<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div>
<div>Thanks,<br></div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div>Karen Walkerman</div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Peter Worley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:peter.worley@arup.com">peter.worley@arup.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p>Sorry for what may seem like a dumb question... </p>
<p> </p>
<p>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)?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Pete</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Peter Worley</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959">Mechanical
Engineer</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959">155 Avenue of
the Americas New York NY 10013 USA</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959">t</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"> +1 212 229 2669 <b>d</b> +1 212
897 1339 </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959">f</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"> +1 212 229 1056</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"><a href="http://www.arup.com" target="_blank">www.arup.com</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#595959"><img width="78" height="25" src="cid:image001.gif@01CB2D65.23482AB0" alt="ArupEmailLogo"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> </span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> Tom Serra
[mailto:<a href="mailto:tserra@emoenergy.com" target="_blank">tserra@emoenergy.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 26, 2010 12:14 PM</span></p><div class="im"><br>
<b>To:</b> Karen Walkerman<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] GBCI comments on DCV (Carol Gardner)</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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.<div><div class="h5"><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 clear="all">
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<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Karen Walkerman <<a href="mailto:kwalkerman@gmail.com" target="_blank">kwalkerman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Outdoor ventilation rates should be identical to the
proposed case"</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have had DCV be approved in the past with no questions.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">--</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Karen</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Tom Serra <<a href="mailto:tserra@emoenergy.com" target="_blank">tserra@emoenergy.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in"><b>1.</b><b><span style="font-size:7.0pt">
</span><span style="background:yellow">CLARIFY:</span></b><span style="background:yellow"> </span>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.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">TECHNICAL
ADVICE:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> 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).</span><br>
<br>
<br clear="all">
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<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">_______________________________________________<br>
Equest-users mailing list<br>
<a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div></div></p></div>
<pre style="white-space:normal">____________________________________________________________<br>Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business<br>systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses<br>
</pre></div>
</blockquote></div><br>