<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
and maria is correct "<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Space
by space method does allow trade-offs between spaces, because it
compares the total specified lighting wattage for the entire
building to the <u>sum</u> of space-by-space allowances (see
section 9.6.1 d)." this is also noted in the user's manual in
example 9-p.</span><br>
<br>
On 5/23/12 2:09 PM, Maria Karpman wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:019901cd3928$62cfc0f0$286f42d0$@karpmanconsulting.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (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: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.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.mark
{mso-style-name:mark;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.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="1026" />
</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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Patrick,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
agree with Bill that it is irrelevant for energy modeler
whether space-by-space or building area method was used to
document compliance of the lighting design with the energy
code (see his discussion on mandatory versus prescriptive
requirements of 90.1). As a side note, when compliance with
energy code is documented using prescriptive path (for
example via ComCheck), exceeding LPD allowances for
individual space types does not mean that project fails to
comply using space-by-space method, as you seem to imply
below. Space by space method does allow trade-offs between
spaces, because it compares the total specified lighting
wattage for the entire building to the <u>sum</u> of
space-by-space allowances (see section 9.6.1 d). I also
agree with Bill that space-by-space method is the only way
to provide meaningful feedback to the design team. It also
helps to catch issues with LPD calculations, such as
treating partial or temporary lighting in core and shell
spaces as complete lighting system, or failing to include
unspecified plug-in lighting in hotels into LPD
calculations. Space-by-space method also comes with a carrot
of increased lighting allowances as described in 9.6.2.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Maria
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;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>Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Bishop, Bill<br>
<b>Cc:</b> eQuest Users; Oscar B.<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] Building area method
ASHRAE 90.1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">referencing
this comment: "The only obvious case for using the Building
Area Method to determine modeled LPD is the case that Nick
mentioned where lighting neither exists nor is specified."</span><br>
<span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
or when the lighting designer/electrical engineer has higher
lighting densities that exceed one (or more) of the
space-by-space maximum allowable lpds but compensates for it
by having lower lpds in other spaces such that the whole
building lpd does not exceed the maximum allowable by the
whole building method.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><br>
On 5/23/12 7:45 AM, Bishop, Bill wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Building
Area and Space-by-Space are not methods for designing
lighting systems. They are prescriptive requirements for
demonstrating lighting energy compliance in 90.1. The LPD
allowances in Tables 9.5.1 and 9.6.1 do not need to be
complied with if using energy modeling to demonstrate
compliance for 90.1 and for LEED. (Only the Mandatory
Provisions of 9.4 need to be met for the lighting design.)
Energy modelers only need to know the lighting power and
space use categorizations of the design as shown on the
drawings (along with schedules and controls), not the
process used to design it (which typically considers light
levels in footcandles or lux).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
think that <i>if</i> a lighting system has been designed, a
strong argument can be made that the space-by-space method
needs to be used in both the proposed and baseline cases,
and that lighting power needs to be entered individually for
each space/zone.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
“If construction documents are complete, the proposed
building lighting system power is modeled as shown on the
design documents.” (ASHRAE 90.1 User’s Manual, p. G-17) </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">“The
LPD for the proposed design is taken from the design
documents for the building. The LPD specified in the models
must correspond to the spaces within each thermal block.”
(ASHRAE 90.1 User’s Manual, p. 11-14 and also p. G-18)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
only obvious case for using the Building Area Method to
determine modeled LPD is the case that Nick mentioned where
lighting neither exists nor is specified.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As
Maria Karpman, Nick and Patrick have mentioned, you are
likely to show higher energy savings using the
Space-by-Space method. Beyond that, using Space-by-Space
allows you to give valuable feedback to the design team,
which I would argue is a responsibility of energy modelers.
It is routine for me to point out areas of potential
improvement of the lighting design in every project I model,
based on the allowances in Table 9.6.1. “Yes, Ms. Architect,
that is a lovely looking light fixture, but 2.6 W/ft2 of
lounge lighting is more than twice the baseline allowance.”
