[Bldg-sim] How have you approached... (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Carol Gardner]

I also agree with using schedules. I think the fact that Std 90 went from
"no schedule changes" to allowing it for DCV means they do too.

I think the best thing you can do to simplify your LEED review is to explain
to the reviewer what you are doing and why. As long as they can follow you,
it makes sense, and it is reasonably conservative, i.e. err on that side, it
should be acceptable to them.

Carol

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Shaun Martin <
smartin at shaunmartinconsulting.com> wrote:

> **
> Hi Nick,
>
> To keep it simple, I would just derate the schedules, your 10/15% reduction
> but on an hourly basis (ie one or more hours are moved to 0%/setback) and
> apply the RESET-PRIORITY and MIN-RESET-FLOW keywords.  I think averaging it
> out beforehand and explaining as part of your modelling methodology in your
> report would take less time and be easier to explain.  I would start with a
> small test model, to make sure you have the right percentages.
>
> Shaun
>
>
> *Shaun Martin LEED AP*
>
> *Principal*
>
> *Shaun Martin Consulting*
>
> *Suite 200 - 420 West Hastings Street*****
>
> *********Vancouver**** BC   V6B 1L1*****
>
> *604-789-1095*
>
> *smartin at shaunmartinconsulting.com*
>
> *member** CAGBC, ASHRAE*
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Nick Caton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 20, 2011 8:45 AM
> *To:* James Hansen; Eurek, John S NWO; David Eldridge;
> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] How have you approached... (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
>  Thanks so much for the suggestions! ****
>
> ** **
>
> I myself have tread the “extensive, realistic fractional/thermostat
> scheduling” path before under similar circumstances.  Upon facing a VERY
> large project, where the amount of explicit scheduling required for that
> approach is compounded by the sheer quantity and variety of occupied spaces
> benefiting from this relay setup, I am challenged with brainstorming any
> acceptable (by LEED reviewer) means of approximating the same
> behavior/savings by simplifying the problem…****
>
> ** **
>
> Here are some alternative ideas we’ve come up with so far  – I would very
> much appreciate others’ thoughts on these, or any further related LEED/USGBC
> experiences to share as well:****
>
> **1.       **90.1 already prescribes how we quantify the savings of
> occupancy sensors for installed lighting  (10 or 15% flat deduction on the
> LPD).  Rather than define & justify the quantity and timing of unoccupied
> hours between varying space types (murky waters at best), one could instead
> reduce the loads incident on the affected systems by the same percentage.
> This might be accomplished by applying this 10/15% deduction to the affected
> spaces’ fractional load schedules (occupancy, equipment & lighting).  One
> would need to tread carefully to avoid “double-dipping” on any spaces
> already claiming a LPD deduction for occupancy sensors.  Baseline model’s
> schedules would remain unaffected and would be documented alongside the
> modified ones to illustrate the difference. ****
>
> **2.       **(Simpler to model, but requiring slightly more
> documentation):  Let’s say a hospital has an annual average of 85% occupancy
> for all its patient rooms.  Treating every other room normally, select a
> representative sampling (considering envelope loads) of 15% of the patient
> rooms.  Model those selected rooms as “empty” (set people, lights and
> equipment loads = 0) but still conditioned to maintain the thermostat
> setpoint (against loads incident from the envelope & neighboring spaces).
> Apply the 0% minimum turndown behavior to those “empty” rooms only.
> Baseline model would receive identical treatments, excepting the 0% turndown
> behavior.  Documentation would include illustrating which zones were sampled
> against the others, and justification for the net annual “occupancy rate”
> used for each space type.****
>
> ** **
>
> I have mixed feelings – obviously any simplification of the problem has the
> potential to under/overstate the savings that might be found with a more
> exhaustive scheduling approach, but may result in as good or even a better
> estimation provided with solid documentation and execution.  Does anyone
> think the above approaches could work well, or have any suggestions to
> refine the strategies?  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks again!****
>
> ** **
>
> ~Nick****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, P.E.***
>
> SENIOR ENGINEER****
>
> ** **
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers****
>
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200****
>
> olathe, ks 66061****
>
> direct 913.344.0036****
>
> fax 913.345.0617****
>
> www.smithboucher.com* *****
>
> ** **
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Hansen [mailto:JHANSEN at ghtltd.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 8:40 AM
> To: Eurek, John S NWO; Nick Caton; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] How have you approached... (UNCLASSIFIED)****
>
> ** **
>
> I agree with John, I've done this on a model before and its painful.
> Assuming there are 10 hours in a work day, I set up 10 different occupancy
> and lighting schedules, each schedule being essentially identical except for
> a different hour of zero occupancy / lighting.  I then applied these 10
> schedules to the different office zones on a floor so that specific areas
> were vacant from 8am-9am, some vacant from 9am-10am, etc.  And then for my
