[Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - to light a candle rather than to curse the darkness

[Hussein Abaza]

LEED always encourage ciritisizers  to light a candle rather than to curse the darkness.  Certainly building on LEED's success is the correct approach. All the suggestions that we hear (including mine) are good hopes, but I think LEED has the resources now to do some research to validate the viability of the different alternatives and point capturing. For example,  do we have any research that shows the benefet of assigning parking spaces to hypbrid cars, or bycicle racks, etc?  

H. Abaza 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nick Caton" <ncaton at smithboucher.com> 
To: "Jeremy Poling" <Jeremy.Poling at transwestern.net>, sheffer at energyopportunities.com, "Hussein Abaza" <ahussein at spsu.edu>, "Bill Bishop" <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> 
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org 
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 1:01:37 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best designdoesn'tequalmost        LEED points 




Marcus, Jeremy, David and others: 



Thanks so much!  Your responses helped fill in a gap – in my experience, establishing early EUI targets has indeed felt “arbitrary,” and it’s precisely because of the litany of issues brought up regarding what really makes for an appropriate comparison.  



The exercise of determining an appropriate EUI target has proven deceptively challenging, in my experience.  The energy star target finder will generate a number to run with minimal effort, which is great, but when that target is scrutinized by skeptical minds, it can be hard to justify/defend how “realistic” that target is for a given project, considering all the unknowns behind the figure.  These include attributes like age of construction (for renovation projects), unique building geometries, scheduling and more.  David’s response summed up some of the unknowns well, imho. 



Suffice to say, some of us in the energy modeling trenches could use some assistance/reassurance in methods of establishing well-grounded EUI targets…  In constructing ‘Implementation’ language for the “preliminary modeling” credit under discussion, I would personally like to see some specific guidance/examples to this end, or else a reference to a standard illustrating the same.  I feel somewhat disillusioned regarding EUI targets and their resulting effects on the design process, but it’s apparent others have had some pretty positive experiences, so I’d like to learn more! 



~Nick 



PS: I know written words don’t always read the way they were intended, but my query/analogy regarding EUI targets is not intended to criticize or judge others’ practices!  I only mean to illustrate what I’ve been struggling with, if only to share experiences and learn from the discussion! 




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: Jeremy Poling [mailto:Jeremy.Poling at transwestern.net] 
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 7:56 AM 
To: sheffer at energyopportunities.com; Nick Caton; Hussein Abaza; Bill Bishop 
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org 
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best designdoesn'tequalmost LEED points 



I guess this is where I enter this interesting discussion.  The selection of an EUI should definitely not be arbitrary.  In fact, the LEED-EB rating system already provides a good example of how to choose an appropriate target EUI: Energy Star.  Target Finder can be used for this, or you can build your own spreadsheet from the technical descriptions at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfoliomanager_model_tech_desc .  Most of the variables you need to set the target EUI are schematic level: anticipated hours of operation, gross floor area, number of occupants, HDD/CDD. 



At the same time, looking at the AIA design milestones, I would be concerned if a project experiences changes that have a significant impact on energy consumption after 75% CD, maybe even 50% CD depending on the project.  I could see a late decision to use MERV 13 filters causing an increase in fan energy, but that decision can also be mitigated through other variables such as filter surface area. 



There needs to be some change to the process to prioritize the right decisions first.  Energy needs to be part of the decision model for a building at the early phases of the project, part of site selection for projects that are defined that way or part of the pro forma for developments that start with a fixed site.  In many cases, it is part of those, but with no connection to the remainder of the decision model. 



On your analogy, Nick, I’d suggest that using a goal of designing the best building possible within time/budget constraints is more akin to just getting in a car and driving.  Who’s to judge if you actually arrive at your destination?  You might be able to say you had a good trip and the drive was a success, but would it have been more successful if you knew where you were going and how to get there most efficiently?  However, starting with a destination in mind allows you to better plan your trip from a time/budget perspective.  Just having an EUI goal doesn’t mean that you ignore the energy impact of decisions.  It just means that you have another criteria to let you know if you’re making the right decision.  The flip side is also true: if a decision is made late in the design that negatively affects EUI, you can catch it.  The EUI goal is more like having a GPS on your driving trip, letting you know if you make a wrong turn along the way. 




Jeremy R. Poling, PE, LEED AP+BDC 





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 6:01 PM 
To: 'Nick Caton'; Hussein Abaza; Bill Bishop 
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org 
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best designdoesn'tequalmost LEED points 



First of all the goal is not at all arbitrary but must be based on an expected outcome within a reasonable expectation.  It is informed by data from similar, actual building energy consumption.  I don’t think I need to explain the tools one can use to do this. 



Your goal (do the best you can) sounds like, “let’s build an energy efficient building”.  This is meaningless.  Energy efficiency in the context of new construction is always relative and without a quantification of what energy efficient means this is no goal at all. 



Like any early stage performance goal the number is adjustable as more is discovered in the design process.  If the target is later discovered to be unreasonable due to a wide range of potential issues, then the target is adjusted. 



If you pick your EUI goal the way you describe then yes this is a worthless goal but the key point is that it is never selected arbitrarily. 




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: Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 6:17 PM 
To: Marcus Sheffer; Hussein Abaza; Bill Bishop 
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org 
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost LEED points 



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 




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 




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 

Ener Mech 

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 





-- 





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 






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110516/ce2b9254/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110516/ce2b9254/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20862 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110516/ce2b9254/attachment-0005.jpg>