<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
To bring up a topic from a year ago (below) I have a question about
using the Space by Space approach with a multi-family building.
There is a BAM Category for Multi-Family, but not a Space by Space
category for multi-family (except for dormitories).<br>
<br>
Is there a work-around for space by space with multi-family?<br>
<br>
I apologize if this has been covered before.<br>
<br>
<br>
On a working Saturday.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C
+1 916 966 9060
FAX +1 916 966 9068
===============================================
<b>Nick Caton</b>
<a href="mailto:equest-users%40lists.onebuilding.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEquest-users%5D%20Building%20area%20method%20ASHRAE%2090.1&In-Reply-To=%3CECDF361A89E5FA479BE7E64C658B52050D8E2006%40SANDBINC4.sbi.smithboucher.com%3E" title="[Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1">ncaton at smithboucher.com
</a>
<i>Wed May 23 17:57:42 PDT 2012</i>
</pre>
<ul>
<li>Previous message: <a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-May/011648.html">[Equest-users]
Building area method ASHRAE 90.1
</a></li>
<li>Next message: <a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-May/011643.html">[Equest-users]
Building area method ASHRAE 90.1
</a></li>
<li> <b>Messages sorted by:</b> <a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-May/date.html#11649">[
date ]</a> <a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-May/thread.html#11649">[
thread ]</a> <a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-May/subject.html#11649">[
subject ]</a> <a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-May/author.html#11649">[
author ]</a> </li>
</ul>
<hr> David's summary looks pretty good to me!
<br>
<br>
I want to emphasis a great point that came up along the way: Space
by space can result in more LEED points by 'padding the baseline,'
sure... But "real" savings result from closely reviewing the
proposed design, which in turn generates opportunities to identify
specific means of design improvement.
<br>
<br>
I'll share a related strategy. Consider: Engaging the lighting
designer and improving design doesn't require tallying the
space-by-space totals. If I recognize significant improvements can
be made with revised layouts, fixture reselection, and/or tweaked
control schemes, I have found it VERY productive to simply share
with the lighting designer (and design team leaders, if necessary)
posed scenarios: "If you can reduce your installed watts by just
10%, the LEED models will earn 2 more LEED points." "If you define
your astronomical timeswitch to shut off non-critical lighting after
2AM, the project earns a LEED point." Such 'carrot on a stick'
proposals normally get the intended results with minimal friction,
engage the designers in a positive way ("Hey, I just earned the
easiest LEED point ever!") and performing the exploratory
simulations to compose these proposals can be a lot less effort on
the modeler relative to a standard-focused space-by-space analysis
(I'm thinking of big buildings).
<br>
<br>
><i>From another perspective: Some of us lighting designers are
sensitive creatures =D... We may have a tough exterior, but deep
inside it hurts my poor fragile feelings if someone claims
"Standard XYZ states bla-bla-bla and therefore you suck at your
job." This advice applies to designers of any discipline, of
course. If you want to pursue improving design with a
standards-centric base, be mindful of this possibility. Making
everyone happy to be working with an energy modeler can be quite a
challenge, but the results are rewarding.
</i>
Hope that was illuminating!
~Nick
<br>
<br>
[cid:<a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">489575314
at 22072009-0ABB</a>]
NICK CATON, P.E.
SENIOR ENGINEER
Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
olathe, ks 66061
direct 913.344.0036
fax 913.345.0617
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.smithboucher.com">www.smithboucher.com</a>
From: <a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces
at lists.onebuilding.org</a> <br>
<br>
[mailto:<a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces
at lists.onebuilding.org</a>] On Behalf Of David Eldridge
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:54 PM
To: eQuest Users
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1
<br>
<br>
Patrick, the space-by-space LPD aren't mandatory requirements, so
you'd be able to trade lighting power through space-by-space or BAM.
Someone will have to perform the take-off either way to calculate
the BAM weighted LPD for the Proposed case, so you aren't saving
much time on the Proposed model. (Only saving the time to actually
assign the Watts to the zone in the model.)
There will be a small time savings in Baseline model creation by not
determining and entering space-by-space power usage into the model.
I agree with Bill that 90.1's wording about "...if a lighting design
exists..." points me towards space-by-space if at all possible. But
GBCI seems to accept both, regardless of possible BAM inaccuracies
which as Nick pointed out may or may not be significant, so the main
result of this gigantic thread is:
<br>
<br>
1. Use the same method in both cases.
<br>
<br>
2. Several people think 90.1 suggests space-by-space if the lighting
system is designed.
<br>
a. Not always (ever?) enforced/requested by GBCI.
<br>
b. When the model is being used to inform the design or
calculate incentives, this is the more accurate approach if there is
variance in the spaces for control types, LPD values, and occupancy
schedules.
<br>
<br>
3. Although BAM may not provide the most accurate predictions of
energy usage, it may still be "legal" for EAC1 point calculation
purposes.
<br>
<br>
David
David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus Associates
<br>
<br>
From: <a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces
at lists.onebuilding.org</a><mailto:<a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces
at lists.onebuilding.org</a>> [mailto:<a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces
at lists.onebuilding.org</a>] On Behalf Of Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:41 PM
To: Bishop, Bill
Cc: eQuest Users; Oscar B.
<br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1
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."
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>
On 5/23/12 7:45 AM, Bishop, Bill wrote:
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).
<br>
<br>
I think that if 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. "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)
"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)
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.
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.
Regards,
Bill
-<a
href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org"></a>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"> </pre>
</body>
</html>