[BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation

Crawley, Drury Drury.Crawley at ee.doe.gov
Fri Nov 30 13:06:35 PST 2007


Yes, we did a lot of cases about 5 months but I haven't had time to
summarize them.  Combinations of % glazing and other variables (aspect
ratio, etc.)

________________________________

From: BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Alspach
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 3:04 PM
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation


what I would like to hear about is if anyone has done the 4 rotations,
averaged them, and found any statistically significant difference
between that result and the result if you just took the actual
orientation? I have done several and have never seen any real difference
in outcome. Often the 4 rotations cancel one another. That is why I
think it is nonsense (along with some of Brandon's points as well...).
if I actually saw a benefit/penalty then I might see some benefit. To
date I have not, but I have just a few examples. Has anyone seen
anything different?

________________________________

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(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



-----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^(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

--
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
____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup  business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses

==================
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/20071130/7757a716/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list