[Bldg-sim] modelling stratification in houses
Samuel Brunswick
samuel.brunswick at gmail.com
Wed Nov 16 19:33:29 PST 2011
Hey Arpan,
This paper from CU Boulder (
http://rp.ashrae.biz/page/ASHRAE-D-RP-1456-20110405.pdf) compares several
bulk airflow models (COMIS, CONTAM, EnergyPlus, ESP-r) with lab
experiments. They examine wind-driven, bouyancy-driven and combined-driven
flows. There's a long list of references at the end too.
Sam
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Arpan Bakshi <arpanbakshi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On a somewhat similar issue, has anyone validated a bulk airflow
> simulation of a nat. vent. / 'solar' chimney design as a simplified
> alternate to a cfd or wind tunnel study?
>
>
> Arpan
>
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Cheney <chenyu73 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Very good point. The purpose of using the assumption of well-mixed air is
> due to the constrain of current heat balance thermal engine employed in
> most simulation program. It is not easy to increase the "nodes" due to
> extensive iteration triggered. However, what I can suggest is try to divide
> single space into smaller ones along the stratified path. Although in each
> smaller space, the air will still be well mixed, different set points can
> be assigned in order to reflect the stratified effect. meanwhile, the
> internal heat gain should be assigned into smaller spaces accurately. I can
> foresee your hypothesis is correct that high roof R value will contribute
> to minimizing heat loss through the roof.
> Regards,
>
> Cheney
>
> LinkedIN @ http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/yu-cheney-chen/27/637/72b
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Hayes Zirnhelt <hzirnhelt at hotmail.com><hzirnhelt at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm modelling single family dwellings in EnergyPlus, and I am wondering
>> about the accuracy of the typical assumption that the zones are fully mixed
>> .
>>
>> The results of my modelling are showing that the high *ratio* of ceiling
>> insulation to wall insulation required by the codes (BC and Canada) seems
>> to higher than practical (i.e. no point having an R50 roof if your walls
>> are only R16). However, this is making me wonder if I should be trying to
>> account for the stratification that occurs in reality (which would increase
>> losses through the roof).
>>
>> Anyone have any experience with modelling stratification in a scenario
>> like this? Or know of some empirical studies where the stratification has
>> been measured? I'm pretty sure I can set up a temperature gradient in the
>> zone if I know what it should be...
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Hayes
>>
>> Hayes Zirnhelt
>> M.A.Sc Candidate, RU Building Science
>> B.A.Sc Integrated Engineering
>> hayes.zirnhelt at ryerson.ca
>>
>>
>> On 2011-11-16, at 1:30 PM, bldg-sim-request at lists.onebuilding.org wrote:<bldg-sim-request at lists.onebuilding.org>
>>
>> Send Bldg-sim mailing list submissions to
>> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> bldg-sim-request at lists.onebuilding.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> bldg-sim-owner at lists.onebuilding.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Bldg-sim digest..."
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. eQuest - Heating/Cooling Loads (Katherine Louman-Gardiner)
>> 2. Re: eQuest - Heating/Cooling Loads (Katherine Louman-Gardiner)
>> 3. Re: usgbc response to outdoor air question (Reba Schaber)
>> 4. Re: usgbc response to outdoor air question
>> (Martin Roy ing. LEED AP)
>> 5. EnergyPlus: Outlet Nodes not matching error (Sachin Sharma)
>> 6. Re: usgbc response to outdoor air question
>> (Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.)
