<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="+1"> We have to remember eQuest is used on all kinds
of buildings. "Lightweight assemblies" means different things to
different types of commercial buildings. You could have a 2 story
steel interior frame, fibre-glass blanket, Z bars, and a steel
cladding. What I call a pre-engineered. You could also have a 60
story high rise. It can have a steel structure or a concrete
structure or a combination of both. Either type can be pretty
crappy construction if you don't deal with thermal breaks or
sealing. Any steel which is not insulated on the exterior will
severely derate the average performance of your exterior wall. We
have the same problem with glass. useless insulator, prone to air
leakage, lets the solar radiation in and kills birds by the
thousands. But who wants to live or work in a building where you
can't look outside. As I mentioned in a post to Bill earlier, I
don't do LEED. I have more than enough work that I don't have to
involve myself with what I consider is a bit of a slight of hand.
I do 90.1, energy efficient buildings, 62.1, IAQ, and my goal is
to make the best building possible with what I am given and how
much I can convince my client to spend up front to save them money
for the next 30 years on running their building. No politics, no
marketing, no environmentalists, nothing but cold cash and
economics. I have no choice in building orientation, it faces the
street. I have no choice in landscaping, the building footprint
is maximum allowable and everything else is concrete, maybe a few
planters. The standards which matter are 90.1, 62.1, occupant
comfort and money. The first 2 are ASHRAE standards, backed by
sound engineering, decades of work and revision, the third is in
the ASHRAE fine print and the fourth, the root of all evil and
corruption. They are not the flavour of the month. eQuest is a
tool for us to use to investigate different techniques to make
better buildings. Hasn't anyone noticed the testing of older LEED
buildings and the fact that within a few years they don't meet the
LEED standard they were designed to? We are not talking 20%, we
are talking 60%+. Some don't even meet the standard on the day
they are opened. WHY? ASHRAE has a few ideas, poor
commissioning, poor maintenance. New standards are in the works
to deal with these issues, Standard 189.1,Commissioning Guideline
1.1, Proposed Operation and Maintenance Guideline. I will add
poor design. A part of poor design is poor modelling, poor
reviewing and the big one, first cost. ie money. And lets not
forget the plaque on the wall, full page spread in the paper and
bragging rights.<br>
Part of the problem is flavour of the month. Everyone is on
the band wagon. There are not enough good modellers. There are
not enough good reviewers. There is too much demand for both too
fast. This is creating conflict as we have noticed by posts on
this site. But we have to deal with this, patience and dialogue
are required. The other thing is, this site is the gold standard
for cutting edge idea's and I would expect/hope the reviewers are
reading too. Everything is a work in progress and to stay current
you have to read, experiment and learn from others. We all do a
lot of hum drum projects, we don't always get to do the real neat
stuff. So this site adds to everyone's knowledge when we get to
put our 2 cents worth in on something tricky. Whether it is a
cool project, a new way to manipulate eQuest or suggestions on
what more we need eQuest to do.<br>
Don't get the idea I'm down on LEED, I just figure it is
similar to R-2000. But this is how we go forward, we set
something up, we run with it, critique it, modify it. It may bite
the dust but there will still be good things which come from the
attempt. I have been doing energy efficient design for 25 years
and battling first cost. I am a member of ASHRAE, which for ones
not in the know, takes a minimum of 12 years as an associate
member to be allowed to apply to be a member. I am not an expert,
the field is huge and I learn more every day. As a grey haired
engineer I find these times exciting, we are starting to make a
lot of headway. It isn't perfect but we are moving forward
briskly and addressing important issues.<br>
On the topic, I use the layer method. It includes mass and
time delay. The inputs are easy to understand, the layers are
obvious and defined. It is easy for the reviewer to check. It is
easy to adjust and try new constructions. It is simple to
defend. That is the most important part. A modellers job is not
done when eQuest runs. It is done when the powers that be say yes
and cut the cheque. Saving a day or 2 on 2 or 3 weeks of work
means nothing if you spend 6 weeks fighting with a reviewer. It
is like a thesis.<br>
All I can say in my defence to this viewpoint is look out when
an engineer gets philosophical. <br>
Bruce Easterbrook P.Eng.<br>
Abode Engineering<br>
<br>
</font>On 21/06/2011 05:39 PM, Carol Gardner wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTinL1RCJcmvBuuqQch1WWv+qFNXRBg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Actually if I was a LEED reviewer I would accept it
either way because I don't think it will make that much
difference.<br>
<br>
It's all in the reading, though, so when you read it all in one
piece it's:<br>
Opaque assemblies used for new buildings or additions shall
conform with the following common, lightweight assembly types and
shall match the appropriate assembly maximum U-factors in Tables
