[Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost LEED points

Arpan Bakshi arpanbakshi at gmail.com
Fri May 13 15:43:44 PDT 2011


To Nick's point, I feel the energy target is most valuable when coupled with
some sort of Cost Benefit Analysis. If there is a way to incorporate such a
study into the language, we have an energy target the Owner knows he/she can
afford and high performance strategies will not be value engineered out when
the LEED model is built.



On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com> wrote:

>  Not to be a jerk, but to ask an honest question: what is the point?  I’ve
> been involved with “established energy target” projects and never really
> picked up on the logic behind it – I would appreciate a layman’s
> explanation.
>
>
>
> Put another way:  If you select an arbitrary EUI or watts per square foot
> at the earliest stages of design, what have you gained in design process?
> If/when a project “meets the goal” mid-design, are future design decisions
> supposed to de-emphasize energy impact (no!)?  If on the other hand, a
> project finds that target unreasonable down the road, what then?
>
>
>
> Not setting a mile-marker like this implies designing the best building you
> can given the time/budget available and any other constraints… that seems
> more likely to result in the best end-result to me.
>
>
>
> To draw analogy, if design of a LEED (or any energy-conscious) project is
> like planning a road trip from Kansas to Florida, setting EUI goals seems
> something like choosing a rest stop by throwing a dart at the map
> blindfolded.  It doesn’t help you get to your destination any more
> efficiently, it may be far out of the way, and now you’ve got a hole in the
> wall… what was the point?
>
>
>
> Okay, maybe a weak analogy – chalking it up to a very long week =).
> Honestly, I’d appreciate someone laying the value behind this approach – I’m
> expect the logic does exist, and I just haven’t yet seen the light!
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, E.I.T.***
>
> PROJECT ENGINEER
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers
>
> 25501 west valley parkway
>
> olathe ks 66061
>
> direct 913 344.0036
>
> fax 913 345.0617
>
> www.smithboucher.com* *
>
>
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Marcus Sheffer
> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 4:36 PM
> *To:* 'Hussein Abaza'; Bill Bishop
>
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost
> LEED points
>
>
>
> Agreed.  The new credit language for the next version of LEED does ask
> project teams to establish an absolute performance goal.
>
>
>
> Marcus Sheffer
>
> Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company
>
> 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA  17365
>
> 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com
>
> www.sevengroup.com
>
>
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Hussein Abaza
> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 10:15 AM
> *To:* Bill Bishop
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn't
> equalmost LEED points
>
>
>
> Could any one advice why LEED would not put the base design as Watt per
> square foot, or per occupant, or per hotel bed etc. so the Architecture
> becomes more innovative early in the design to save energy?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Bishop" <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
> To: "Arpan Bakshi" <arpanbakshi at gmail.com>
> Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:11:30 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn't equal
> most        LEED points
>
>  Arpan,
>
>
>
> Based on the Weidt Group paper, I’m guessing you’re emphasizing
> architectural considerations that affect the energy cost vs. LEED points
> numbers. (The paper uses window-to-wall ratios and daylighting as an
> example.) I would think the goal during the programming and schematic design
> phases should be energy cost, not LEED points relative to the App. G
> baseline. Much of the energy cost savings vs. App. G baseline (EAc1 points)
> is going to come later from the mechanical and lighting designs. The
> suggestions in the paper to establish specific baseline building shapes and
> glazing percentages would add a LOT more modeling time – you’d have to
> create two separate building geometries for the baseline and proposed
> models, not to mention different zoning patterns, space types, lighting
> power per space etc.
>
>
>
> For mechanical design, once the size and programming of the project is
> established, the baseline model properties are pretty well set, unless you
> consider fuel-switching and go between baseline systems 1/3/5/7 to systems
> 2/4/6/8. One exception I can think of for a design decision that results in
> higher energy cost but better comparison with the App. G baseline is higher
> ventilation rates combined with heat recovery in the proposed and no heat
> recovery in the baseline.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> [image: Signature in jpg form]
>
>
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Arpan Bakshi
> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 9:09 AM
> *To:* sheffer at energyopportunities.com
> *Cc:* <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>
>
>
> Marcus, thank you incorporating this language.
>
>
>
> The one scenario we often see in our design guidance work is that a
> proposed design when compared with other design alternates does not
> necessarily provided the largest energy savings when compared against its
> own baseline case model. It is difficult to make a recommendation as
> consultants when we want to present the Owner with both real energy cost
> savings without compromising their LEED certification level targets.
>
> A recent paper presented by the Weidt Group at SimBuild touched on this
