[BLDG-SIM] LEED Building Orientation

Jason Glazer jglazer at gardanalytics.com
Fri Nov 30 07:20:51 PST 2007


Several errors were found in the original draft Addendum R
that was out for public review. Because of those errors, a
revised Addendum R was published with its public review
period extended. The text that you reference appeared in
the original draft by mistake and did not appear in the
corrected draft. The text had been considered by the 
committee but was not approved.

In addition, the USGBC statement is on approved addenda and 
not on draft addenda that are out for public review.

Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

Jason

On 11/30/2007 8:25 AM, Amanda Bogner wrote:
> The new addendum r to ASHRAE 90.1 states the following:
> * *
> 
> *a. Orientation. *The /baseline building performance /shall be generated 
> by simulating the building with its actual orientation and again after 
> rotating the entire building 90, 180, and 270 degrees, then averaging 
> the results. The building shall be modeled so that it does not shade itself.
> 
> * *
> 
> *Exceptions*
> 
> *(a) *If it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the /Program 
> Evaluator /that the building orientation is dictated by site 
> considerations.
> 
> * *
> 
> *(b) *Buildings where the vertical fenestration area on each orientation 
> varies by less than 5%.
> 
> **** 
> 
> The USGBC has stated that using the addendums to 90.1 is acceptable when 
> documenting EAp2 and EAc1.  But be careful, as you'll need to 
> incorporate the other changes specified by the addendum too. 
> 
> *
> 
> *Amanda E. Bogner, PE LEED AP*
> 
> *BVM Engineering, Inc.*
> 
> 404.806.2018 EXT 103
> 
> 404.806.2019 (fax)
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] *On Behalf Of 
> *Brandon Nichols
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:48 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



More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list