5.5-1 through 5.5-8:<br>
• Roofs—Insulation entirely above deck<br>
• Above-grade walls—Steel-framed<br>
• Floors—Steel-joist<br>
The roof/wall/floor types specified here <u>are </u>the
lightweight assemblies that are also on the tables with their
corresponding <u>assembly</u> u-values. (Please note I
purposefully left out doors and slab on grade floors).<br>
<br>
Thanks for the historical document, Paul. I'll take it with some
fine gray sea salt, thanks. I was looking for it earlier but
didn't find it. It's worth while to know what the common
definitions of these terms are even though they are less in use
now. If you are using eQUEST this is especially true since this is
what they mean by them. <br>
<br>
Carol<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Paul
Riemer <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Paul.Riemer@dunhameng.com">Paul.Riemer@dunhameng.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);">I take the following info with a
grain of salt but others may find them more
meaningful.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);">From the eQUEST help files:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://volume2dictionary.htm" target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration: none;">Volume 2: Dictionary</span></a>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://envelopecomponents1.htm" target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration: none;">Envelope Components</span></a>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://construction5.htm" target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration: none;">CONSTRUCTION</span></a>
</p>
<p>TYPE</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Specifies the type of construction.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">LAYERS Indicates that the LAYERS
keyword will be used to specify a layered construction.
The program will calculate response factors for this
construction. The response factors will be used in the
hourly simulation to calculate the dynamic, time-delayed
heat flow through the construction. Recommended for all
but lightweight (low heat capacity) constructions.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">U-VALUE Indicates that the U-VALUE
keyword will be used to specify the conductance of the
construction. In this case, the heat flow through the
construction will be considered to be instantaneous,
i.e., without time delay. Recommended only for
lightweight (low heat capacity) constructions.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);">And from a recent LEED review
comment:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">EDUCATIONAL
NOTES FOR FUTURE PROJECTS (Optional): </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Section
1.4.1A of the table does not provide descriptions
for any of the Baseline and Proposed Case envelope
components. Please revise the table to include the
descriptions (i.e. Roof as Insulation Entirely Above
Deck, Walls as Steel-Framed, etc.) for all envelope
components. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size:
10pt; color: rgb(95, 87, 79);">Paul Riemer, PE,
LEED AP</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: rgb(196, 38,
46);">DUNHAM</span></b><span style="font-size:
11pt; color: rgb(95, 87, 79);"></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right: medium none; border-width: 1pt
medium medium; border-style: solid none none;
border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt;"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Eric O'Neill<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Carol Gardner</span></p>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<b>Cc:</b> eQUEST Users List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review
Comment on U-Value Input Method</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Well, perhaps I’m nitpicking,
but I see two distinct statements here.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
<p>1. “shall conform with the following
common, lightweight assembly type”<br>
AND</p>
<p>2. “shall match the appropriate assembly
maximum U-factors in Tables 5.5-1 through 5.5-8”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If a baseline model does not
meet both requirements, it doesn’t pass, right? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A mass construction, to me,
meets both requirements. Just because it has mass
does not mean that it doesn’t match the assembly
U-factors. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, I feel that a U-value
only wall meets #2, but doesn’t meet #1. My
original point was that U-value only constructions
<i>don’t conform</i> with lightweight assembly
types because lightweight constructions, by
definition, have some mass (or else they’d be
no-weight, right?). ASHRAE has provided examples
of “light constructions” in the Fundamentals book
as steel constructions without brick or concrete,
so that tells me that lightweight doesn’t imply no
mass.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But I’ll confess that I’m only
going on instinct and what I feel is the spirit of
the code as Bruce described. It is not terribly
explicit, so I understand your position and it
could probably be argued both ways until the cows
come home. I’d just hate to be on the wrong end of
it when the final review came through…</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Carol Gardner