> system, I assumed relatively consistent 10% non-occupied conditions and
> reduced the OA at the system level accordingly.  If your non-occupied
> conditions are more drastic (30%), obviously you can set up your schedules
> differently.****
>
> ** **
>
> However, if your primary air is also cooling (and not some sort of DOAS
> chilled water VAV box), then you are going to also have to specify 10
> separate thermostat schedules (really 20 with heating and cooling) so that
> the rooms do not have unmet load hours.  I'm assuming you go into setback
> mode when the offices are unoccupied.****
>
> ** **
>
> However, this was under v2.0, so that was a long time ago and reviewers
> were not as critical in their reviews.****
>
> ** **
>
> GHT Limited****
>
> James Hansen, P.E., LEED AP****
>
> Senior Associate****
>
> 1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 200****
>
> Arlington, VA  22201-4749****
>
> 703-243-1200 (office)****
>
> 703-338-5754 (cell)****
>
> 703-276-1376 (fax)****
>
> www.ghtltd.com****
>
> ** **
>
> -----Original Message-----****
>
> From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Eurek, John S NWO****
>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:31 AM****
>
> To: Nick Caton; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org****
>
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] How have you approached... (UNCLASSIFIED)****
>
> ** **
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED****
>
> Caveats: NONE****
>
> ** **
>
> Nick,****
>
> ** **
>
> I would do it with schedules.  This would be the long method.****
>
> ** **
>
> I have the same controls and have not got around to model it.  I would also
> ****
>
> make many schedules.  A different schedule for occupancy, lights,
> equipment,****
>
> ect.  Also if this applies to a lot of rooms, you'd likely make multiple**
> **
>
> schedules, one assuming that the room is empty from 9~10 another room empty
> ****
>
> from 2~3.  (The inverse for meeting rooms, if you have multiple meeting***
> *
>
> rooms, not all meetings will happen at the same time.)****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> "Is Freedom a small price to pay to stop Global Warming?"****
>
> ** **
>
> John Eurek PE, LEED AP****
>
> Mechanical Engineer,****
>
> ** **
>
> -----Original Message-----****
>
> From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org****
>
> [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton***
> *
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 3:59 PM****
>
> To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org****
>
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] How have you approached...****
>
> ** **
>
> I have a precedent question for everyone... this is not a "how to"
> procedural****
>
> question for any particular software, but to simply feel out what has
> worked****
>
> for others in the past:****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Here's a quick description of the situation at-hand:  a VAV terminal unit*
> ***
>
> with a "normal" minimum damper position (say, 30%) is tied by relay to the
> ****
>
> space occupancy sensor, which also controls the lights.  Upon sensing space
> ****
>
> vacancy, the minimum airflow damper position is reset to 0% (airflow is***
> *
>
> permitted to stop, provided thermostat temperature set point is satisfied).
> ****
>
> Upon sensing occupancy, the preset minimum damper position is restored.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> For LEED/USGBC-reviewed energy models, can anyone relate success in
> modeling****
>
> this or a similar energy-saving behavior in the proposed model, distinct
> from****
>
> the baseline?  If so, what approach did you use to model this behavior
> and/or****
>
> quantify the energy savings? ****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> I was discussing the possibilities with some colleagues and have a few
> ideas****
>
> for approaches that might all be justifiable, ranging from simple (and
> quick)****
>
> to complex (and time-consuming).  ****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> There are likely multiple "right" answers here, but I am hoping to identify
> ****
>
> some precedent to understand what we can anticipate the LEED reviewership*
> ***
>
> will accept.  ****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks in advance!****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ~Nick****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> NICK CATON, P.E.****
>
> ** **
>
> SENIOR ENGINEER****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers****
>
> ** **
>
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200****
>
> ** **
>
> olathe, ks 66061****
>
> ** **
>
> direct 913.344.0036****
>
> ** **
>
> fax 913.345.0617****
>
> ** **
>
> www.smithboucher.com ****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED****
>
> Caveats: NONE****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> Bldg-sim mailing list****
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org****
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be
> privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee.  It is the
> property of GHT Limited.  Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
> communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> me immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to ght at ghtltd.com, and
> destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all
> attachments.  Thank you.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>


-- 
Carol Gardner PE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110720/15eb1931/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110720/15eb1931/attachment-0002.jpeg>