<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=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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;}
/* 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";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</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=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think Carol’s approach is spot-on in terms of
calculating infiltration. I always figure out the wall infiltration first
(usually an estimate, but it stays constant) and then figure out my “before”
and “after” window infiltration values, area weight them with the
wall values.<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'>My only caveat is that I’m not sure 3x is always the right
number. I threw that out as an example. 1 CFM/SF is pretty high infiltration,
so the actual reduction may be less. But 0.3 CFM/SF is the maximum allowable –
if you substitute a low-leakage window that has an infiltration of 0.1 CFM/SF
then you could get a 10x improvement. Again, that 3x or 10x is just for
windows, not the whole façade – you need to know Window-Wall Ratios to
figure out the total infiltration reduction.<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'>Unless I’ve been told that the windows are “the
leakiest things ever” I’ll typically assume 0.3 CFM/SF for existing
windows. Even though this corresponds to a pretty tight new window, I don’t
like to overstate savings – especially as I work for a manufacturer, I
don’t want to unfairly manipulate variables to make a product look better
than it is. And without more public information available, it’s hard to
assign a performance to existing windows.<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'>Alex<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><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"'> Carol Gardner
[mailto:cmg750@gmail.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:18 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Chris Jones<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Alex Krickx; equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] Window replacement and infiltration rate
changing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>So maybe we can use what Alex
said: new windows must be 3x less leaky than old ones. Since that is just the
window, not the whole exposure leakage, I'd go ahead and pull a number from the
table Alex sent that matched my window, reduce it by 3 and then do an area
weighted average for the entire wall. As a guide you could use .038 cfm/sf or
0.05 cfm/sf for a wall of the same exposure as yours and with the same glass
area as yours to figure out what the wall cfm/sf is, unless you happen to know
it. As an example xx sf wall x wall cfm/sf + yy sf window x yy cfm/sf for your
window = xx+yy sf x .038 cfm/sf, you know your xx and yy sf, you can pick a
reasonable cfm/sf for your window, or ask Alex for one, and then solve for your
wall cfm/sf. Assuming you aren't doing anything to improve your walls you then
have your xx cfm/sf. Then reduce your yy cfm/sf by a factor of 3, plug all the
numbers in and solve for your new xx+yy, or overall wall cfm/sf. Put that
number in eQUEST, document your calcs for the LEED, or whoever, reviewer and
you are good to go.<br>
<br>
Carol<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Chris Jones <<a
href="mailto:cj@enersave.ca">cj@enersave.ca</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>ASHRAE 90.1-1989 prescribed the amount of infiltration to
use in the design and budget cases as 0.038 cfm/sq. ft. of gross exterior wall
area. I believe that subsequent versions of 90.1 dropped any reference to
modelling infiltration rates. The infiltration is "on" when the
fans are off. <br>
<br>
The MNECB/CBIP in Canada uses 0.05 cfm/sq. ft of gross exterior wall area -
with a schedule on all of the time.<br>
<br>
Who knows where those numbers came from and it doesn't really answer the question
of how much infiltration will be saved with new windows but it gives a starting
point.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 06:16 PM 15/09/2010, Alex Krickx wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Content-Language: en-US<br>
Content-Type: multipart/related;<br>
boundary="_005_B8B836A09111F041A16C8A3690FB3563AFF4FE9861EXVMBX0156exc_";<br>
type="multipart/alternative"<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
Yeah, it does sound high, doesn’t it? But when compared to the maximum
level for new windows of 0.3, then it doesn’t sound as high… new
windows must be 3x less leaky than old ones – that sounds like the right
reduction to me. <br>
<br>
The only link I could find on performance of old windows was this one: <a
href="http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/IAQanalysis/CONTAM/table00_arld.htm"
target="_blank">http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/IAQanalysis/CONTAM/table00_arld.htm</a>
<br>
<br>
It gives leakage areas in “area per linear meter of seam”. A
colleague converted this to leakage area in CFM/SF at 75 pa. His number was 1.4
CFM/SF based on the table (not sure which value he used). <br>
<br>
As a thought: perhaps 1 CFM/SF seems too high because we imagine it as the
infiltration for a whole wall, when in actuality it only applies to the window?