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com" target="_blank">cmg750@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:46 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Eric O'Neill<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Robby Oylear; Bishop, Bill; Bruce
Easterbrook; eQUEST Users List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review
Comment on U-Value Input Method</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">First
of all, as a former energy code reviewer, 2 years
for Oregon and about 5 for the City of Portland,
it was my responsibility to interpret the intent
of the code when the language or application was
unclear. That explains why I respond to the word
"shall" so strongly. <br>
<br>
When I read "shall conform with the following
common, lightweight assembly type" which for walls
is stated to be steel framed walls, and "shall
match the appropriate assembly maximum U-factors
in Tables 5.5-1 through 5.5-8", I assume I am
being directed to use the Prescriptive assembly
U-factor provided on the Building Energy
Requirements table for my climate zone in Chapter
5.<br>
<br>
I did a bit of research to see if there was
information in the past versions of the standard
and in the User's Manuals. What I found was that
prior to the adoption of Appendix G, the
requirement was to model with the Prescriptive
assembly U-factors as well as to match the heat
capacity in each case: proposed and design. This
meant that if the proposed wall was steel framed
then the baseline must be too and credit could not
be taken for added mass or changes in framing.<br>
<br>
After the adoption of Appendix G and the Energy
Cost Budget Method in 2004 things changed a bit.
At that point the direction in the User's Manual
states that the baseline building is assumed to be
steel framed no matter what the construction of
the proposed building. If the proposed building
uses added mass, or wood framing or beneficial
constructions it is credited to the building. The
baseline building <i>shall</i> comply with the
applicable prescriptive requirements for
steel-framed walls, i.e the Prescriptive assembly
U-factor for steel framed walls on Table 5 for
your climate zone..<br>
<br>
So, I do not see a mandate, or an implication
even, to specify the baseline building walls using
layers. Rather I see a clear instruction to use
the Prescriptive Path U-value for the baseline and
to take credit for any improvements in the
proposed building walls. I don't think this is
"gaming the system" at all. It is sad but true
that many buildings being built today just meet
the minimum prescriptive requirement. I have even
seen some that didn't. If a building owner is
willing to lay out the extra money for a better
wall, why shouldn't he/she get credit for it?<br>
<br>
Stepping off my soap box,<br>
<br>
Carol</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:55
AM, Eric O'Neill <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ELO@michaelsenergy.com"
target="_blank">ELO@michaelsenergy.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Robby, </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I see your point.
However, I’m curious how many wall assembly
types you can think of that meet the
criteria they discuss in that section (and
whether their different themal delay
properties would impact the project):</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p>· Lightweight (I assume this means
no brick exteriors)</p>
<p>· Common</p>
<p>· Steel Framed</p>
<p>· R-13 + R-7.5ci (for instance,
depending on climate zone)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, I’m not saying they
couldn’t be more explicit. You’re absolutely
right that they could be. However, I could
fairly easily justify steel siding, 1.5
inches of polystyrene, steel framed wall
with batt insulation and a gyp board finish.
Maybe small changes like vinyl siding or an
equivalent level of spray foam insulation
would have marginally different time delay
properties, but I’m guessing they would be
negligible based on the information found in
the chapter I previously cited.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Robby
Oylear [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:robbyoylear@gmail.com"
target="_blank">robbyoylear@gmail.com</a>]
</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday,
June 21, 2011 10:12 AM</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>To:</b> Eric
O'Neill; Bishop, Bill; Carol Gardner;
Bruce Easterbrook; eQUEST Users List</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users]
LEED Review Comment on U-Value Input
Method</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While I agree that
modeling the baseline with some level of
light mass should be done to get more
accurate results, it's difficult to
understand why 90.1 would not specify a
mass value to model. The definition of a
baseline is a minimum value for
comparison. How can LEED reviewers
judge whether or not you're taking the
appropriate credit for thermal mass when
the baseline building done by one
modeler will have a different mass value
than one done by another modeler?</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Values that are
vague and undefined (process loads or
lighting plug loads in residential for
example) are typically left the same
between both models. This allows for
the factor to be accounted for, but
provides no credit to the proposed
model. The same could be done for
thermal mass, to account for it in
both models, but not provide credit.
