirement such as 30% above Std 62.1. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>It really is a complex intersection of LEED, Std 62.1 and Std
90.1 and prone to collusions. Even Standard 62.1 and its users manual essentially
throw up their hands on DCV in multi-zone systems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Consider a project that is required to implement DCV in some space,
and it does so but not to the GBCI's interpretation of Std 62.1 values. Do the
differences count for and/or against its EAp2 compliance and/or its EAc1
points? What if the project is IEQc2 Increased Ventilation? What if the
project is also implementing DCV in spaces not required to have it? Does
it matter if it is based on sensing CO2, sensing occupancy, or time of day?
What if they proposed and baseline mechanical systems are multi-zone, single
zone, or one of each? ... <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>This is so complex, I can see why they are reacting project by
project. I would take the review Thomas shared as one point in the
discussion, not universal guidance for all projects. They cannot possibly
be smart enough to write guidance for all cases without sacrificing something
currently held sacred by someone.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>With every model and especially every exceptional calculation
the modeler should build reasonable models and be prepared to justify them as
reasonable. With DCV the justification probably needs to be in the
initial submittal. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Paul Riemer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dunham<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><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"'> equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Karen
Walkerman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:33 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> James Hansen<br>
<b>Cc:</b> equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] GBCI comments on DCV (Carol Gardner)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>You are missing the fact that the
rules are being changed at the REVIEW stage. This requires the energy
modeler to do a-lot of extra work to change the baseline model during the
review stage. It also means that after changing the model, if the
reviewer has any additional comments or questions, the energy modeler will have
to go through an additional review, and pay an additional fee to have the USGBC
look at their documentation again.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Also, the fact that this rule seems
to be implemented for some projects, and not for others means that buildings
are not being rated fairly against each other.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>The debate about whether this makes
sense or not should be kept separate from this discussion. My main
concern is that rules are being changed without letting the players know.
Any time they make changes, it needs to be documented publicly,
preferably with changes only applying to projects registered after the date of
publication.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>We can debate separately whether
this rule change makes sense. Yes, I understand that some
"gaming" of the system could happen, in theorgy, but in many cases,
adding HUGE amounts of outdoor ventilation air as you suggest is far too costly
to implement.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>--<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Karen Walkerman<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:13 AM,
James Hansen <<a href="mailto:JHANSEN@ghtltd.com">JHANSEN@ghtltd.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>I’m not sure I really understand what the fuss is
about. If you’re designing and modeling a building that does NOT have
DCV, then it seems entirely fair (and accurate) to model the same ventilation
rates in both the baseline and the proposed. If, however, you are
implementing a DCV strategy, then regardless of what you set your
“maximum” OA rate at for the proposed model, in reality, the DCV
system is going to keep OA flow rates near or below the ASHRAE 62.1
requirements (in real life operation).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>If the TAG committee didn’t require you to model the
baseline building at ASHRAE 62.1 flow rates when DCV is being implemented, then
theoretically you could input an astronomically high OA flow rate for both
models, knowing that your proposed model would NEVER run at such a condition
and would have an unfair advantage.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>This seems like an entirely acceptable and fair ruling.
What am I missing?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><b>GHT Limited<br>
James Hansen, PE, LEED AP</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><b>Senior Associate</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>Arlington, VA 22201-4749<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>703-338-5754 (Cell)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>703-243-1200 (Office)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>703-276-1376 (Fax)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><a href="http://www.ghtltd.com/">www.ghtltd.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><b> </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><b>From:</b> <a
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Karen Walkerman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:05 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] GBCI comments on DCV (Carol Gardner)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>Is anyone on this list-serve on the EA Credit 1 committee, or
know someone who is? If the the GBCI or USGBC has changed the modeling
requirements and is only letting modelers know during the documentation review
stage, I find this very disturbing for a number of reasons. It would be
great if we can get some straight answers on this from someone at one of these
organizations who actually knows what is going on.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>I am happy to draft an email outlining concerns, but I don't
know who to send it to. If anyone does, or would like to help me with
this, please feel free to contact me directly.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>--<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>Karen Walkerman<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Peter Worley <<a
href="mailto:peter.worley@arup.com">peter.worley@arup.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'>Sorry for what may seem like a dumb question... <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'>Why, if you're designing to ASHRAE 62.1, would you
increase the outside air quantity beyond the minimums (unless required for lab
exhaust, etc)?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'>I have a project where the local code (referencing
IMC 2003) requires a higher level of minimum ventilation than ASHRAE 62.1. I’ve
therefore designed to this amount and modeled it in both my proposed and
baseline cases. I can’t imagine that this will be problematic. Do you
disagree?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'>Pete<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><b>Peter Worley</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>Mechanical Engineer<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>155 Avenue of the Americas New York NY 10013
USA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><b>t</b> +1 212 229 2669 <b>d</b> +1 212 897 1339
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><b>f</b> +1 212 229 1056<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><a href="http://www.arup.com">www.arup.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><img border=0 width=78 height=25 id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:image001.gif@01CB2D6B.8AA7E280" alt=ArupEmailLogo><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><b>From:</b> Tom Serra [mailto:<a
href="mailto:tserra@emoenergy.com">tserra@emoenergy.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 26, 2010 12:14 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><br>
<b>To:</b> Karen Walkerman<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] GBCI comments on DCV (Carol Gardner)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>No documentation exists supporting the new method. GBCI
is pulling the "rating authority" card and implementing their own
requirements. I tried to argue my case that they are going against
the procedure in ASHRAE, but they did not change their requirement. I
have expressed my opinion that a document should be posted on the website that
shows this new requirement but I have yet to see anything new. Otherwise
you may be expecting savings from DCV that will be rejected and then the MEP or
modeler will look foolish. They should have implemented a cut-off date
for projects already in the system similar to the "District Thermal"
change they made in May 2008.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;
margin-left:.5in'><br>
<br>
In reality the DCV will still result in energy savings but the paper design
savings will be lost. I believe GBCI and USGBC are trying to prevent
"gaming" of the system. A designer could grossly oversize the
ventilation system and then gain tremendous savings by implementing DCV.
