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

Marcus Sheffer sheffer at energyopportunities.com
Tue May 17 09:44:21 PDT 2011


Hi Karen,

 

I certainly agree that the enforcement of the requirements should be
flexible.  The difficulty we face is related to the review of the
documentation submitted.  Individual subjectivity in the review process can
sometimes lead to inconsistency, so the more flexible, the more subjective.

 

Appreciate the feedback.

 

Marcus Sheffer

Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company

1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA  17365

717-292-2636,  <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com> sheffer at sevengroup.com

www.sevengroup.com

 

From: Karen Walkerman [mailto:kwalkerman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 11:41 AM
To: Marcus Sheffer
Cc: Hussein Abaza; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost
LEED points

 

Hi Marcus,

 

Thanks for asking us for our feedback.  I welcome this opportunity to give
you some information regarding my experience as a LEED modeler and some
ideas I have for making the modeling part more useful.

 

Many of the LEED projects I work on do not use LEED as a design tool.  For
these projects, even though my initial proposal includes schematic design
and design development modeling, I am usually asked to complete only the
final LEED model and LEED model documentation, ie "please do only what is
required for LEED."  This means that the modeling tool is not being used to
make design decisions.

 

I like that the new EA C1 language talks about using energy modeling to
inform design decisions, and I think that it would be helpful to engage this
list-serve to determine the best way to bring that goal into the LEED
requirements.  One thing that comes to mind is that I use many tools during
design development phase energy modeling.  Often, I'll complete thermal
modeling of building envelope details in order to help the architect reach
achieve a higher overall R-value for envelope constructions.  While not a
whole-building energy analysis, this is often one of the most illuminating
discussions I have with architects.  Often I will run a simple model with
R-20, R-30 and R-40 walls, we'll look at overall energy use differences and
the engineer will look at benefits to system sizing and then the major
conversation is: how do we construct the building so that we actually
achieve an overall R-value that meets our goals, not just in the center of
the wall.

 

Sometimes I prepare a detailed report for model alternatives, the best
results come from sitting down with the design team, running a number of
alternatives and viewing and discussing results all at the same time.  The
LEED documentation requirement for this portion of the credit should be
similarly flexible.  

 

Thanks for your time,

 

--

Karen

 

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Marcus Sheffer
<sheffer at energyopportunities.com> wrote:

Yes I think it is the same study which showed LEED buildings were 25% to 30%
more energy efficient than average.  There was considerable debate about the
interpretation of the data.

 

The purpose of my post was how do we get folks to use modeling on LEED
project to make them more energy efficient.  Some folks just complain about
LEED without offering a better alternative.  USGBC is seeking your good
ideas to make it better, more useful and effective.

 

Marcus Sheffer

Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company

1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA  17365

717-292-2636,  <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com> sheffer at sevengroup.com

www.sevengroup.com

 

From: Hussein Abaza [mailto:ahussein at spsu.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 8:47 PM
To: Marcus Sheffer


Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org

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

 

There is a famous study ( I don't recall the link to it) which shows that
almost 50% of LEED buildings consume as much and more energy than non LEED
buildings. 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Sheffer" <sheffer at energyopportunities.com>
To: "Julia Beabout" <juliabeabout at yahoo.com>, "Nick Caton"
<ncaton at smithboucher.com>, "Hussein Abaza" <ahussein at spsu.edu>, "Bill
Bishop" <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 4:36:22 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost
LEED points



The primary purpose is to get the conversation started, early.  It is an
opportunity to educate the owner and the team about energy.  In my
experience the majority of designers can’t even tell you the metric for
comparing building energy consumption.  I have often had this conversation
early in the project design and have been met with blank stares.  It is
incumbent upon us who do understand these energy issues to get the
conversation started.  Caveat the heck out of the goal, explain the
limitations, discuss the relative vs absolute metrics, be open about the
issues – so that we can raise awareness one conversation at a time.  This is
the power of a market transformation tool like LEED.  It enables us to have
these conversations.

 

I agree that both of these items are potential issues, talk to your clients
about them.  If you don’t have a goal, how do you measure success?

 

Marcus Sheffer

Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company

1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA  17365

717-292-2636,  <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com> sheffer at sevengroup.com

www.sevengroup.com

 

From: Julia Beabout [mailto:juliabeabout at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:57 AM
To: Marcus Sheffer; Nick Caton; Hussein Abaza; Bill Bishop
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'tequalmost
LEED points

 

While I conceptually agree with and understand the kbtu or watts/sf
approach, to me, there seems to be some series issues with it in reality.

First, I don't agree that generating or coming up with appropriate target
values during design is always (or even frequently) an easy thing to do or
easy data to find.  It depends on your bldg type.  I do a lot of labs and
hospitals.  Manufacturing and industrial use bldgs can have the same issues.
Good EUI data is not easy to come by for these bldg types - partly because
the user equipment that is installed in them can be a big portion of the
energy demand and consumption and it's always changing and can be very
specific to each client.  For example: is it a community hosptial with more
modest and generic care provide?....a state of the art hospital with
specialized care functions?....does the lab have primarily biology or a
chemistry functions....etc etc.  These things all affect the EUI.  In my
opinion, the best resource for this data is actually utility companies based
on data from similar customers, but that data is not generally publicly
available and/or the population of similar comparable buildings may be small
and difficult to relate to your bldg.  

Second, quite frankly, in my opinion, DESIGN phase energy models are poor
predictors of ACTUAL bldg energy use.  They are best at predicting RELATIVE
(comparative) energy use.  This is not because the tools are not good or
inaccurate but because we and the owners are so poor at predicting how the
bldg will actually be used, weather, etc.  One additional factor, is what
equipment will actually be installed.  It's not uncommon for the technology
to have changed bewteen the time that we start design and the time the
equipment is actually purchased closer to the end of construction.  All
these things effect not only the equipment w/sf usage but the ac w/sf usage
etc.   So, there seems to me to be a serious disconnect to me if we talking
about setting energy targets during DESIGNbased on statistical data of
ACTUAL energy use and trying to use those figure during the design phase for
predicted energy use.  Again, I love the idea but are we really there yet in
reality.  It seems to me we need a lot more data that doesn't exist yet -
and mechanism to collect that data.  (CBECS etc are good, but the population
and variability for bldgs of these types has a long way to go).

I missing something about what's being proposed/talked about?

 

 

  _____  

From: Marcus Sheffer <sheffer at energyopportunities.com>
To: Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>; Hussein Abaza <ahussein at spsu.edu>;
Bill Bishop <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 7:01:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost - best design doesn'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,  <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com> 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
<https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=f241c1e956&view=att&th=12ff8d8d09e6f0
5d&attid=0.1&disp=emb&realattid=f93f6cb2b25a4046_0.0.1&zw> 

 

NICK CATON, E.I.T.

PROJECT ENGINEER

Smith & Boucher Engineers

25501 west valley parkway

olathe ks 66061

direct 913 344.0036 <tel:913%20344.0036> 

fax 913 345.0617 <tel:913%20345.0617> 

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,  <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com> 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
<https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=f241c1e956&view=att&th=12ff8d8d09e6f0
5d&attid=0.2&disp=emb&realattid=f93f6cb2b25a4046_0.0.2&zw> 

 

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-0
3-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,  <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com> 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,  <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com> 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 <tel:%28787%29%20224-6537> 

odelgado at enermechpr.com

info at enermechpr.com

 <http://www.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

 

 


_______________________________________________
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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110517/57a9949a/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list