Without a defined baseline, I don't
see how one can justify whether or not
they've modeled the correct
"lightweight" assembly mass value.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-Robby</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Jun 20,
2011 at 9:47 AM, Eric O'Neill <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ELO@michaelsenergy.com"
target="_blank">ELO@michaelsenergy.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think some
confusion stems from the
definition of “lightweight”. The
fundamentals book discusses
light and heavy constructions in
the radiant time series, and
defines a few examples in table
22, ch 30 (2005 handbook –
NonRes Cooling and Heating Load
Calcs, Radiant Time Series
Method). Light constructions are
steel sidings, 2 inches of
insulation, an airspace, and gyp
board. It also defines medium
and heavy, with brick and
heavyweight concrete,
respectively. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So when they
say lightweight, I believe
they’re referring to something
similar. I don’t believe
“lightweight” is intended to
mean “no-weight” for the reasons
Bruce described. It seems to me
they’re giving design teams the
opportunity to take advantage of
a heavy exterior construction if
it reduces the peaks. They do
ask that they conform with the
lightweight assemblies, which,
in my opinion, just a U-value
does not.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>
[mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bishop,
Bill<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June
20, 2011 11:01 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Carol Gardner;
Bruce Easterbrook<br>
<b>Cc:</b> eQUEST Users List</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[Equest-users] LEED
Review Comment on
U-Value Input Method</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Carol,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As we
noted earlier in this
thread, we can’t find an
explicit requirement that
layer-by-layer be used. It
is strongly implied for at
least the proposed in
Appendix G, and it is good
practice for several reasons
as Bruce describes below.
From the 90.1 User’s Manual
– “The general rule for the
baseline building run is
that all inputs must be
identical to the proposed
design run, except for those
features that are allowed to
differ.” It seems logical to
extend this general rule to
<i>input methods</i> as well
as inputs. Would you accept
the modeling results if the
proposed building was done
in TRACE while the baseline
was done in eQUEST?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bilbo</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
Carol Gardner [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com"
target="_blank">cmg750@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, June
20, 2011 11:30 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Bruce
Easterbrook<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Bishop, Bill;
Pasha Korber-Gonzalez;
eQUEST Users List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[Equest-users] LEED Review
Comment on U-Value Input
Method</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I guess
we'll have to agree to
disagree. </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bilizebub:
could you point out the
section in LEED or Std 90
that says that walls must
both be layer by layer.
Thanks.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at
7:01 AM, Bruce
Easterbrook <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bruce5@bellnet.ca" target="_blank">bruce5@bellnet.ca</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I
think what is being
forgotten is "intent",
and the accuracy of
your model. So for
intent the desire of
the powers that be is
that smart design be
used to reduce the
energy consumption of
buildings. You should
not be manipulating
the "system" to take
credit for something
which is not really a
credit. Your model
should be as accurate
as you can possibly
make it with
reasonable effort.
U-value construction
is not accurate, all
buildings have mass.
Mass serves to shave
peaks. When you have
a building modelled
with no mass as soon
as the sun hits it you
will have a cooling
load. With U-value
construction the heat
hitting the building
is immediately loaded
on to the cooling
system at 100%. This
doesn't happen in
reality and you will
oversize your cooling
system. Therefore you
have designed an
inefficient system,
you are costing your
client money because
they have to buy and
operate a bigger
cooling system than
required. Logic and
good modelling dictate
you account for mass.
The baseline is a
"standard" building
construction in use at
this time and that is
defined, "lightweight
steel construction".
You don't get credit
for the mass of this
building. However if
you start adding mass
strategically to
further load shift
your peaks you should
be able to take credit
for that. Besides
U-value construction
is the old school,
brute force technique
when energy was cheap
and we used spread
sheets and
calculators. eQuest
allows us to
accurately predict the
mass effect of a
building and we have
the computing power to
run this program
sitting on our desk.