> issue:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.ibpsa.us/pub/simbuild2010/technicalPresentations/SB10-PPT-TS02A-03-Baker.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Arpan Bakshi, LEED AP BD+C
>
> YRG sustainability
>
>
> On May 13, 2011, at 8:16 AM, "Marcus Sheffer" <
> sheffer at energyopportunities.com> wrote:
>
>  If anyone has any good ideas about how to structure the LEED credits to
> end the practice of validation models at the end and encourage/require
> design phase modeling the folks on the USGBC EA TAG would love to hear
> them.  The current proposed credit language from the first public comment
> phase is listed below.
>
>
>
> NC, CS, SCHOOLS, RETAIL, WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, HOSPITALITY
>
> Establish an energy performance target no later than the schematic design
> phase. The target must be established as kBTU per square foot-year of source
> energy use. This target must be mapped on the same scale as the baseline and
> proposed buildings, if the project follows Option 1.
>
>
>
> OPTION 1. Whole Building Energy Simulation
>
> Analyze a minimum of at least nine efficiency measures during the design
> process and account for the results in design decision-making. Analysis can
> include energy simulation of efficiency opportunities, application of past
> energy simulation analyses for similar projects to the project, or
> application of published data from energy analyses performed for similar
> projects to the project (such as AEDGs).
>
>
>
> A minimum of six energy efficiency measures focused on load reduction
> strategies appropriate for the facility must be analyzed. This analysis must
> be performed during the schematic design phase.
>
>
>
> A minimum of three energy efficiency measures focused on HVAC related
> strategies must be analyzed (passive measures are acceptable). This analysis
> must be performed before the conclusion of the design development phase.
>
>
>
> The results of the analysis must be summarized in a brief report or
> memorandum.
>
>
>
>
>
> The next version of LEED will be going out for public comment again in
> July, I think, so please comment formally as well as discussing here.
>
>
>
> Marcus Sheffer
>
> Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company
>
> 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA  17365
>
> 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com
>
> www.sevengroup.com
>
>
>
> *From:* John Aulbach [mailto:jra_sac at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:46 PM
> *To:* Carol Gardner; Marcus Sheffer
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>
>
>
> OK, Carol..now you threw the "bait" out there..older than dirt, eh?
>
>
>
> I have done very limited LEED "type" modeling where you compare 20 walls
> and 40 windows types (well, it seemed that way). Correct me if I am wrong,
> but a Base model must be built to comply with a certain level of ASHRAE 90.1
> (now up to 2010 ??). With all of the nuisances of eQuest 3.64, I am going to
> build the model from scrathc and put in all the relevant baseline data in by
> hand.  And, by the way, the ASHRAE baseline model might be an entirely
> different system.  I am just completing an EPACT evaluation (ASHRAE
> 90.1-2001) and the Baseline HVAC was screwe chillers, whereas the Actual
> building was packaged units with Turbocor compressors (ask me how I did
> that).
>
>
>
> It very much depends on the complexity of the building. A 40,000 sf office
> or a 500,000 sf hotel with casino facilites.
>
>
>
> I am unfamiliar with the LEED paperwork to be filled out after the modeling
> has been done. But I would not do anything of this type in under 120 hours,
> preferably 160 hours. If the client thinks he can do better, let him.
>
>
>
> Contingency, contingency.
>
>
>
> We won't discuss how old CAROL might be..
>
>
>
> John A.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Carol Gardner <cmg750 at gmail.com>
> *To:* sheffer at energyopportunities.com
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Sent:* Thu, May 12, 2011 2:59:12 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>
> Marcus,
>
> You have inadvertently hit upon why IBPSA worked with ASHRAE to create a
> BEMP certification. That's Building Energy Modeling Professional (BEMP).
>
> Some of us who have been in the field for awhile began to worry a couple of
> years ago when so many new energy modelers began appearing on the listserv
> with questions. Their questions indicated a lack of training and experience
> that was worrisome. What made it worrisome was that they didn't seem to
> realize that they were as inexperienced as they were; they didn't appear to
> be pursuing training to learn how to do what they were doing; and we were
> uncertain as to how or if they were practicing quality control. We hoped
> that by creating a path to certification that we would give clients one more
> qualification to look for in their modelers.
>
> If you have been in this industry for any length of time, and by industry I
> mean the overall construction industry, you know that you don't get a lot of
> chances if your work doesn't pan out. If your energy model says I have a
> LEED Gold building and I'm going to save $4,000/year and what I really get
> is LEED Silver and $1,000/year, I am not going to be happy. So, I will
> probably not give you any more work but, even worse for all of us, I'll
> start expressing doubts about the whole process. LEED - what is it good for?
>
> So, now we all have more training, right? We read our ASHRAE Handbooks and
> technical manuals so we know how to model the difficult stuff. We can find
> any topic in the DOE2 Manuals, all of which are one line, available, and
> easily searchable.
>
> So now we are so good we can do these models in 40-80 hours. Really? Not me
> and I've been doing it longer than everyone, except you, John Aulbach. So
> I'm going to join Marcus in his rant because he's on to something.
>
> It's up to us to not under bid this work. It's up to us to educate our