This new requirement forces the designer to pursue other ventilation strategies
if they want to claim savings for DCV. Unfortunately the only way we are
learning of this requirement is through clarification questions. This
lack of communication is what really upsets me.<br>
<br>
The only solution that I see is that all spaces with demand control ventilation
should be designed to ASHRAE 62.1 minimums. Also, teams should not pursue
the 30% increase ventilation credit. <br>
<br>
Thomas Serra<br>
Project Manager<br>
EMO Energy Solutions, LLC<br>
3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 450<br>
Falls Church, VA 22042<br>
voice 703-205-0445 ex-113<br>
fax 703-205-0449<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Karen Walkerman <<a
href="mailto:kwalkerman@gmail.com">kwalkerman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>Can anyone find documentation requiring the baseline to use
ASHRAE 62.1 ventilation rates? The table in EA Credit 1 under HVAC System
Selection for the baseline design states:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>"Outdoor ventilation rates should be identical to the
proposed case"<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>There are no exceptions listed anywhere in the LEED
documentation (I am currently looking at LEED 2009, but have reviewed this in
the past under LEED 2.2).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>We have had DCV be approved in the past with no questions.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>--<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>Karen<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Tom Serra <<a
href="mailto:tserra@emoenergy.com">tserra@emoenergy.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>I've had many comments. They have changed their
perspective as the rating authority and are requiring outside air treatment
procedures that are outside of ASHRAE 90.1 section G procedures.
Typically design outside air volume is the same between the baseline and
proposed, but if you are using DCV they now require you to model the baseline
with the minimum ASHRAE 62.1 volume. So, if you have greater OA volume in
your proposed model, you may be penalized depending on your DCV method and
diversity schedule for occupants in the area with DCV control.<br>
<br>
Here is an example clarification question:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><b>1. CLARIFY:</b>
Demand control ventilation was modeled for credit for RTU1 and RTU2 in the
Proposed case as indicated in Table 1.4 of the Template; however, the outdoor
air volume for RTU1 and RTU2 in the Baseline model was not modeled at the
ASHRAE 62.1-2004 minimum rates (1,066 cfm for each RTU) as determined in EQp1:
Minimum IAQ Performance. Appendix G allows schedule changes for demand control
ventilation as approved by the rating authority (Table G3.1.4(Baseline)). As
the rating authority, GBCI requires that the outside air ventilation rates for
the Baseline Case be modeled using minimum ASHRAE 62.1-2004 rates wherever
credit is taken for demand control ventilation in the Proposed Case. The
Proposed case minimum rates at design conditions must be modeled as designed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'><b>TECHNICAL ADVICE:</b> Revise the Baseline model so
the minimum outdoor air volume is modeled at 1,066 cfm for RTU1 and RTU2 in the
Baseline model. In addition, provide revised SV-A reports for RTU1 and RTU2
reflecting the changes. Further, verify that all systems in both the Baseline
and Proposed case are modeled with zero outside air flow when fans are cycled
on to meet unoccupied setback temperatures unless health or safety regulations
mandate an alternate minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the
unoccupied outside air rates must be modeled identically in the Baseline and
Proposed Case).<br>
<br>
<br>
Thomas Serra<br>
Project Manager<br>
EMO Energy Solutions, LLC<br>
3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 450<br>
Falls Church, VA 22042<br>
voice 703-205-0445 ex-113<br>
fax 703-205-0449<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'>_______________________________________________<br>
Equest-users mailing list<br>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<pre style='margin-left:.5in'>____________________________________________________________<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:.5in'>Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></pre><pre style='margin-left:.5in'>systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses<o:p></o:p></pre></div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:.5in'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'>The information contained in this communication is confidential,
may be privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It
is the property of GHT Limited. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying
of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
me immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to </span><span style='color:black'><a
href="mailto:ght@ghtltd.com"><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>ght@ghtltd.com</span></a></span><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>, and destroy this
communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. Thank
you.</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>