A good modeller is
required to use all
the tools at their
disposal to create the
best base model they
can so that the
project people can
assess different
techniques to reduce
the energy usage of
the building and the
economic costs of
doing this. I think
it is pretty obvious
the evaluator will
reject a model not
done layer by layer.
They can't easily
check the base
construction, the
U-value method is not
accurate and they are
overloaded. So it's
file 13 and on to the
next project.<br>
Bruce Easterbrook
P.Eng.<br>
Abode Engineering </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
On 20/06/2011
09:03 AM, Bishop,
Bill wrote: </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
Like Pasha
mentioned, if
you use
layer-by-layer
method in the
proposed, you
should use the
same method in
the baseline,
unless you want
to argue that
“lightweight” <i>requires
</i>the use of
the U-value
construction
method. I don’t
see what
advantage that
serves, other
than helping you
avoid the time
of creating
baseline
envelope
constructions.
While
“lightweight” is
not defined in
90.1, the
baseline layer
materials and
thicknesses are
described in A3,
so if you use
the
layer-by-layer
method for both
baseline and
proposed, and if
there is a
difference in
the overall mass
of each wall
construction,
the modeling
output will
reflect that
difference. Both
baseline and
proposed
constructions
will have
“mass”, and if
the proposed
construction is
optimized, there
will be energy
savings.</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">The
eQUEST help menu
item for
“EXTERIOR-WALL
and ROOF”
states that
using LAYERS
rather than
U-VALUE can
result in
greater
computational
time, but gives
more accurate
results.
Computational
time is at the
bottom of my
eQUEST concerns.
I have not
compared
modeling results
of LAYERS vs.
U-VALUE. Delayed
construction
appears to be
required by
Appendix G, is
supposedly more
accurate, and I
don’t see a good
reason <i>not</i>
to use it.</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Billzebub</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Error!
Filename not
specified.</b></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>
[<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of
</b>Pasha
Korber-Gonzalez<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Saturday, June
18, 2011 4:39 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>
eQUEST Users
List<br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re:
[Equest-users]
LEED Review
Comment on
U-Value Input
Method</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Following
the other
comments on
this, I am
confused and
worried too that
if they are
requiring to
simulate mass in
the baseline,
then how could
we use Mass
constructions as
"passive" design
strategies and
take credit for
this type of
ECM?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Directly
from what I was
reading in the
2007 code: Table
G3.1.5-Baseline
Building
Enevelope</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
<i>Opaque
Assemblies.
Opaque
assemblies
used for new
building or
additions
shall conform
with the
following
common,
lightweight
assembly types
and shall
match the
appropriate
assembly
maximum
U-factors in
Tables 5.5-1
through 5.5-8:</i></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Doesn't
the reference to
"lightweight"
assemblies mean
that you don't
have to account
for thermal lags
(massing)?
This has always
been my
interpretation.
Therefore, when
it comes to
modeling the
U-values for the
assemblies with
the U-value
method versus
the layer method
would be
acceptable for
your baseline
simulations.
Where there is
no requirement
to show any type
of massing
effects it
shouldn't matter
if you choose to
use the U-value
input method or
the
layer-by-layer
method.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">But--it
is important for
the simulator to
understand that
when using
eQuest (I can't
speak for other
simulation
tools); the
input method has
to be matched in
both the
baseline and
proposed. You
can't choose
U-value input
for the baseline
and
layer-by-layer
for the
proposed, you
have to use the
"apples-to-apples"
approach for
both models.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">It
will be a big
issue if GBCI
mandates that we
have to use only
layer-by-layer
inputs for
compliance where
Appendix G is
clearly stating
that there is no
need to account
for thermal lag
in the baseline
building as it
states
"lightweight"
construction.
Any type of
thermal lag
characteristics
in lightweight
construction are
negligible to
the performance
of such
constructions as
required by
Appendix G
baseline inputs.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">pkg</p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">On
Fri, Jun 17,
2011 at 3:23 PM,
Carol Gardner
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cmg750@gmail.com" target="_blank">cmg750@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
I'll bite. What
extends it to
the baseline? I
still see that
it just says to
credit it to the
proposed
building. Wasn't
this language
created to guide
people to the
fact that even
if mass was
added to a steel
framed building
it still fell
under the "steel
framed" category
and not the
mass? </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">On
Fri, Jun 17,
2011 at 2:07
PM, Bishop,
Bill <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wbishop@pathfinder-ea.com" target="_blank">wbishop@pathfinder-ea.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Another
piece of the
puzzle.