> clients about the importance of quality in this process. If they think they
> are getting the same analysis in 40 hours that they used to get in 120
> hours, they need to be led around to rethinking that and to be reminded that
> GIGO.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carol
>
>
> Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Marcus Sheffer <
> sheffer at energyopportunities.com> wrote:
>
>  In our experience a final model, done right, would take about 80 hours.
>
>
>
> WARNING – frustrated modeling rant to follow:
>
>
>
> Doing just a final model however completely misses the point as to why we
> model – it is to guide design decisions!
>
>
>
> If I saw this RFP and all it asked me for was a model to determine LEED
> points, during or after design, I would try to educate the potential client
> about the purpose of modeling.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately too many projects pursuing LEED are only doing the minimum
> when it comes to modeling and almost completely missing all the benefits.
> Too often the “market” transforms only based on a least first cost
> denominator basis that results in little real transformation.  Doing models
> to determine LEED points does not transform the market, save any energy, and
> just circumvents the purpose behind LEED. (the next version actually
> requires design phase modeling!)
>
>
>
> Any “modeler” who does only final models without attempting to explain to
> the owner why this is a bad idea should be “drummed out of the corp” in my
> humble opinion.
>
>
>
> The problem is that if you respond to this RFP with 120 or 160 or more
> hours to really do the design phase modeling right, you will go up against
> the “modeler” who claims to be able to do it in far less time.  So how do we
> get the folks who issue the RFPs to ask for a proper scope of work so that
> they can compare fees on a level playing field?  It is unfortunate that we
> are even having a discussion about doing modeling work in opposition to its
> purpose.
>
>
>
> Sorry for the rant but I feel better now. J
>
>
>
> Marcus Sheffer
>
> Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company
>
> 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA  17365
>
> 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com
>
> www.sevengroup.com
>
>
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Demba Ndiaye
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 4:28 PM
> *To:* Omar Delgado; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>
>
>
> Omar,
>
>
>
> I would expect, for a building this size, approximately 40 hours (multiply
> by your hourly rate). The 40 hours include EAp2/EAc1 LEED documentation, and
> any review you may have to respond to later.
>
>
>
> Now, given that you have never done a LEED model, it will take you more
> time, possibly up to 40 more hours.
>
>
>
> HTH,
>
>
>
> _______________
>
> Demba NDIAYE
>
>
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Omar Delgado
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:08 PM
> *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>
>
>
> Greetings everyone,
>
>
>
> I have a question regarding the cost of an energy model for a LEED project.
> Every energy model I've done so far has been for
>
> existing buildings, mainly for optimization purposes. However, I received
> an RFP to model a five-story, 41,500 sq. ft. building
>
> that's currently on the design phase and is pursuing the LEED-NC Silver
> certification. I really have no idea what would be a fair
>
> price for this model since I'm going to have to use Appendix G (ASHRAE
> 90.1) to evaluate the difference between the base
>
> and proposed buildings. I don't know how much extra effort this will take.
> I know the procedure, just haven't done it before.
>
>
>
> Can you shed any light on this issue?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
>
> *Omar A. Delgado Colón, P.E., MEnvM., LEED AP BD&C*
>
> *Vice President*
>
> *EnerMech*
>
> PMB 340
>
> 130 Winston Churchill Ave.
>
> San Juan, PR 00926-6018
>
> Cel. (787) 224-6537
>
> odelgado at enermechpr.com
>
> info at enermechpr.com
>
> www.enermechpr.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <image001.gif> *Please consider your environmental responsibility before
> printing this e-mail*
>
> This Email is covered by the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, 18
> U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is legally priviliged. The information in this
> email is personal and confidential and is intended solely for the
> addressee(s). Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you
> are not an intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the
> information contained in the email. Any views expressed in this message are
> those of the individual sender and may be subject to Attorney/Client
> privilege and/or Work Product. You are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communications is strictly
> prohibited.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
> --
>
> *Dr. Hussein Abaza, Assistant Professor*
>
> *Construction Management Department *
>
> *SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE’*
>
> *CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY*
>
> * And CONSTRUCTION*
>
> 1100 South Marietta Parkway, Marietta, GA 30060-2896
>
> Website: www.spsu.edu/cost  Tel: 678-915-3719 Fax: 678-915-4966
>
> E-mail: ahussein at spsu.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 


Arpan Bakshi,* *LEED AP BD+C
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110513/0c236e02/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20862 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110513/0c236e02/attachment-0004.jpeg>
-------------- 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/20110513/0c236e02/attachment-0005.jpeg>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list