[BLDG-SIM] Lab system in ECB & LEED

[Dennis Lee Gmail]

Eric, I am checking 90.1-2004, I do not have 90.1-1999 in hand.

from Definitions, Process Energy and Process Load should include
provisions of make-up air for fume hood exhaust (also kitchen hood).

from Clause 6.5.7.2, it does not classify if fume hood is or not process

from User's Manual 90.1-2004, in page 6-13: the example refers to
Table 6.8.1A to M (it is an error because Table 6.8.1A to J only shown
in 90.1-2004)

from User's Manual 90.1-2004, in page 6-15, the expample only state
"tight humidity control" (not to comply with 90.1, just like energy
for elevator or computer server room, i.e. not included in modeling).
The example does not state OA for fume hood should or not be comply
with 90.1 or not. I highly recommend you need read this example
CAREFULLY, this is very similar to your case

In general, my thoughts are:
1. OA load for hood is process load
2. This load should be included in modeling as non-regulated
3. LEED only compares regulated energy saving, read Reference Guide
v2.1 page 145 again.

I hope the result of our discussion (even no final result) should make
more people aware of, and listen other's voices.

Dennis


Other reference resources:
LEEDv2.1 CIR 6/8/2005 ruling


On 6/9/06, Paul Erickson <perickson at aeieng.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Eric,
>
> I'm glad to see you're looking at using an ERV, just curious if you're
> passing lab exhaust through it?  Most folks are pretty uncomfortable with
> it.  John Hopkins is the only project I'm aware of that's putting lab
> exhaust through...I'd love to hear about others.
>
> As for OA cfm, I think the minimum std. 62 rates are all you need to get to,
> so OA cfm can be different for the two cases as long as you meet code
> minimums.
>
> Another point, if you're claiming the exception c in ASHARE 90.1,1999
> 6.3.6.1 then are you following 6.3.7.2 (a)?
>
> I just talked to another guy in our office who had done the bulk of our lab
> LEED work for v2.1, and he said that previous credit interpretations DID NOT
> allow for the exempting of ventilation as process.  This was my
> understanding as well because on a previous lab project I did not exempt it,
> and we did not do ERV's on lab exhaust, and thus we were forced to include
> 6.3.7.2 (a) as part of the Budget Building.
>
> Based on this, I wouldn't fully agree with Peter that you should drop LEED,
> but be aware that it can be difficult to do more than meet the prerequisite.
>  You really can't take any credit for more efficient fans based on Std.
> 90.1-1999 wording, so it comes down to duct size and what impact you can
> make on other space types (i.e. office, classroom).
>
> Sorry I'm not providing encouraging feedback.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul
>
>
> >>> "Eric Yang" <Eric.Yang at smithgroup.com> 6/9/2006 8:19 am >>>
>
> Hi, Dennis and Paul
>
> Really thanks for your kind suggestions.
>
> We are submitting for LEED v2.1 and process load will not be considered in
> the final energy calculation.   The ventilation system has an air handling
> unit (VAV with energy wheel) with VAV boxes serving the laboratory and
> office space.  The lab exhaust will operate at constant volume when the AHU
> system is on.  The heating/cooling load will be separate due to the space.
> But I am still confused about the difference of outside air between the
> proposed design and budget design.   If I override the OA cfm both for both
> proposed and budget design, the budget system won't have 100% OA any more.
>
> We have another air handling unit, which is 100% OA system serving the
> animal lab.  The flow of proposed design is 5200 cfm while the flow of
> budget design is 7200 cfm.  I intend to consider this entire animal lab as
> the process load, though it has corridor space in this system.   Therefore
> the process load will different between the proposed and budget design.
>
> Per exception c in ASHARE 90.1,1999 6.3.6.1, the budget design don't have
> the exhaust air energy recovery because exhausting system contains toxic
> gases.
>
> In your previous project, did you keep the amount of outside air the same
> between the proposed and budget design?
>
> Really appreciate your help.
>
> Best
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For example, we have the unit
>
>   _____
>
> From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Paul
> Erickson
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:33 PM
> To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM
> Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Lab system in ECB & LEED
>
>
>
> Dennis,
>
>
>
> Previously the PROCESS load was not considered as part of EAc1 (LEED-NC
> v2.1).  However, as part of a project I am currently working on, all
> language in v2.2 related to process energy, and some feedback from others
> (waiting on credit interpretation), leads us to believe that PROCESS energy
> cost must be considered, and thus energy savings within process loads can be
> used to justify reduced building energy consumption/cost.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> >>> "Dennis Lee Gmail" <dennis.lee.pe at gmail.com> 6/8/2006 11:36 am >>>