>From the
90.1 User’s
Manual,
section on
Baseline
Building
Opaque
Assemblies
(p.G14 in 2004
ed.):</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">“The
baseline
building is
assumed to be
steel framed
no matter what
the
construction
of the
proposed
building. If
the proposed
building has
thermal mass
in the
exterior
construction
and this is a
benefit in a
particular
climate, then
the mass is
credited in
the building
performance
rating
method.”</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">So
delayed
construction
is the de
facto method
for modeling
the proposed
envelope, and
by extension,
the baseline.</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">Bill</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b>Error!
Filename not
specified.</b></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
<b>From:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a> [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Carol
Gardner<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Friday, June
17, 2011 4:40
PM<br>
<b>To:</b>
Daniel Knapp<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
<br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re:
[Equest-users]
LEED Review
Comment on
U-Value Input
Method</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p
class="MsoNormal">But
the Simulation
General
Requirements
are for the
simulation
model itself
and it's
capabilities,
they do not
address the
simulation
inputs.<br>
<br>
I think this
section of the
code is what
governs this
issue:<br>
<br>
Opaque
Assemblies.
Opaque
assemblies
used for new
buildings or
additions
shall conform
with the
following
common,
lightweight
assembly types
and shall
match the
appropriate
assembly
maximum
U-factors in
Tables 5.5-1
through 5.5-8:<br>
<br>
But I disagree
with Guarav's
interpretation
for these
reasons. The
use of the
word
assemblies
might
"suggest" the
need to model
the whole
structure but
the use of
"lightweight"
in the
sentence, and
it's location
after the word
<u>shall</u>,
is the key.
Those U-values
in Tables
5.5-1 through
5.5-8 are for
lightweight
construction.
Lightweight
construction
is not delayed
construction.
The Standard
90 committee
even gave us a
variety of
wall types to
select from on
those tables
so that we
would have an
<i>appropriate
assembly
maximum
U-factor</i>
to use.<br>
<br>
Anyway, that's
my
interpretation.<br>
<br>
Carol</p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">On
Fri, Jun 17,
2011 at 9:24
AM, Daniel
Knapp <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca" target="_blank">danielk@arborus.ca</a>>
wrote:</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><br>
FYI,
Simulation
General
Requirements
as laid out in
11.2 of the
90.1 User's
Manual
specifically
call for the
treatment of
Thermal Mass
Effects in the
Minimum
Modeling
Capabilities.
(see 11.1.2.3
and as already
mentioned
G2.2.1.c) and
notes that "A
building's
ability to
absorb and
hold heat
varies with
its *type of
construction*
and with its
system and
ventilation
characteristics.
This affects
the timing and
magnitude of
loads handled
by the HVAC
system.
Simulation
programs must
be able to
model these
effects".</p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
On 2011-06-16,
at 7:15 PM,
Mehta, Gaurav
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Michael,<br>
><br>
> Agreed,
appendix G
does not
specifically
states that
one needs to
model delayed
construction.
However, going
by the
semantics used
in Appendix G,
one can
conclude that
delayed
construction
should be
used. Consider
the following:<br>
><br>
> Table
G3.1-5
Building
Envelope,
under Baseline
Building
Performance,
part (b)
Opaque
Assemblies:
states that
Opaque
assemblies......shall
confirm with
the following
common,
lightweight
assembly types
and shall
match the
appropriate
assembly
U-factors.....<br>
><br>
> **The use
of the term
'assemblies'
suggests the
need to model
the whole
assembly
rather than
only the
U-factor**<br>
><br>
> To answer
your other
question, how
do you know
what comprises
of the
baseline
opaque
assembly, I'll
suggest use
Appendix A.
For example,
for steel
framed walls,
see section
A3.3.1
General,
you'll find
the assembly
layers that
you can use to
model the
baseline above
grade walls.