>> 7. Re: usgbc response to outdoor air question (Jim Dirkes)
>> 8. Re: EnergyPlus: Outlet Nodes not matching error (Linda Lawrie)
>> 9. Re: usgbc response to outdoor air question (Jeremy Poling)
>> 10. HELP WANTED: Energy Modeler SWA (NY-CT) (Sandor Rosta)
>>
>> *From: *"Katherine Louman-Gardiner" <klgardiner at flowgroup.ca>
>> <klgardiner at flowgroup.ca>
>> *Date: *November 15, 2011 2:57:02 PM PST
>> *To: *<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> *Subject: **[Bldg-sim] eQuest - Heating/Cooling Loads*
>>
>>
>> Hi all,****
>>
>> I’m not sure I understand how eQuest calculates the heating/cooling
>> equipment loads.****
>>
>> I’ve built two models with identical envelopes and internal loads etc,
>> and OA supply. In model A, we have a boiler and chiller on hot and chilled
>> water loops and a four-pipe fan coil air-side system. In model B, we’re
>> using an air cooled Heat Pump and two-pipe fan coils.****
>>
>> In report PS-C for model A, the sum heat load is -29.6 MBTU, whereas for
>> model B, the sum heat load is -130.2 MBTU. I understand that the fuel use
>> should be very different, but I don’t know why the load is so different
>> between the models. Shouldn’t the heating energy delivered to the spaces
>> be the same in both cases? Why does the Heat Pump system have a load that
>> is so much higher than its counterpart?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Similarly, in report SS-E, January has 110 Heating load hours for Model
>> A, and 385 Heating load hours for Model B. Again, shouldn’t the loads be
>> the same between the two models? ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks in advance for the help,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Katherine****
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Katherine Louman-Gardiner" <klgardiner at flowgroup.ca>
>> <klgardiner at flowgroup.ca>
>> *Date: *November 15, 2011 4:06:48 PM PST
>> *To: *<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> *Subject: **Re: [Bldg-sim] eQuest - Heating/Cooling Loads*
>>
>>
>> Thanks Brian,****
>>
>> But I’d already examined LS-C, LS-D, SS-C and SS-D. As one would expect,
>> LS-C and LS-D are the same for both models. SS-D, however, is not. I
>> guess what I don’t understand is what eQuest considers a “load” to be. I
>> consider “load” to be the requirements of the space (including envelope,
>> occupants, and OA), and none of those things have changed between my
>> models. The only thing that changes is what system is used to meet the
>> load. ****
>>
>> SS-D only has a monthly breakdown – but doesn’t explain why the loads are
>> different.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks,****
>>
>> Katherine****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Brian Fountain [mailto:greensimbf at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Brian
>> Fountain
>> *Sent:* November-15-11 3:15 PM
>> *To:* Katherine Louman-Gardiner
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] eQuest - Heating/Cooling Loads****<greensimbf at gmail.com>
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Look at the SS-D and LS-C reports. SS-D shows the peak heating & cooling
>> loads with outdoor air, LS-C shows the same without outdoor air ... but
>> will show components so you can determine where the difference is.
>>
>>
>> On 11/15/2011 5:57 PM, Katherine Louman-Gardiner wrote: ****
>>
>> Hi all,****
>>
>> I’m not sure I understand how eQuest calculates the heating/cooling
>> equipment loads.****
>>
>> I’ve built two models with identical envelopes and internal loads etc,
>> and OA supply. In model A, we have a boiler and chiller on hot and chilled
>> water loops and a four-pipe fan coil air-side system. In model B, we’re
>> using an air cooled Heat Pump and two-pipe fan coils.****
>>
>> In report PS-C for model A, the sum heat load is -29.6 MBTU, whereas for
>> model B, the sum heat load is -130.2 MBTU. I understand that the fuel use
>> should be very different, but I don’t know why the load is so different
>> between the models. Shouldn’t the heating energy delivered to the spaces
>> be the same in both cases? Why does the Heat Pump system have a load that
>> is so much higher than its counterpart?****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Similarly, in report SS-E, January has 110 Heating load hours for Model
>> A, and 385 Heating load hours for Model B. Again, shouldn’t the loads be
>> the same between the two models? ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Thanks in advance for the help,****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Katherine****
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> _______________________________________________****
>>
>> Bldg-sim mailing list****
>>
>> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org**** <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-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Reba Schaber <Rschaber at PHMECH.com>
>> *Date: *November 15, 2011 6:41:36 PM PST
>> *To: *Jim Dirkes <jim at buildingperformanceteam.com>, "
>> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>,
>> "'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org'" <Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> <Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org> <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><jim at buildingperformanceteam.com>
>> *Subject: **Re: [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question*
>>
>>
>> RE: *“. . . **can’t find) anything in 621.1 which says that unoccupied