I don’t know how you give helpful feedback if you are just
comparing two building-averaged lighting power densities.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Bill</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:wbishop@pathfinder-ea.com"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;text-decoration:none"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part1.04010600.04030103@gmail.com"
border="0" height="118" width="481"></span></b></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:28 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nick Caton<br>
<b>Cc:</b> eQuest Users; Oscar B.<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] Building area method
ASHRAE 90.1</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">actually nick, i agree with you. since i
don't design lighting systems i always ask the lighting
designer which method they're using before i start building a
model. almost all of the lighting designer's i've worked with
use the whole building area method, though as you point out
the space-by-space method can actually do a bit better for
energy savings.<br>
<br>
my point is that there isn't a mandate to use either the
space-by-space or whole building area method and there is no
justification as far as 90.1-200x is concerned for a usgbc
reviewer to claim that the space-by-space method be used. the
requirement per 90.1 is that the method be consistent in both
the proposed and baseline models. space-by-space in both or
whole building in both. this is what i've had to point out to
reviewer's when i've received comments. just quote chapter
& verse to show that the method (space-by-space or whole
building) used meets the 90.1 app g requirement and is applied
the same in both models.<br>
<br>
as far as comcheck, comcheck reports from lighting designers
are only as good as the individual filling them out. i've had
lighting designers (with all of their extra letters including
pe after their names) fill them out incorrectly. i.e. not
having all the lighting fixtures the same in drawing schedules
as input into comcheck, not having same number of fixtures in
drawings and in comcheck, not having the same floor areas in
drawings and in comcheck, and worst of all, not using the same
methodology in comcheck that they've used to design the
lighting system in the first place. yes, i've seen comcheck
reports that indicate space-by-space when the lighting
designer has told me whole building method. and vice versa.
so i always end up confirming my lighting take-offs (from the
lighting plans) and methodology with the lighting
designer/electrical engineer and their comcheck report.<br>
<br>
On 5/22/12 3:58 PM, Nick Caton wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hmm,
I think I’m on the fence here. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
My practice is identical to Vikram’s description for both
energy modeling and when documenting compliance for my
lighting designs: Choose whatever method you wish, but
always use the same approach for baseline and proposed.
This is pretty clear outside of Appendix G, when documenting
compliance. For modeling, I don’t use either approach
predominantly – it depends on the project.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Since
Patrick is pushing one side, I’ll play devil’s advocate =):
I can affirm I’ve used “whole building” averaged LPD in
proposed models for successful LEED submission without
incident multiple times, documenting that clearly along the
way, but I was using “whole building” for the baseline as
well in each instance. I do not personally read 90.1 or
LEED to explicitly require LPD be defined with
space-by-space for a proposed model. Patrick, I just
checked each of your citations and the only specific call
for either method is when the lighting system has not been
designed, in which case the whole building approach is
prescribed. Keep in mind both methods should sum to the
same total installed watts for the proposed design.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Back
to the neutral perspective: I’ll emphasis I do use both
approaches.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">To
Oscar’s case: My general experience has been the whole
building method is less generous in net allowable watts when
you run the numbers both ways. In other words, you may
stand to earn more LEED points by making your baseline more
detailed, using space by space. My suggestion for Oscar is
to simply go with the reviewer’s flow and possibly walk away
with another point tucked under your arm… it’ll probably be
a similar amount of effort on your part relative to
composing an opposing response, and you won’t have to worry
about the reviewer disagreeing =). </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
agree space-by-space is ‘better’ for that reason alone – if
different at all, it tends to yield a better performance
rating. I will acknowledge space-by-space is also “more
accurate,” notably so if you’re simultaneously defining
distinct & accurate lighting schedules space-by-space,
but whether the corresponding additional time investment and
resulting “accuracy boost” are advantageous for a given LEED
model is a toss-up. I personally feel the role accuracy
plays in a LEED model is often overblown to a point of
silliness, but that’s a personal call we each need to make
and a whole ‘nother discussion.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hot
related tip: energy modelers and MEP designers alike need
to be aware of COMcheck. I find it an invaluable time saver
for speeding up takeoffs for whole bldg & space by space
calcs, and it’s only as costly as eQuest.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">~Nick</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><img