Similarly, you
can use
respective
sections for
roof, floor,
etc. to
determine the
baseline
assembly
layers.<br>
><br>
> If I
remember
correctly,
somebody in
the past has
been kind
enough to post
the baseline
assemblies
that can be
copied to the
inp file (or
imported into
the inp file).
Search the
archives.<br>
><br>
>
Furthermore,
eQUEST has an
extensive
library of
materials that
one can use,
which includes
the thickens,
specific heat
and density of
the material.
You can create
your own
materials by
using the
ASHRAE
Handbook of
fundamentals,
chapter 26
(2009).<br>
><br>
><br>
> Thanks.<br>
><br>
> Best
regards,<br>
><br>
> Gaurav<br>
><br>
> Gaurav
Mehta, LEED®
AP BD+C<br>
>
Sustainable
Building
Analyst<br>
> Stantec<br>
> 1932
First Avenue
Suite 307<br>
> Seattle
WA 98101<br>
> Ph: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%28206%29%20770-7779" target="_blank">(206) 770-7779</a><br>
> Fx: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%28206%29%20770-5941" target="_blank">(206) 770-5941</a><br>
> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Gaurav.Mehta@stantec.com" target="_blank">Gaurav.Mehta@stantec.com</a><br>
> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.stantec.com/" target="_blank">www.stantec.com</a><br>
><br>
> The
content of
this email is
the
confidential
property of
Stantec and
should not be
copied,
modified,
retransmitted,
or used for
any purpose
except with
Stantec's
written
authorization.
If you are not
the intended
recipient,
please delete
all copies and
notify us
immediately.<br>
><br>
> Please
consider the
environment
before
printing this
email.<br>
>
-----Original
Message-----<br>
> From: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a> [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] On
Behalf Of
James Hansen<br>
> Sent:
Thursday, June
16, 2011 3:09
PM<br>
> To:
Bishop, Bill;
Michael
Mantai; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> Subject:
Re:
[Equest-users]
LEED Review
Comment on
U-Value Input
Method<br>
><br>
> Michael,
I'd advise
that you email
the project
coordinator
(or whatever
GBCI calls the
"head" of a
project review
team).
Usually they
will answer
relatively
quick and easy
questions so
that you don't
have to risk
improperly
addressing a
comment.<br>
><br>
> Ask them
where in
Appendix G it
specifically
requires the
time delayed
method be
used.<br>
><br>
> GHT
Limited<br>
> James
Hansen, PE,
LEED AP<br>
> Senior
Associate<br>
> 1010 N.
Glebe Rd,
Suite 200<br>
>
Arlington, VA
22201-4749<br>
> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:703-338-5754" target="_blank">703-338-5754</a> (Cell)<br>
> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:703-243-1200" target="_blank">703-243-1200</a> (Office)<br>
> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:703-276-1376" target="_blank">703-276-1376</a> (Fax)<br>
> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ghtltd.com/" target="_blank">www.ghtltd.com</a><br>
><br>
><br>
>
-----Original
Message-----<br>
> From: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a> [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] On
Behalf Of
Bishop, Bill<br>
> Sent:
Thursday, June
16, 2011 4:22
PM<br>
> To:
Michael
Mantai; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> Subject:
Re:
[Equest-users]
LEED Review
Comment on
U-Value Input
Method<br>
><br>
> Michael,<br>
><br>
> My
understanding
has always
been that
delayed
construction
should be<br>
> used,
though I can't
find exact
wording in
Appendix G
that requires
it<br>
> other
than
G2.2.1(c). For
other
components/layers
of
steel-framed
walls,<br>
> look to
A3.3.1, and to
Table A3.3 for
assembly
U-Factors for
different<br>
> stud
spacing. You
should be
pretty close
to the
required
U-Factor if
you<br>
> use the
correct
materials and
thicknesses
from A3.3.
Yes, you may
need<br>
> to tweak
a layer or two
to get the
construction
to match the
U-Factor<br>
> exactly.
