<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="+1"> I'm an independent consultant across the lake
from you, east of Kingston ON. My clients aren't asking for LEED,
it is mostly a cost issue. LEED is expensive to add to a project
and we don't get much in the way of incentives to use it, mostly
bragging rights. Most of my work is optimizing so I still use a
baseline model to work from. Sometimes it is even hard to get
clients to do that, ie, use eQuest for load calculations, system
sizing and zoning. They would prefer a calculator, one 8.5 x 11
page for a design and in 2 hours or less. The model comes in
handy later during the commissioning and troubleshooting. So
mostly I start with the architect and his drawings, do the model
and mechanical design, approve equipment, oversee the mechanical
trades, balancing and commissioning. And last but not least, the
phone call when the first cold snap hits if something got missed.<br>
Our building code references ASHRAE 90.1 for minimum system
efficiencies and good practice.<br>
As Pasha stated earlier LEED is a monopoly, it adds a whole
new level of bureaucracy to building. It is not mandatory so
incentives are used to get builders to buy in and use it. 90.1
though, is a standard and is pretty much referenced across North
America in all the building codes. It is also mature, all the
bugs are out of it, it is straight forward. LEED is a new born
and there are a lot of wrinkles to work out. I my opinion it gets
into areas it probably shouldn't be, and legitimizes some
inefficient building styles. But on the whole it is a good idea.
I read an earlier version cover to cover and decided I would do my
best to not to get involved. Many of my thoughts are being proven
out when I read about the difficulties modellers are having on
this site. That was why I mentioned R-2000, a similar
bureaucratic operation which imploded under its own mass. But
it's good parts and ideas are in every new house built in North
America, not just Canada. Many ideas are in all buildings. It
has morphed into Energuide for Houses, a point system for rating
efficiency of a design. It is a much saner program.<br>
Commercially much of what is being done is still in the dark
ages with 90.1 rated equipment in Canada, my opinion. There are
some flashes of brilliance happening too, but not to the same
extent as in the US. LEED may be part of the cause with the
incentives offered. But the building owners are waking up due to
the escalating cost of energy, realizing good engineering design
can save them a lot of money.<br>
On the time factor to use the layer method, I mostly use the
eQuest library. It is quick to select and most times very close
to what I'm modelling. I recently worked on a 100+ year old jail
with stone walls 24" thick. That one I did customize the layers.
That was easy compared to what the sheet metal contractor had to
deal with. Some of the walls were still dumping in large amounts
of heat at 3 AM. The air conditioning load was peaking at 11 pm.
Be careful, eQuest doesn't report during your set back, you might
miss the peaks. This brings up another significant point. Night
set back is widely used as an energy saving strategy. To use it
properly you need to know when to bring your systems back on line
before the building occupants arrive. So you need to have an idea
of how much mass you have and what it is doing so when the person
sits down at their desk at 8 AM the temperature is where it is
supposed to be. Time of use (TOU) electrical rates just added
another complication, thanks Eric. Your model says you need an
hour for your system to get the mass back under control, a 7 AM
start to the systems. TOU says your electrical rates double at 7
AM. Your system is running hard because it is playing catch up.
The new basic strategy would dictate you start your systems at 6
AM. Maybe start at 5 AM with a ramped temperature increase
because the optimum efficiency of your system occurs at 80%
load. Maybe over cool till 7 AM and let the temperature float up
to set point at 8 AM. As was noted in an earlier post 2% will get
you a point. All these little items start to add up and give an
idea of how finely we are starting to tune the designs. These
savings will apply for 20 or 30 years. We are now talking about
significant amounts of money just on night set back. There is a
lot of low hanging fruit with big impacts. <br>
This is what Pasha and Carole are talking about and the client
who is only concerned with the bottom apple. The bottom line is
you have to get paid for your work and a 80 hour design won't cut
it for the client who is balking at 40 hours which is a real bare
bones model just running. You have to assess the job and make an
executive decision on how to set up your model and how much it is
going to cover. You should also think about a contract or a
proposal which defines what you are going to do and how much it
will cost. When you hit your job description you present to the
client. Now you have an economic argument for the slow learners
or cheap skates. You have paid me $10,000 to do this, I can show
you $200,000 in savings over 10 years. There are 3 more easy
areas which I suggest you look at, it will cost $5,000 and the
ballpark savings are $100,000 over 15 years. The client can see
the value in your work. LEED is tough, I can't imagine running at
less than 200 hours. When a reviewer costs you 40 hours I can see
why modellers are frustrated when your budget was 8 and we know
who's pocket that comes out of. My pocket was picked a few times
early on, twice heavily. A large part of it was me and my
estimate of time, but you suck it up, do what you promised and
learn for the next time. The client comes back and is more
educated too as to the true cost and benefit of your work.<br>
Bruce Easterbrook P.Eng.<br>
Abode Engineering<br>
</font><br>
On 22/06/2011 10:04 AM, Bishop, Bill wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:247F8F3A32315040A92C035CB2B4E550238B12@PATHMAIL2.pathfinderengineers.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<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";
color:black;}
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";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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="2050" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Bruce,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Do you work for a firm, or are you and
independent consultant? Do you choose not to do LEED work,
or are your clients not asking for it? What is the governing
code compliance path in your area, or is most of your
modeling optimizing the actual design instead of doing a
proposed vs. baseline comparison? Sorry to hound you with
lots of questions. I’m relatively new in the field and I
like to learn from more experienced engineers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);">Bill<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><img id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part1.04050307.05090809@bellnet.ca"
alt="Signature in jpg form" height="123" width="496"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31,
73, 125);"><o:p> </o:p></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;
font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:
windowtext;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:
