<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:10pt">Sheila:<br><br>I find it takes significant additional time to fill out the form. Additionally NC-2009 EAp2 requires that we download it, fill it out and upload it.<br><div> </div>Paul Diglio, CEM, CBCP<br><br><div>87 Fairmont Avenue<br>New Haven, CT 06513<br>203-415-0082</div><br><br><div><span><a target="_blank" href="http://www.pdigliollc.com">www.pdigliollc.com</a></span><div><br></div><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Sheila Sagerer <sheila@energyopportunities.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Paul Diglio
<paul.diglio@sbcglobal.net>; Daniel Knapp <danielk@arborus.ca>; PKConsulting <pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> eQUEST Users List <equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Fri, April 12, 2013 10:29:35 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> RE: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions<br></font><br>
<style><!--
_filtered {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
_filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
_filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{}
--></style><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;">Good morning,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;">Just some thoughts…</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;">My understanding is that the new Section 1.4 Tables are a tool provided to project teams which should be used during design development and before doing a final model for submission to LEED. The spreadsheets are
designed to highlight many of the common errors made in modeling both the Proposed and Baseline buildings. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;">If modelers are aware of these common issues during design development AND pay attention to them, the end result would be a more accurate model for informing design decisions as well as a reduced number of comments needing to be addressed and fewer revisions required between review phases. It should also increase the chances of having a Preliminary model awarded in the Preliminary Review. That in the long run should result in savings for the modeling budget, not cost more time and money just to fill out the form…</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;">Best Regards,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;"> </span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:green;">Sheila Sagerer</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:green;">Energy Engineer, EIT, LEED AP</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:green;">Energy Opportunities, Inc, a 7group company</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:green;">Phone: 717-880-9069</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:#76923C;"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://www.sevengroup.com/">www.sevengroup.com</a></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;"> </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";">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";"> equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Diglio<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 12, 2013 10:12 AM<br><b>To:</b> Daniel Knapp; PKConsulting<br><b>Cc:</b> eQUEST Users List<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions</span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">The
new LEED Section 1 4 Table (Dec 2012) requires the use of Appendix A for calculating assembly u-values.<br><br>Filling out this form adds considerable time onto modeling projects, so you might want to take a look before you bid you next job.<br><br>Regards,</span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> </span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Paul Diglio, CEM, CBCP</span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">87 Fairmont Avenue<br>New Haven, CT 06513<br>203-415-0082</span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> </span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.pdigliollc.com">www.pdigliollc.com</a></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> </span></p></div><div><p
class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;"> </span></p><div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;" align="center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";"><hr align="center" size="1" width="100%"></span></div><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";"> Daniel Knapp <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca" target="_blank" href="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca">danielk@arborus.ca</a>><br><b>To:</b> PKConsulting <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com">pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> eQUEST Users List <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank"
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a>><br><b>Sent:</b> Fri, April 12, 2013 9:50:54 AM<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions<br></span><br>I think he's referring to Table G3.1, No. 1.a for the Proposed model where it states that the simulation model of the proposed design shall be consistent with the design documents, including proper accounting of fenestration and opaque envelope types and areas. <br><br>I can't speak to the inconsistency on GBCI reviews. Was the U-value in this case particularly low? As for the comment itself, I think it simply speaks to the need to include the effects of thermal bridging in determining the overall U-value for the assembly. Maybe you've already done this, in which case I would suggest you simply document your approach in your response. <br><br>I highly recommend checking out this paper
published in 2011 which uses 3D heat flow modelling to calculate thermal transmittance through steel-framing, parapets, balconies, spandrels, etc. <br><br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.morrisonhershfield.com/ashrae1365research/Documents/MH_1365RP_Final_%20small.pdf">http://www.morrisonhershfield.com/ashrae1365research/Documents/MH_1365RP_Final_%20small.pdf</a><br><br>All the best,<br>Dan<br><br>—<br>Daniel Knapp, PhD, P Phys, LEED® AP O+M<br><a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca" target="_blank" href="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca">danielk@arborus.ca</a><br><br>Arborus Consulting<br>Energy Strategies for the Built Environment<br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.arborus.ca">www.arborus.ca</a><br>76 Chamberlain Avenue <br>Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9 <br>Phone: (613) 234-7178 ext. 113<br>Fax: (613) 234-0740<br><br><br><br><br>On 2013-04-12, at 8:55 AM, PKConsulting <<a rel="nofollow"
ymailto="mailto:pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com">pasha.pkconsulting@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Thanks Cam, I couldn't find where it reads this in Table g3.1, Could you give me a page reference please? I need to provide my client with this reference info for their future projects.<br>> <br>> Also can you explain why this hasn't been addressed on LEED projects in the past? This is the first time I have received this comment on any of my LEED submissions.<br>> <br>> Thanks,<br>> Pasha<br>> <br>> Sent from my iPhone<br>> <br>> On Apr 12, 2013, at 5:45 AM, "Cam Fitzgerald" <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:cam@energyopportunities.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:cam@energyopportunities.com">cam@energyopportunities.com</a>> wrote:<br>> <br>>> Good morning, Pasha,<br>>> <br>>> Appendix G primarily provides very
specific guidance for building the appropriate Baseline model to use as a benchmark to calculate the projected energy savings for your Proposed building as designed. Most of the guidance in Table G3.1 for the Proposed model indicates it must be modeled as designed. This is where appendix A comes in for the Proposed constructions. U-values may only be calculated using the inverse of the sum of the R-values if each layer is continuous (e.g. uninterrupted by other materials such as steel studs or joists). Appendix A provides tables with the effective U-values for various common heterogeneous constructions. Depending on the construction, the overall U-value for the assembly can vary significantly from the U-value calculated by summing the U-value of the major components. The Appendix A assembly performance must be used for the Proposed constructions to accurately reflect performance of the building envelope. Hope this helps.<br>>>
<br>>> Have a great day!<br>>> <br>>> Cam Fitzgerald<br>>> <br>>> Energy Opportunities/a 7group company<br>>> <br>>> <br>>> <br>>> From: <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a> [mailto:<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] On Behalf Of Pasha Korber-Gonzalez<br>>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:00 PM<br>>> To: eQUEST Users List<br>>> Subject: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions<br>>> <br>>> Hi -- hopefully others have run into this before. We have a review comment that
suggests that we need to revise our Proposed Construction performance values by reference of Appendix A constructions from 90.1 standard.<br>>> <br>>> This is a new comment which I have not experienced LEED Reviewers addressing on past projects, and it seems to be in line with the release of the new Table 1.4 that is so interactive and also requires reference to Appendix A tables for proposed construction performance values.<br>>> <br>>> I have re-read Appendix G and cannot find any required reference to using Appendix A performance values for proposed construction except for Fenestration that is Not NFRC rated. Where does it state the requirement to use Appendix A values for all of the proposed envelope construction values?? Why is GBCI implementing this now, and it was never a factor before?<br>>> <br>>> I need some education on this one please, I couldn't find any specific
references on my own.<br>>> <br>>> Thanks!<br>>> <br>>> Pasha<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Equest-users mailing list<br>> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a><br>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" target="_blank" href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Equest-users mailing list<br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a><br>To unsubscribe from this mailing list
send a blank message to <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG" target="_blank" href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></body></html>