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part2.01060701.08050201@gmail.com"
alt="cid:489575314@22072009-0ABB" border="0" height="37"
width="119"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>NICK CATON, P.E.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#CC9900">SENIOR
ENGINEER</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#CC9900"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E">Smith
& Boucher Engineers</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E">25501
west valley parkway, suite 200</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E">olathe,
ks 66061</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E">direct
913.344.0036</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E">fax
913.345.0617</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="www.smithboucher.com"
title="blocked::www.smithboucher.com"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt">www.smithboucher.com</span></a></span><u><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:blue">
</span></u><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:49 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Sami, Vikram<br>
<b>Cc:</b> eQuest Users; Oscar B.<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] Building area method
ASHRAE 90.1</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">as long as a lighting system has been
designed:<br>
<br>
according to ashrae/appendix g the uniform/whole building
method applies a uniform lpd to the BASELINE building only
while the PROPOSED uses what is designed - so long as the
design is based on the whole building area method. the lpd of
the PROPOSED design should not be applied uniformly to the
PROPOSED building simulation. <br>
<br>
see appendix g, table g3.1, section 6 lighting, subsection b,
page 173 (2004), page 179 (2007). user's manual pages g-17/18
(2004 & 2007)<br>
<br>
i would suggest to quote table g3.1 when replying to the
reviewer's comment. i have had reviewer's tell me i have to
use the space-by-space method in a simulation for both
proposed and baseline buildings. this is not correct. what
is correct is that the simulation reflect the methodology used
by the lighting designer. if the lighting design is based on
the whole building method then the whole building method
maximum lpd is used in the BASELINE building. if the design
is based on the space-by-space method then the space-by-space
maximum lpd for each space type is used in the BASELINE
building. in either case the PROPOSED building should reflect
what is designed. by 'what is designed' i mean look at the
lighting plans, lighting schedules, and enter the lpd for each
space/zone (thermal block) based on the number of fixtures,
watts per fixture, and square feet of space.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/22/12 2:15 PM, Sami, Vikram wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
building area method applies a uniform LPD to the entire
building. If you do that in your baseline, you need to apply
a uniform LPD to you proposed building too. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In
general, I don’t recommend using the building are method –
the space by space method is a better approach. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#DCAA2C"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">Vikram
Sami</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">,
LEED AP BD+C</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">Sustainable
Design Analyst</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">1315
Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">t:
404-443-7462 f: </span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray"
lang="ES">404.892.5823 </span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">
e: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vikram.sami@perkinswill.com">vikram.sami@perkinswill.com</a>
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.perkinswill.com/"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray;text-decoration:none">www.perkinswill.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:3.0pt;text-autospace:none"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">Perkins+Will.</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#ADD425">Ideas
+ buildings that honor the broader goals of society</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Oscar B.<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> eQuest Users<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Equest-users] Building area method
ASHRAE 90.1</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">How
does the building area method work?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" id="yui_3_2_0_20_1337697656927248"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" id="yui_3_2_0_20_1337697656927251"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">I
just got a comment from the review team for a project
pursuing LEED certification.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" id="yui_3_2_0_20_1337697656927254"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" id="yui_3_2_0_20_1337697656927257"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">I
used the building area method for the baseline case and
in the proposed case I put the <span class="mark">LPD</span>
from the lighting design. However they told me that the
same method has to be used in both cases.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" id="yui_3_2_0_20_1337697656927260"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" id="yui_3_2_0_20_1337697656927263"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Any
help would be appreciate.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>