[BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation

Brandon Nichols BrandonN at Hargis.biz
Tue Dec 4 15:42:49 PST 2007


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



More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list