Assuming the wall has little infiltration, a 25% WWR would bring 1 CFM/SF
(window) to around 0.25 CFM/SF (whole façade) – probably a little higher
if accounting for the wall leakage, but not significantly so. Does that number
still raise alarm bells? Not to me, but I don’t have as good a feel for
this as Carol does. <br>
<br>
I’ve definitely seen some leaky windows – unfortunately I’ve
never tested how leaky they are so I’m stuck with looking for industry
papers and best practice. I definitely would like to learn more about
this though. Typical infiltration values of old windows seems to be a big
question mark with people I’ve asked….<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Carol Gardner [<a href="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com" target="_blank">
mailto:cmg750@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:57 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Alex Krickx<br>
<b>Cc:</b> YingQi Chen; <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] Window replacement and infiltration rate
changing<br>
<br>
Wow! It seems like 1 cfm/sf for infiltration would be a lot. The people's hair
next to the windows would be blowing all around! That's the average number I use
for HVAC ventilation.<br>
<br>
Carol<br>
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Alex Krickx <<a
href="mailto:akrickx@seriousmaterials.com" target="_blank">
akrickx@seriousmaterials.com</a>> wrote:<br>
Hi Yingqi,<br>
<br>
I’m pretty sure eQUEST does not automatically adjust infiltration rates. <br>
<br>
If you search through the archives and look up “infiltration
windows” you can find some relevant posts. I’ve attached one email
that was sent around earlier this year describing one way to change the
infiltration between current and proposed cases.<br>
<br>
I don’t think you can apply a percentage reduction without some more
information. I believe that the requirement to meet the DOE’s VPP for
windows is a maximum infiltration of 0.3 CFM/SF – this leads me to
believe that some new windows have more infiltration than this. My company
manufacturers windows with infiltrations as low as 0.01 CFM/SF. I’m
having a hard time finding a source, but I’m pretty sure I’ve heard
of modeling existing windows with infiltration as high as 1 CFM/SF. A building
with a large WWR and very leaky windows could substantially reduce
whole-building infiltration values.<br>
<br>
Good luck!<br>
Alex Krickx<br>
<br>
<br>
Alex Krickx<br>
Building Energy Specialist<br>
<b>Error! Filename not specified.</b><br>
1250 Elko Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089<br>
(t) 408.541.8124<br>
<br>
<b><i>Warning:</i></b> The information contained in this e-mail may be
privileged attorney-client communications or attorney work product and/or
proprietary and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient then you have received it in error and any review,
distribution or copying of this message is prohibited and you are to notify us
immediately by reply e-mail and delete the original message immediately.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a> [<a
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">
mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Carol
Gardner<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:19 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> YingQi Chen<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] Window replacement and infiltration rate
changing<br>
<br>
If eQUEST changed the infiltration between the two cases you would be able to
see the change in your .inp deck. I'm not sure what the impact of doing the
change using the EEM Wizard vs. simply copying and renaming your input deck and
making the change in it's own .inp deck would be. You could experiment and see
if there's a difference. If it doesn't change your infiltration I would lower
the perimeter infiltration rate conservatively by a fixed percent. You might
Google infiltration rates on line and find some information related to how much
to expect for a single pane window to a double pane window. Also, be sure to
account for your frames, too. Are they thermally broken? Does the frame
material change, etc.<br>
<br>
Carol<br>
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:05 PM, YingQi Chen <<a
href="mailto:yingqi.chen@pertan.com" target="_blank">yingqi.chen@pertan.com</a>
> wrote:<br>
Dear eQuester:<br>
<br>
I want to run a simulation by EEM wizard. I want to replace exiting single
pane, clear windows with double pane clear windows for a school building. <br>
<br>
I changed the class type form single pane clear to double pane clear
windows. The energy saving doesn’t look good. I have two
following questions need someone's guidance. <br>
<br>
<b>Question 1:<br>