> Your lab exhaust is PROCESS load, LEED EAc1 will not compare energy
> saving from the process, but only compare the saving from HVAC system
> for humam comfort, i.e. only for office and classroom.
>
> Depends how your ventilation system was designed, the heating/cooling
> loads should be seperated for human comfort and process. I did a
> similar case for a trade college building.
>
> Few questions need to be answered anyway:
> 1. is the lab exhaust operating constantly, or ON/OFF switch available
> on each station so that VAV exhaust is considerable (mine is VAV
> exhaust)
> 2. Can you seperate ventilation system for human comfort and make-up
> air for lab exhaust
> 3. Is there heat recovery system possible for AHUs
> 4. Did you check ASHRAE 90.1-2004, which regulates heating/cooling
> load for make-up air for process exhaust, included kitchen hood
> e xhaust, this will help you set up your reference building.
>
> Hope it helps
>
> Dennis Lee
>
>
> On 6/8/06, Peter Simmonds <peter.simmonds at ibece.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The first response would be to drop LEED.
> >
> >
> >
> > The second would be to suggest that you VAV lab exhaust to reduce energy,
> > you get an extra point for ventilating in excess of 62.1 recommended
> minimum
> > requirements. Classrooms will also 100% OA. The lab supply air will be
> > higher than 90.1 or 62.1 recommends, use the real world cfm as a constant
> > volume system to determine the standard case then use the VAV fume hood
> > control to reduce the energy consumption compared to the adapted standard
> > case.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Simmonds Ph.D.
> >
> > Associate
> >  IBE Consulting Engineers
> >
> > 14130 Riverside Drive Suite 201
> >
> > Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
> >  p:   (818) 377-8220
> >  f:    (818) 377-8230
> >  m:  (818) 219-1284
> >  IDEAS FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
> >
> >  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
> the
> > intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> > information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is
> > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender
> > by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> >
> >  ________________________________
> >
> >
> > From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Eric Yang
> >  Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:34 AM
> >  To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM
> >  Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Lab system in ECB & LEED
> >
> >
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> >
> >
> > We have a proj ect going for LEED certification EA1.  The building has 20%
> > classroom space, 20% office space and 60% chemical lab space.  The system
> > has 100% OA because of the lab system.
> >
> >
> >
> > According to the ASHRAE 90.1 user guide, the minimum ventilation rates
> > designed for the proposed building must also be modeled in the budget
> > building design. Ventilation is energy neutral as far as trade-offs are
> > concerned.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since the heating and cooling load between proposed and budget building is
> > different, the calculated air flow of budget design is larger than the
> > proposed design. It means the outside air is also larger than the proposed
> > design.  My question here is how to have the same minimum ventilation
> rates
> > and keep it "energy neutral"?
> >
> >
> >
> > This question is more about the LEED certification and if anyone has any
> > s uggestions and recommendations, please let me know.
> >
> >
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric
> & gt;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Yang, LEED AP
> >
> > Mechanical Engineer
> >
> > SmithGroup
> >
> > 1850 K Street, NW, Suite 250
> >
> > Washington, DC 20006
> >
> > t  202.974.4555 (direct)
> >
> > f. 202.974.4500
> >
> > eric.yang at smithgroup.com
> >
> > www.smithgroup.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ==================
> > You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
> > to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe
> > from this mailing list send a blank message to
> > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
> >
> > You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
> > to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
> > from this mailing list send a blank message to
> > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
> >
> >
>
> ======================================================
> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
> to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe
> from this mailing list send a blank message to
> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================
> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
> to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe
> from this mailing list send a blank message to
> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
>
>
>
>

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM