[BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation

Michael Tillou michael.tillou at gmail.com
Wed Dec 5 09:35:05 PST 2007


Timothy, I respectfully disagree with some of your opinions (and Brandon's)
about how Appendix G unfairly penalizes building designs.  First off calling
it a "penalty" mis-represents what Appendix G is trying to accomplish.  The
goal of Appendix G is  to create a theoretical energy budget for a building
based on the minimum requirements of ASHRAE 90.1.  A methodology for
creating an energy budget has to be the same for every building that uses
it.  This is the reason why Appendix G originally required banded windows
and is the reason it is important to have a building rotation requirement to
represent orientation. 
 
Timothy, you're right, architects often have little control over building
sites and often there is nothing that can be done about how a building gets
sited in an urban environment.  However the building energy budget should be
blind to that fact. The same building (use type, sq.ft., # of floors) in the
same climate zone should have the same energy budget regardless of its
location/orientation.   In some cases building orientation will make it
easier for a building to have a lower EUI and in other cases it will be more
difficult but no matter what the orientation the basis for making a
comparison has to be the same.  Designing and constructing a building is an
exercise in compromise and owners and design teams need to make the hard
decisions about what is most important.  We have to admit that building a
building on certain sites is more difficult (from an energy perspective) and
then use energy modeling as a tool to help architects and engineers improve
their designs.  We shouldn't be re-writing rules making things easier
because it sends the message to owners, architects and engineers that they
don't really have to change the status-quo.
 
I agree that Appendix G is still "clunky", I constantly wrestle with how to
interpret the different aspects of the methodology and get frustrated at the
effort required to complete the modeling.  The greater flaw (this is said
with the greatest respect for the countless volunteer hours put into
creating Appendix G by the ASHRAE 90.1 folks) I see with Appendix G is that
its genesis was the ECB methodology (Timothy, I think we are in agreement
about this point) which is intended for demonstrating compliance with ASHRAE
90.1.  In my opinion revisions to Appendix G need to occur, these changes
need to take Appendix G away from its "code compliance" roots and towards a
methodology that is easier to automate via software rule sets in a reliable,
repeatable way.  Having automated rule sets will reduce the chance for
gaming and will hopefully make it easier to establish an energy budget early
in the design process which is what we really need.
 
Mike
 
  
Michael Tillou, PE, LEED
Tillou Engineering, LLC
Williamstown, MA 01267
P: 413-458-9870 C: 413-652-1087
 
 
 
 
 
 


  _____  

From: BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Behalf Of Timothy
Moore
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:43 PM
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation


Indeed, count me in on submitting a change proposal. If I recall, everything
we need is on the ASHRAE web site. I would be happy to have what I posted
used a starting point or initial draft for that and hope that others have
ideas for making the proposed changes better still. After all, if
incorporated, you would all be working with it somewhere down the road. Now
is thus a great time to comment or make suggestions.
 
Thanks, Jason, for your questions regarding my proposal. In response to your
last question asking, "would it be fair for two identical buildings that are
located on two different sites, one constrained and one not, to get
different scores?: There are many situations in which the opportunities
related to a site dictate some aspects of how well optimized the design can
be. Given what I proposed, the situation you're asking about would occur
only when the more constrained site of the two was such that it forced a
beneficial orientation. In such cases, the team with the unconstrained site
would be able to compare to a worse baseline building, and thus could get a
higher score for the same design. They would be permitted to do so only
because their site included to opportunity to neglect orientation---and thus
they could have done worse, but they chose to make the best of it and chose
to do the extra work to get credit for that. The incentive is a carrot, not
a stick, and LEED is full of carrots that are not consistently available to
everyone at all times.
 
Thanks, Brandon, for your comments (pasted in below) in response to Jason's
point/question about how "perhaps choosing a bad site that offers limited
opportunities to face the building in a good direction should carry a
negative consequence." I couldn't agree more with what you had to say.
 
The idea of punishment for a choice that we do not always have the luxury of
making is at the root of the issues discussed over the last few days. If one
does overlook the opportunity to choose a better site, they will already be
faced with the consequences of having to design for a worse condition than
they could have. And, someone else will get the opportunity of choosing the
better site they overlooked. My take on this is that added design challenge
and lost return on investment are sufficiently negative consequences (if and
when one actually has the option to choose otherwise). 
 
It seems to me that the language of negative consequences stems in part from
the historical regulatory compliance perspective of 90.1, which is to
prevent designers and builders from making really bad buildings, rather than
to encourage them to make really good ones. Where it is feasible to take
advantage of building and/or glazing orientation, this needs to be rewarded.
My proposal is aimed at doing this without problematic attempts to punish
those who are less attentive to (or less fortunate) regarding this aspects
of site selection.
 
If 90.1 Appendix G is to be effective, it is essential to avoid provisions
that inevitably do as much or more harm than good. A penalty for having a
large west-facing exposure to deal with is very different than, for example,
a penalty to using excessive glass area or requirement for a given level of
insulation in a particular climate, since the design team will, in all
cases, have the opportunity to reduce glazing area and to select insulation
with an appropriate R-value. However, in the case of building sites, if, for
example, they were all distributed evenly along different sides of a
rectangular city block with high development density, then, depending on
climate and building type, somewhere between 50% and 75% of the sites would
be penalized for being "bad." If this city block happened to be in an
established part of Chicago or Milwaukee, for example, where city blocks
tend to have their long axis oriented N-S, the odds of having to build on a
"bad" site are even higher. Where then is the incentive for making the most
of a less-than-ideal situation?
 
Where the starting point, and thus opportunities to "do the right thing,"
may vary with arbitrary external conditions, the Performance Rating Method
needs to focus on positive incentives for encouraging teams to make the most
of what they have to work with. After all, someone has to build on that SW
corner site. So, let's re-focus the method on rewarding designs that turn a
crummy site into a great building. Those who are fortunate enough to be able
to choose a really good site will still get the added benefit of being able
to design for that condition and, in some cases, lowering their operating
costs, improving return on investment, and racking up a few more percentage
points toward EAc1.
 
Does anyone else have comments or suggestions in support of a continuous
maintenance/change proposal to ASHRAE? As I suggested above, now would be a
good time to make your voice heard.
 
Regards,
Timothy
 
******************************************
Timothy Moore
Integrated Sustainable Design Consultant
LEED AP
 
Whole Systems Design
910 Indian Rock Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94707
Ph: (510) 525-4809
Fx: (413) 480-7252
Cell: (303) 324-1044
tmoore at whole-systems-design.com
 
 
 
Jason,

The paradigm that we must 'punish bad sites' is one of the actual thorns on
the burr under my saddle.  Why MUST we punish bad sites?  Why not reward
designs making the best of a bad site, and sites where changing the building
orientation is an achievable option?

In my humble opinion Timothy's proposals are right on the money in terms of
how projects work in the real world, and what LEED/ASHRAE 90.1's objectives
ought to be -- namely, reward achievement of attainable objectives.  On the
contrary, it's the arbitrary enforcement of this rotation requirement and
the whole punishment-mindset behind it that actually "misses" something.

OK, who wants to collaborate with me in drafting-up a change proposal?
First off, does anyone have a copy of a previous change proposal for
formatting, contact info etc. reference?  Enough talk, time for action!

Regards
 
Brandon Nichols, PE, LEED® AP
Mechanical
HARGIS ENGINEERS
600 Stewart Street
Suite 1000
Seattle, WA 98101

www.hargis.biz <http://www.hargis.biz/> 
d | 206.436.0400  c | 206.228.8707
o | 206.448.3376  f  | 206.448.4450


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Glazer [mailto:jglazer at gardanalytics.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:47 AM
To: tcm at berkeley.edu
Cc: Brandon Nichols; Peter.Simmonds at ibece.net; 'Leonard Sciarra';
chien.harriman at iesve.com
Subject: Re: [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Brandon  <mailto:BrandonN at Hargis.biz> Nichols 
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:42 PM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation


All,

Enough talk, time for action!  Who wants to collaborate in drafting-up a
change proposal?  Timothy, it sounds like you're on board.  

First off, does anyone have a copy of a previous change proposal for
formatting, contact info etc. reference?

Regards
 
Brandon Nichols, PE, LEED® AP
Mechanical
HARGIS ENGINEERS
600 Stewart Street
Suite 1000
Seattle, WA 98101

www.hargis.biz
d | 206.436.0400  c | 206.228.8707
o | 206.448.3376  f  | 206.448.4450


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Glazer [mailto:jglazer at gardanalytics.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:47 AM
To: tcm at berkeley.edu
Cc: Brandon Nichols; Peter.Simmonds at ibece.net; 'Leonard Sciarra';
chien.harriman at iesve.com
Subject: Re: [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation

Timothy,

One issue that your proposals miss is that perhaps choosing a bad site that
offers limited opportunities to face the building in a good direction should
carry a negative consequence. Shouldn't a building that is on a good site
and oriented in such a way to reduce energy use be rated better than a
building located on a poor site that cannot be oriented well?  Also would it
be fair for two identical buildings that are located on two different sites,
one constrained and one not, to get different scores?

Again, please feel free to submit a continuous maintenance proposal to
ASHRAE.

Jason

On 12/3/2007 3:06 AM, Timothy Moore wrote:
> Jason, Brandon, and others doing building simulation for LEED:
> 
>  
> 
> Great to see all of the discussion this topic is generating. It seems 
> well worth considering how better to provide an incentive for 
> orientation without needless hassles and penalties. If you're 
> interested in doing so, please read on and comment.
> 
>  
> 
> The 90.1-2004 Appendix G requirement for averaging the results of four 
> baseline building orientations is, as described by previous comments 
> in this discussion, a somewhat arbitrary and often problematic means 
> of attempting to give credit (or penalty) for building orientation. It 
> can also be a time-consuming pain either when overshadowing from 
> adjacent buildings is modeled (fixed shades), and thus the site shape 
> and coordinate origin may not make sense for a rotated building, or 
> when attempting to compare benefits over the baseline model related to 
> specific strategies (i.e., baseline+X vs. baseline+Y, acknowledging 
> that relative comparisons of strategies can and should most often 
> still be made without ever rotating anything).
> 
>  
> 
> Of potentially even greater concern, in some cases, such as on a very 
> narrow site with N-S major axis, the current requirement needlessly 
> penalizes (i.e., /deducts/ credit from) a design that may be making 
> the best of a constrained situation. Thus, even if the process of 
> generating and averaging baseline performance results for all four 
> orientations were /fully/ automated in the simulation tools, which 
> would alleviate the time and hassle, the current approach would still 
> impose an unfair and unhelpful penalty on certain projects that are 
> forced to orient their building along a N-S axis or with a large SE, SW,
or W exposure, etc.
> 
>  
> 
> However, I agree that we /do/ need some method of encouraging and 
> rewarding beneficial building orientations where applicable.
> 
>  
> 
> It appears the draft Addendum R language that was never approved was 
> one idea for how to address some of the issues described above. I 
> would hazard a guess that it was not approved because of the tendency 
> for such language of "exceptions" to become a loophole open to 
> interpretation and gaming, and thus something likely to weaken the 
> performance rating method and generate more work for reviewers, not to 
> mention superfluous LEED credit interpretation rulings.
> 
>  
> 
> I support the idea of a positive incentive or opportunity offered by 
> the /_option_/ for comparing to the averaged results for the rotated 
> baseline building, plus a similar /_option_/ with respect to glazing 
> orientation, /if/ and /when/ permitted by straightforward criteria. I 
> would propose the following requirements be met for the /optional/ use 
> of such averaged values for the baseline building...
> 
>  
> 
> The project would need to show simple documentation that one of the 
> two options was indeed applicable, and thus they should be permitted 
> to use the associated method for adjusting the baseline building results:
> 
>  
> 
> *Option 1)* Demonstrate via a simple sketch or other graphic 
> representation that there is space on the site for the same total 
> building footprint area to be re-shaped to be either more nearly 
> square in terms of solar orientation OR to be rotated at least 60 
> degrees (or similar value TBD) from the design orientation---thus _it 
> would have been possible and plausible to neglect building 
> orientation_. In this case the team would be permitted to compare to 
> an average of rotated baseline building results as in 90.1-2004 
> Appendix G. As with Appendix G, overshadowing from adjacent buildings, 
> etc. would need to be modeled as a fixed shading item that does not 
> rotate with the building. For cases where the proposed building 
> orientation is elongated and rotated by something less than 60 degrees 
> (or whatever similar threshold was established for this option)---for 
> example, rotated 45 degrees from the orientation of the major axis of 
> the site, adjacent road, adjacent buildings, etc.---and there is not 
> enough space on the site to rotate it a full 60 degrees, the team 
> should be permitted (if they see fit) to compare to a baseline result 
> that is the average of just two orientations of the very same
> footprint: the proposed orientation and whatever they believe to be 
> the worst orientation of the /same/ /footprint shape/ that would 
> actually still fit on the site. If Option #1 were selected, doing so 
> would eliminate Option #2 in order to avoid double counting.
> 
>  
> 
> *Option 2)* Demonstrate with simple table of summed values that the 
> glazing fraction or window-to-wall ratio (WWR) for the facades on the 
> proposed design is asymmetric in terms of orientation (e.g., 
> differences are greater than 5%), AND confirm that this is NOT an 
> outcome forced by an immediately adjacent building or other constraint 
> of the physical building site, but rather a deliberate design 
> strategy---thus _the design /could/ have neglected any such 
> orientation of WWR_. In this case the team would be permitted to 
> compare their design to a baseline with /identical/ WWR for all façade 
> orientations---i.e., evenly distributed glazing as indicated by WWR (but
/not/ a rotated building, as in Option #1).
> 
>  
> 
> The idea here is to permit teams to get credit for either building 
> orientation OR glazing orientation on the building _if they believe it 
> to be significant_ AND _it would have been possible to neglect it_.
> 
>  
> 
> If neither of these options were applicable and implemented, the 
> baseline building would simply be modeled in the same orientation as 
> the proposed design and with the same proportional distribution of 
> WWR, in keeping with 90.1 WWR limits.
> 
>  
> 
> I do not believe it is workable to penalize those who neglect 
> orientation, as the present Appendix G attempts to do, without 
> creating other inappropriate penalties and deterrents that we all 
> really could do without. The penalty for those who neglect orientation 
> where there was a significant potential to benefit from doing 
> otherwise would, in what I have proposed, simply be the foregone 
> opportunity to do better and get credit for it. Thus building 
> orientation would be recognized and treated in much the same manner as 
> most other performance-related architectural design strategies.
> 
>  
> 
> I'm interested in what others think of these ideas as possible means 
> of addressing concerns raised in this discussion. Perhaps, Jason, you 
> could forward this to the 90.1 committee people that are involved 
> specifically with the Performance Rating Method (along with related or 
> subsequent comments from others on the BLDG-SIM forum). Hopefully we 
> can move this forward.
> 
>  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Timothy
> 
>  
> 
> Timothy Moore,
> 
> LEED AP, Design Consultant, Building Performance Simulation
> 
>  
> 
> Whole Systems Design
> 
> 910 Indian Rock Ave.
> 
> Berkeley, CA 94707
> 
>  
> 
> Office: 510-525-4809
> 
> Mobile: 303-324-1044
> 
> eFax: 413-480-7252
> 
> tmoore at whole-systems-design.com
> <mailto:tmoore at whole-systems-design.com>
> 
> 
>  
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> *From:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] *On Behalf Of 
> *Brandon Nichols
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2007 11:22 AM
> *To:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com
> *Cc:* Peter.Simmonds at ibece.net; Leonard Sciarra
> *Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation
> 
> Thanks Jason,
> 
> The 'burr' under my saddle on this issue is that the 'averaged 
> buiilding', and therefore the baseline to which all project EEMs are 
> to be compared, /_does not exist_/, not even in the simulation software.
> 
> While we may have four perfectly good orientations, any one of which 
> could be used as a baseline (think .SIM file), there simply exists 
> /_no .SIM file for the averaged building_/.  It would need to be 
> created (as of this writing) manually, and the result could not be 
> used easily, let alone seamlessly, as the baseline for alternative
comparisons within eQuest.
> 
> Suggestions:
> 
> 1. Allow selecting the orientation closest to, without performing 
> worse than, the 'average total annual energy consumption' as the baseline.
> This simple change would allow all baseline numbers to reside within 
> the analysis software.
> 
> 2. Make this requirement optional, for those buildings which can 
> benefit from orientation optimization.  In other words, promote 
> achievable incentives instead of enforcing arbitrary punishments.
> 
> Wish I had more time to help out with 90.1 -- maybe next year!
> Regards
> 
> Brandon Nichols, PE, LEED® AP
> Mechanical
> HARGIS ENGINEERS
> 
> 600 Stewart Street
> Suite 1000
> Seattle, WA 98101
> www.hargis.biz
> 
> d | 206.436.0400  c | 206.228.8707
> o | 206.448.3376  f  | 206.448.4450
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Glazer [mailto:jglazer at gardanalytics.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:04 AM
> To: Peter.Simmonds at ibece.net; Brandon Nichols
> Subject: Re: [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation
> 
> Peter and Brandon,
> 
> This looks like an issue that you have a strong opinion so perhaps 
> consider contributing a better solution. Anyone can propose a change 
> to 90.1. Further, if you examine this history of the ECB subcommittee, 
> I think you would find that we are open to good ideas and are trying 
> to balance multiple needs. The building rotation concept replaced a 
> much worse concept of spreading the windows around the building evenly.
>   Maybe you can find a better solution. I believe we need to reward 
> those that do make an effort to orient their building
>   and windows to save energy and penalize those that make poor design 
> choices about building orientation and window placement.  The building 
> rotation idea has traction because most of the effort needed for each 
> rotation is just to rerun the simulation with the building azimuth 
> changed. We thought that was simple.  It is an issue that has been 
> discussed many times in the ECB subcommittee and a few times at the 
> full committee level.
> 
> I look forward to your suggestions.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/30/2007 8:34 AM, Peter Simmonds wrote:
>  > Here here Brandon. A building is a building and that's that. I have
> > sat through many charette's  on 'tree hugging' projects to hear how 
> > the buildings orientation can affect the cooling and heating load,
> let  > alone natural daylighting. Only to hear the wise men of 90.1 
> (who have  > never designed a building) to come up with some 
> 'weighted' average to  > change the results. The designer ends up 
> doing four different runs  > only to find out that the architect 
> didn't have clue what he was  > trying to do in the first place.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Long live sanity.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 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 <BLOCKED::http://www.ibece.com/>  >
> > 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
> > *Brandon Nichols  > *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:48 PM  >
> *To:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com  > *Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building 
> Orientation  >  >  >  > All,  >  >  >  > The building rotation 
> requirement is utterly nonsensical.  For a  > full-text rant on the 
> subject, see my previous post:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > http://www.gard.com/ml/bldg-sim-archive/msg04038.html
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > In summary:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 1) In the case of many new buildings (90% or more I would 
> estimate),  > there is very little latitude for changing the orientation.
>  > For example the main street and therefore the lobby and entryway 
> may  > be on one side and one side only of the building, the aspect 
> ratio of  > the building may not fit on the lot in two of the four
orientations, etc.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 2) The fictitious, etheral 'averaged' building does not exist even 
> in  > the computer code of the best analysis programs we have at our
> > disposal to date.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 3) All baseline numbers for each of the four orientations would 
> need  > to be extracted from the analysis software, and averaged on a 
> spreadsheet.
>  > Similarly each and every EEM would need to be extracted, and the  > 
> project's comparative analysis done on a spreadsheet instead of the  > 
> within the analysis software itself.  Thanks, but I have a life, wife
> > and family.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 4) If this requirement still sounds like a good idea from the 
> comfort  > of your tenured office, I say come on out and run couple of 
> dozen  > real-life energy code and LEED compliance simulations for me 
> within  > budget and on deadline in Q1-Q2 2008 and you'll begin to 
> understand  > what I'm talking about.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Why not simply allow selecting the orientation closest to, without
> > performing worse than, the 'average' as the baseline?  This simple 
> > change would allow the baseline numbers to reside within the
> analysis  > software.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Alternatively the eQuest developers are rumored to be working on a
> > 90.1 Appendix G compliance module.  Upon release, if it automates
> the  > averaging I may be inclined retire some portion of this diatribe.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Best idea yet, drop this as a requirement, and make it optional 
> where  > it makes sense to do so. Utilize by default the far more 
> intuitive  > (and useful in terms of energy incentives) 'code minimum'
> baseline  > building, oriented identically to the proposed.  This is 
> the approach  > I've been able to convince our state energy code and 
> utility rebate  > reviewers to accept -- its just hardened LEED 
> extremists who still  > seem to have their head in the sand on this.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Regards
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Brandon Nichols, PE, LEED^® AP
>  >
>  > Mechanical
>  >
>  > **HARGIS ENGINEERS**
>  >
>  > 600 Stewart Street
>  >
>  > Suite 1000
>  >
>  > Seattle, WA 98101
>  >
>  > www.hargis.biz
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > *d |* 206.436.0400  *c | *206.228.8707  >  > *o |* 206.448.3376  *f
> |* 206.448.4450  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > --
>  >
>  > *From:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] *On Behalf Of
> > *Edward.A.Decker at jci.com  > *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:59
> PM  > *To:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com  > *Cc:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com  > *Subject:* 
> [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation  >  >  > Can you not apply 
> various fenestrations and shading to the model  > without having to 
> change its orientation? For an existing building,  > including LEED 
> EB, what additional benefit could be gained by rotating  > the model 
> since you cannot change the orientation?
>  > _____________________________________________
>  > Edward A. Decker
>  >
>  >
>  > *"Leonard Sciarra" <leonard_sciarra at gensler.com>* Sent by:
>  > BLDG-SIM at gard.com
>  >
>  > 11/29/2007 06:18 PM
>  >
>  > Please respond to
>  > leonard_sciarra at gensler.com
>  >
>  >      
>  >
>  > To
>  >
>  >      
>  >
>  > <BLDG-SIM at gard.com>
>  >
>  > cc
>  >
>  >      
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Subject
>  >
>  >      
>  >
>  > [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation  >  >  >  >  >
>  >      
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > This is true, however, even with an existing building, you as the
> > designer/engineer have the option of "working" the facades and  >
> applying appropriate fenestration, shading, etc... you can still make
> > good/bad decisions and the fact that your footprint is fixed should 
> > not give the design team a waiver from the fact that the sun still 
> > rises in the east and sets in the west.  In fact it may be a benefit 
> > if perhaps your building is shaded on the west by itself.
>  >
>  > Leonard Sciarra, AIA, LEED ap
>  > 312.577.6580 (Dir)
>  > G E N S L E R | Architecture & Design Worldwide 30 West Monroe 
> Street  > Chicago IL, 60603  > 312.456.0123  > 
> leonard_sciarra at gensler.com  >  >  >  >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > --
>  >
>  > *From:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] *On Behalf Of
> > *Ross-Bain, Jeff*  > Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:40 PM*  >
> To:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com*  > Cc:* keith_lane at g-g-d.com*  > Subject:* 
> [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation  >  > Here is my question to and 
> response from the USGBC regarding this issue:
>  >
>  >
>  > Dear LEED Info,
>  >
>  > There has been a lot of chat on this item and I wonder if there is 
> a  > USGBC position - I found no reference to this in the CIR's:
>  >
>  > Do existing buildings undergoing renovation require the four-point
> > compass orientation analysis?
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Jeffrey,
>  >
>  > If the existing building being renovated is pursuing LEED-NC rather
> > than LEED-EB, then it would indeed be required to undergo the  >
> specified analysis.  This analysis is used to establish the baseline
> > for energy performance using the ASHRAE standard.  LEED doesn't have 
> > any specific exemptions for existing buildings in this requirement, 
> > but if ASHRAE has some kind of exemption, we will honor that.
>  >
>  >
>  > So I guess the question then becomes an interpretation of the 
> Appendix  > G (Table G3.1 (f)) comment for existing buildings. Rotate or
not?
>  >
>  > My take has always been that new buildings have the option to 
> consider  > orientation but existing buildings cannot be re-oriented 
> so rotating  > the model does not really prove anything.
>  >
>  > Any 90.1 code committee members or others out there have an 
> interpretation?
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  >
>  > */Jeffrey G. Ross-Bain, PE, LEED/*
>  > Smith Dalia Architects
>  > 621 North Ave NE
>  > Suite C-140
>  > Atlanta, GA, 30308
>  > 404-892-2443 _
>  > _www.smithdalia.com <http://www.smithdalia.com/>  >  > P *Consider 
> the environment.* *Please don't print this e-mail unless  > you really 
> need to.*  >  >  >  >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > --
>  >
>  >
>  > *From:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] *On Behalf Of
> > *Neuhauser, Ken*  > Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:31 PM*  >
> To:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com*  > Cc:* keith_lane at g-g-d.com*  > Subject:* 
> [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation  >  > I am not the authority, 
> Keith, but I believe that your interpretation  > (that existing 
> buildings do not get rotated in the baseline) is  > consistent with 
> the intent of Appendix G.  In new construction, the  > decisions 
> regarding building orientation will affect performance and  > that 
> performance should be measured against the baseline (although,  > 
> there are cases, such as a building that adjoins buildings to either
> > side, where rotating the baseline through all four orientations does 
> > not make sense).  If you're improving an existing building, the  >
> existing conditions of building enclosure components, including  > 
> orientation, are an appropriate baseline.  When we apply Appendix G to
> > existing buildings, we have also found that "existing building
envelopes"
>  > sometimes needs to be parsed into existing building envelope
components.
>  >  For example, in a mill rehab, the bearing walls may be serviceable
> > and appropriately modeled "as is" in the baseline, but missing
> windows  > or windows that are clearly not serviceable we model as per 
> the ASHRAE  > minimum compliance.
>  >
>  > You should note, also, that an addendum to the standard has removed
> > the provision in the table under G3.1, 5c to distribute windows  >
> uniformly in horizontal bands across the four orientations.  That  > 
> should make all of our lives easier.
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  > Ken Neuhauser, M.Arch, MSc.Arch, LEED AP /Architectural Project  > 
> Manager/ Conservation Services Group, Inc.
>  > 40 Washington Street
>  > Westborough, MA 01581
>  > Ph. 508 836-9500 ext. 13226
>  > Fax 508 836-3181
>  > www.csgrp.com <http://www.csgrp.com/>  >  >  >  >  >  >  >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > --
>  >
>  >
>  > *From:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] *On Behalf Of
> > *Keith Lane*  > Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:40 PM*  > To:*
> BLDG-SIM at gard.com*  > Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation
> >  > I am modeling an existing building for Energy & Atmosphere Credit
> 1:
>  > Optimize Energy Performance. In LEED and table G3.1 No. 5(a) of 
> ASHREA  > Standard 90.1-2004, it states that "the baseline building 
> performance  > shall be generated by simulating the building with its 
> actual  > orientation and again after rotating the entire building 90, 
> 180, 270  > degrees, then averaging the results". However table G3.1 
> No. 5(f) of  > ASHREA Standard 90.1-2004 states: "for existing 
> building envelopes,  > the baseline building design shall reflect 
> existing conditions prior  > to any revisions that are part of the scope
of work being evaluated."
>  > Would this mean that you do not need to simulate the building for 
> the  > four orientations? It just doesn't seem to make sense to 
> simulate the  > building in such a manner if it is existing. I am new 
> energy modeling  > for LEED credit and sincerely appreciate any
assistance.
>  >
>  > Thank you,
>  >
>  > */Keith Lane, LEED AP/*
>  > */Mechanical Engineer/*
>  > Garcia.Galuska.DeSousa
>  > /Consulting Engineers                     Inc.                        /
>  > 370 Faunce Corner Road, Dartmouth, MA 02747
>  > p.508.998.5700                          f. 508.998.0883
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ==================
>  > 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  >  >  > 
> ======================================================
>  > 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
> 
> --
> Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair Admin of BLDG-SIM 
> list for building simulation users
> 
> ==================
> 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

--
Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair Admin of BLDG-SIM list
for building simulation users



==================
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20071205/93065d13/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list