[Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

Andy hoover andyhoover at thebestconsultant.com
Wed Aug 26 12:57:02 PDT 2009


Construction practices for each unique location/building combination should
take into account the items Robert mentions presuming appropriate design.
Wind profiles, building pressure control, stack effect, building shape and
so on should all be accounted for in design and then appropriate practices
should be followed.

 

Without appropriate inspections during construction, building leakage
testing, and envelope commissioning 'savings' may be shown in energy
modeling but never achieved in the real world.  My opinion is that this is a
contributor to why energy calculations do not match up to reality now.

 

Thanks,

 

Andy 

 

Andy Hoover

Principal

The BEST Consultant, Inc.

Office: 678-200-7648

Fax:678-827-0574

Cell: 678-793-1159

 

www.thebestconsultant.com

 

 

  _____  

This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
are not the addressee or authorized to receive this information for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on
this message or information herein. If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Gengelbach
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:26 AM
To: 'Jon Evans'; sheffer at energyopportunities.com; 'Paul Grahovac';
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

I agree with Jon's comments about specification of products as being a small
portion of how much infiltration a building will have, not only do
construction practices play a role but also wind profiles on the building,
whether the mechanical systems are controlling building pressure, whether
the building is tall enough to have a stack effect, building shape etc.
Even in performing a winter load calculation and a summer load calculation
we usually change the infiltration rates slightly because average winter
wind speeds are greater than summer wind speeds.

 

If infiltration is going to be accounted for as a savings in energy
modeling, I would think that building leakage testing (similar to duct
leakage testing) and envelope commissioning would need to become more
prominent in our business.  ASHRAE has funded some studies on infiltration
but the data I have seen has been for  residential construction.

 

cid:image003.png at 01C9AB43.F0BEE290

Robert Gengelbach, PE, LEEDR AP

Sustainable Mechanical Design Associates, LLC

89 Monroe Center NW

Suite 302

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

P: (616) 776-9009

F: (616) 776-9010

C: (616) 570-2329

 <mailto:rgengelbach at sustainablemech.com> rgengelbach at sustainablemech.com

 

P Please print only if necessary

 

 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jon Evans
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:09 AM
To: sheffer at energyopportunities.com; 'Paul Grahovac';
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

In my experience modeling of infiltration has nothing to do with actual
infiltration in a constructed building.  How much infiltration results in an
actual building is 99.9% construction and 0.1% design and specification.  A
well design building to minimize infiltration, with poor attention to
details during construction and sloppy workmanship can end up having more
infiltration than an average design with a good construction team.  

 

I have looked in many plenums only to see daylight and cold-wintery air
flowing into the building, even on LEED projects.

 

These issues make it very difficult to justify infiltration savings in an
energy model.

 

Jon Evans, PE, LEED AP

Project Engineer | jevans at sustaineng.com

 



 

431 Charmany Drive, Suite 102 | Madison, Wisconsin 53719

608.231.9664 ext. 13 | Fax: 608.231.9665

 <http://www.sustaineng.com/> www.sustaineng.com

 

2009 Dane County Small Business Award Recipient

 

  _____  

From: Marcus Sheffer [mailto:sheffer at energyopportunities.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 8:22 AM
To: 'Paul Grahovac'; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

As I understand it the issue is that the 90.1 Standard does not establish a
base line condition for air leakage so no savings can be claimed.  I
certainly agree that the savings are real and should be counted.  I know
that the Appendix G committee has this issue on their extensive "to do"
list.

 

Marcus Sheffer, Chair - USGBC EA TAG

7group

 

 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grahovac
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:00 PM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did an extensive
study documenting a greater than 40% natural gas savings and a greater than
25% electricity savings across the nation for building energy consumption if
buildings were uniformly constructed with air barrier systems installed.
They evaluated 116 existing buildings and computer modeled several different
building types.  The purpose of their study was to provide information to
ASHRAE concerning whether it would be desirable to add an air barrier
requirement to ASHRAE 90.1.

 

As a result, I've always thought that Appendix G to ASHRAE 90.1 allows you
to change the air leakage rate off the default and onto a rate corresponding
to an air barrier installation, so that you could claim LEED points for the
corresponding energy savings.  However, an architect at a presentation I did
said you could not do that under the LEED and ASHRAE requirements.  (I know
the models will do it, because I've done it on the TRANE model and obtained
results that support the NIST findings.)

 

I see in Appendix G that:  "G3.1.2.5. Ventilation.  Minimum outdoor air
ventilation rates shall be the same for the proposed and baseline building
designs."  However, I searched the document for "outdoor air ventilation"
and the phrase occurs only in the context of mechanical systems that are
designed to intentionally bring air into the building.  If this section is
the basis for concluding that air leakage barriers should be left out of the
modeling, then I have trouble understanding why.

 

Appendix G says that all components of the building are to be modeled as
designed.  That would preclude modeling as if an air barrier system did not
exist in the design.  It says the baseline building model is to have
steel-framed above-grade walls, and it is silent about the design building,
but the User's Manual says that if the design building walls are block or
cast concrete, then "the mass is credited in the building performance rating
method."  Likewise, if the walls are wood stud instead of steel, then the
Manual says credit is given for the superior energy performance of wood
frame versus steel frame.  The User's Manual states that it:  "Offers
information on the intent and application of Standard 90.1."  Given these
examples in the Manual based on existing thermal mass energy-saving data and
wood-versus-steel stud energy data, it is difficult to conclude that a wall
that is constructed with materials meeting the air leakage limits and
installation requirements of the Air Barrier Association of America and
determined to produce significant energy savings by the NIST study based on
those same limits and requirements should be modeled as if it leaked air
like a building without an air barrier. 

 

Please let me know what you think, and if you know of any reason why it is
not proper to change the air leakage rate through the building envelope in
the design model to show the benefit of air barriers.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul Grahovac, LEED AP

R-GUARD Air & Water-Resistive Barrier Product Manager

PROSOCO, Inc.

3741 Greenway Circle

Lawrence, Kansas  66046

(785) 830-7355

(888) 376-3417 fax

 <mailto:pgrahovac at prosoco.com> pgrahovac at prosoco.com

web site   <http://www.prosoco.com/> http://www.prosoco.com/

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090826/d4e14753/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 12369 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090826/d4e14753/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090826/d4e14753/attachment-0002.jpeg>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list