</b> <br>
My question is that this EEM will reduce perimeter infiltration rate of the
building. I am not quit sure if I need to reduce the perimeter infiltration
rate in the simulation. If, it does, how many percentage of infiltration rate
do I need to reduce? <br>
<br>
<b>Question 2:<br>
</b> <br>
Does eQuest programmer has already considered this issue and changed the
perimeter infiltration rate automatically with changing window glass type and
insulation of the windows?<br>
<br>
Yingqi Chen<br>
<br>
The PERTAN Group<br>
44 Main Street, Suite <br>
Champaign, IL 61820<br>
<br>
217-356-1348 ext 205<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<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><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Carol Gardner PE<br>
<br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: Nick Caton <<a href="mailto:ncaton@smithboucher.com" target="_blank">ncaton@smithboucher.com</a>
><br>
To: Alex Krickx <<a href="mailto:akrickx@seriousmaterials.com"
target="_blank"> akrickx@seriousmaterials.com</a>>, "<a
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">
equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a>" <<a
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">
equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 16:47:48 -0800<br>
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] Modeling Infiltration and Windows<br>
I’ve done exactly that in the past for the exactly the same purpose!<br>
<br>
The only difference is I believe I always punch in the differences in the
metric of ACH. ASHRAE fundamentals provides some guidance regarding air
change rates to expect for various classes of construction as a function of
outdoor design temperature, and that was the best I could base my existing
construction off of from what info I had available.<br>
<br>
Come up with a “leakiness” for both you construction, old and
new windows, and do the weighted average jig =).<br>
<br>
Kudos on your fancy facade spelling also ;)! <br>
<br>
~Nick<br>
<b>Error! Filename not specified.</b><br>
<b> <br>
NICK CATON, E.I.T.<br>
</b>PROJECT ENGINEER<br>
25501 west valley parkway<br>
olathe ks 66061<br>
direct 913 344.0036<br>
fax 913 345.0617<br>
<i>Check out our new web-site @ </i><a href="http://www.smithboucher.com"
target="_blank">www.smithboucher.com</a><u> <br>
</u> <br>
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a> [<a
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">
mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alex
Krickx<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 08, 2010 6:05 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Equest-users] Modeling Infiltration and Windows<br>
<br>
Hello all,<br>
<br>
I am interested in modeling the energy savings that occurs when windows are
replaced with lower-infiltration alternatives. In the wizard mode, the only
place that I see infiltration is under the “Building Envelope
Constructions” Screen. <br>
<br>
I’m hoping someone can confirm my methodology:<br>
<br>
Can I input a weighted average of window and wall air infiltration here?
If I’m looking at a building with 20% Window to Wall Ratio, and the
windows have 0.1 CFM/ft² while the walls have 0.04 CFM/ft²can I apply an area
weighted average into this box? I would take (20%*0.1+80%*0.04) as the <i>façade
</i>infiltration value.<br>
<br>
That way I could use the same formula to determine the area weighted
infiltration of the façade if better windows were installed.<br>
<br>
How do other people model this?<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance!<br>
<br>
Alex Krickx<br>
<br>
<br>
Alex Krickx<br>
Building Energy Specialist<br>
<b>Error! Filename not specified.</b><br>
1250 Elko Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089<br>
(t) 408.541.8124<br>
<br>
<b><i>Warning:</i></b> The information contained in this e-mail may be
privileged attorney-client communications or attorney work product and/or
proprietary and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient then you have received it in error and any review,
distribution or copying of this message is prohibited and you are to notify us
immediately by reply e-mail and delete the original message immediately.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Carol Gardner PE<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
Chris Jones<br>
14 Oneida Avenue<br>
Toronto, ON M5J 2E3.<br>
Tel. 416-203-7465<br>
Fax. 416-946-1005<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
_______________________________________________<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">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br clear=all>
<br>
-- <br>
Carol Gardner PE<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>