As described
in other
posts, once
you create
these<br>
>
constructions
for the
baseline, copy
them for
future models.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Bill<br>
><br>
>
-----Original
Message-----<br>
> From: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] On
Behalf Of
Michael<br>
> Mantai<br>
> Sent:
Thursday, June
16, 2011 4:00
PM<br>
> To: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
> Subject:
[Equest-users]
LEED Review
Comment on
U-Value Input
Method<br>
><br>
> We
received the
following
comment on
recent LEED
review:<br>
><br>
> "The
simulation
input
screenshots,
provided in
the EAc1
modeling<br>
> narrative<br>
> report,
indicate that
the exterior
wall and roof
constructions
were<br>
> modeled<br>
> as QUICK
surface type
(U Value Input
specification
method), which
does<br>
> not<br>
> account
for the time
delayed heat
flow through
the
constructions
as<br>
> required<br>
> by
Section
G2.2.1(c).
Revise the
Proposed and
Baseline
models so the<br>
> exterior
walls and roof
surface types
are modeled as
DELAYED (Layer<br>
> Input<br>
>
specification
method) with
the thermal
mass effects
of the
constructions<br>
> taken
into
consideration.
In addition,
provide a
revised LV I
report for<br>
> each
model
reflecting the
changes."<br>
><br>
> Section
G2.2.1(c)
describes
modeling
software
requirements,
but I don't<br>
> see<br>
> anywhere
else in
Appendix G
that specifies
that thermal
mass effects<br>
> have to<br>
> be
included in
the baseline
model.<br>
><br>
> Previous
review
comments on
other projects
have led me to
believe that<br>
> U-value
input was the
correct method
to set up the
baseline
model.<br>
><br>
> If I
revise the
model to input
each layer,
what layers do
I input?<br>
> 90.1-2007
Appendix G
states to use
steel-framed
walls, and the
Tables<br>
> provide
minimum
R-value for
insulation and
overall
assembly
U-value.<br>
> But it<br>
> does not
appear to
provide such
other items as
stud spacing,
sheathing,<br>
> or<br>
> even what
material is on
the outside of
the building
(for exterior<br>
> walls).<br>
> Has
anyone else
had this type
of comment
before or are
you using the<br>
> layer<br>
> input
method for
baseline
models? It
seems that if
I need to
specify<br>
> layers,
the resultant
U-value should
equal exactly
the minimum
U-value<br>
> per<br>
> the 90.1
tables. That
would lead me
to believe
that there
might be<br>
> different
combinations
of layers that
result in the
same U-values
but<br>
> result<br>
> in
different
energy use in
the baseline,
and obviously
I would want
to<br>
> have<br>
> the
highest energy
use for LEED
purposes.<br>
><br>
><br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
>
Equest-users
mailing list<br>
> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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<br>
> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
>
Equest-users
mailing list<br>
> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
>
Equest-users
mailing list<br>
> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
><br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
>
Equest-users
mailing list<br>
> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
></p>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">—<br>
Daniel Knapp,
PhD, LEED® AP
O+M<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca" target="_blank">danielk@arborus.ca</a><br>
<br>
Arborus
Consulting<br>
Energy
Strategies for
the Built
Environment<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.arborus.ca/" target="_blank">www.arborus.ca</a><br>
76 Chamberlain
Avenue<br>
Ottawa, ON,
K1S 1V9<br>
Phone: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%28613%29%20234-7178%20ext.%20113" target="_blank">(613)
234-7178 ext.
113</a><br>
Fax: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%28613%29%20234-0740" target="_blank">(613) 234-0740</a></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Equest-users
mailing list<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">
<br>
<br
clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Carol Gardner
PE</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br
clear="all">
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal">--
<br>
Carol Gardner
PE</p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Equest-users
mailing list<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">
</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre>Equest-users mailing list</pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org" target="_blank">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a></pre>
<pre> </pre>
<pre>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Carol Gardner PE</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Equest-users mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Carol Gardner PE</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Equest-users mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Carol Gardner PE<br>
<style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup{position: absolute;z-index: 9999;padding: 0px 0px;margin-left: 0px;margin-top: 0px;overflow: hidden;word-wrap: break-word;color: black;font-size: 10px;text-align: left;line-height: 130%;}</style>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Equest-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>