10pt; font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:
windowtext;"> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Bruce Easterbrook<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:16 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Carol Gardner<br>
<b>Cc:</b> eQUEST Users List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment
on U-Value Input Method<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> 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>
</span>On 21/06/2011 05:39 PM, Carol Gardner wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">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<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Paul
Riemer <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Paul.Riemer@dunhameng.com">Paul.Riemer@dunhameng.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:
11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:
11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">From the eQUEST help
files:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>TYPE<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">Specifies the type of
construction.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:
11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:
11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:
11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">And from a recent LEED
review comment:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:
10pt;">EDUCATIONAL NOTES FOR FUTURE PROJECTS
(Optional): </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:
10pt;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:
11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b>DUNHAM</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:
11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right: medium none; border-width: 1pt
medium medium; border-style: solid none none; padding:
3pt 0in 0in; border-color: -moz-use-text-color;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<b>Cc:</b> eQUEST Users List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review
Comment on U-Value Input Method<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">Well, perhaps I’m
nitpicking, but I see two distinct statements
here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>1. “shall conform with the following
common, lightweight assembly type”<br>
AND<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2. “shall match the appropriate assembly
maximum U-factors in Tables 5.5-1 through 5.5-8”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">If a baseline model
does not meet both requirements, it doesn’t pass,
right? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">Eric<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></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<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">Robby, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>· Lightweight (I assume this means
no brick exteriors)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>· Common<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>· Steel Framed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>· R-13 + R-7.5ci (for instance,
depending on climate zone)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">Eric<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b>From:</b>
Robby Oylear [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:robbyoylear@gmail.com"
target="_blank">robbyoylear@gmail.com</a>]
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b>Sent:</b>
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:12 AM<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b>To:</b>
Eric O'Neill; Bishop, Bill; Carol Gardner;
Bruce Easterbrook; eQUEST Users List<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users]
LEED Review Comment on U-Value Input
Method<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">-Robby<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">Eric<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[Equest-users] LEED
Review Comment on
U-Value Input Method<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">Carol,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">Bilbo<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""><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<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">I
guess we'll have to agree to
disagree. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="">Bilizebub: could
you point out the section
in LEED or Std 90 that
says that walls must both
be layer by layer. Thanks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="">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 <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""><br>
On 20/06/2011
09:03 AM, Bishop,
Bill wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">Billzebub<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""><b>Error!
Filename not
specified.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><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<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">Directly
from what I was
reading in the
2007 code: Table
G3.1.5-Baseline
Building
Enevelope<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">pkg<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">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? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">Another
piece of the
puzzle.
>From the
90.1 User’s
Manual,
section on
Baseline
Building
Opaque
Assemblies
(p.G14 in 2004
ed.):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">“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.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">So
delayed
construction
is the de
facto method
for modeling
the proposed
envelope, and
by extension,
the baseline.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">Bill<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><b>Error!
Filename not
specified.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re:
[Equest-users]
LEED Review
Comment on
U-Value Input
Method<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">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<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><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".<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><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>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">—<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><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><br>
<br
clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Carol Gardner
PE<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><br>
<br
clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="">-- <br>
Carol Gardner
PE<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style=""><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Equest-users mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Carol Gardner PE<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Carol Gardner PE<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Carol Gardner PE<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Equest-users mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a><o:p></o:p></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">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>