[BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation

Michael Rosenberg Michael.Rosenberg at state.or.us
Fri Nov 30 13:22:21 PST 2007


Brandon,

I recently made a proposal to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Committee to add
the following exception to the rotation requirement.

“If it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Rating
Authority that the building orientation is dictated by site
considerations.”

After quite a bit of discussion, the change was voted down handily. The
committee’s feeling seemed to be that energy performance of a building
should be judged on many things, including the orientation of a
building, regardless of whether or not there are orientation options
available on the particular site someone chose to build on. If someone
builds on a site that allows optimal orientation and thus better energy
performance, the rating should show that as well as the reverse
condition. While the discussion did not include existing buildings, my
feeling is that the outcome would be similar. Frankly, after listening
to all the committee’s discussion I was tempted to vote against my own
proposal.

Mike
 


Michael Rosenberg
Oregon Department of Energy
625 Marion St. N.E.
Salem, OR 97301-3742
Phone : (503) 373-7809
Fax: (503) 373-7806

>>> "Brandon Nichols" <BrandonN at Hargis.biz> 11/29/2007 5:47:49 PM >>>
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(r) 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



More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list