>> ventilation should be zero.**”*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> I think this requirement comes from the mandatory provisions of 90.1.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *6.4.3.4.3 Shutoff Damper Controls. *Both *outdoor*
>>
>> *air *supply and exhaust systems shall be equipped with motorized****
>>
>> dampers that will automatically shut when the systems or****
>>
>> spaces served are not in use. Ventilation *outdoor air *dampers****
>>
>> shall be capable of automatically shutting off during preoccupancy****
>>
>> building warm-up, cool down, and *setback, *except****
>>
>> when *ventilation *reduces energy costs (e.g., night purge) or****
>>
>> when ventilation must be supplied to meet code requirements.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thoughts??****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Reba****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
>> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Jim Dirkes
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2011 9:32 AM
>> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> '
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question****<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Dear Patrick,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thank you for sharing this GBCI response! It is very informative and,
>> while I won’t admit that I’ve been modeling anything incorrectly, I *am*going to change a couple of things
>> J.****
>>
>> In particular, I have heard on several occasions that the Increased
>> Ventilation credit was a clear case of “IEQ vs. energy”; you make a
>> decision to trade one against the other. After reading the GBCI response
>> below and then double-checking with ASHRAE 90.1, I find that they are
>> consistent with each other and effectively allow no penalty for the
>> increased energy caused by increased ventilation. Very curious,
>> considering there is no science which demonstrates a health benefit for
>> outdoor airflows greater than that required by ASHRAE 62.1!****
>>
>> The other item is that I failed to notice (and still can’t find) anything
>> in 621.1 which says that unoccupied ventilation should be zero. I guess
>> that is OK, but is also curious, since a portion of the ventilation calcs
>> in 62.1 include consideration for off-gassing materials (which are always
>> present.)****
>>
>> All in all, I’m smarter than I was as a result of your post, so it’s a
>> good day! Thanks again.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *The Building Performance Team
>> **James V. Dirkes II, P.E., BEMP , LEED AP
>> *1631 Acacia Drive NW
>> Grand Rapids, MI 49504
>> 616 450 8653****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
>> mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2011 11:46 AM
>> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question****<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> back in september there was a thread about what the outdoor air rate in a
>> baseline simulation should be compared to a proposed simulation,
>> specifically when one is adding 30% more outdoor air to meet the ieqc2
>> requirement and earn 1 leed point. there were differences of opinions
>> about the flow rates between baseline and proposed being either the same
>> (as required in 90.1 app g) or the baseline being the calculated per 62.1
>> and the proposed being as designed.
>>
>> so i submitted a support request to the usgbc and the reply i received is
>> below, but in short the response is that unless you're using dcv optionally
>> the outdoor air rates in the baseline and proposed energy simulations for
>> eac1 should be the same. the response below gives the standard responses
>> to differing outdoor air rate scenarios.
>>
>> regards,
>> patrick****
>>
>> [Fwd: Case 00531150: General LEED Questions****
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------****
>>
>> *Subject: *
>>
>> Case 00531150: General LEED Questions [ ref:00D49UeD.5004GN692:ref ]****
>>
>> *Date: *
>>
>> Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:51 +0000 (GMT)****
>>
>> *From: *
>>
>> "No reply GBCI" <no-reply at gbci.org> <no-reply at gbci.org>****<no-reply at gbci.org><no-reply at gbci.org>
>>
>> *To: *
>>
>> patrick@****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> Thank you for contacting the Green Building Certification Institute.
>>
>> You ask very good questions related to the relationship between ASHRAE
>> Standards 62.1 and 90.1, and how these standards are applied across
>> multiple LEED Rating System prerequisites and credits.
>>
>> The simple answer to your question is that, for systems without demand
>> controlled ventilation, the outdoor air included in EA Credit 1 energy
>> simulations must be the same in the Baseline and Proposed cases. If the
>> project is attempting IEQ Credit 2 Increased Ventilation, then the values
>> calculated in IEQc2 must be used in the EAc1 Basline and Proposed case
>> energy models. Note that IEQc2 does not limit the project to providing only
>> 30% more outdoor air than AHRAE 62.1 Ventilation Rate Procedure minimums,
>> so higher amounts are acceptable, as long as they are modeled identically
>> in both the Baseline and Proposed case energy models.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment applies to ventilation systems
>> that do not have demand controlled ventilation:
>>
>> It is unclear whether the minimum outside air rates (in CFM) were modeled
>> identically in the Baseline and Proposed case for all zones not having
>> Demand Control Ventilation in the Proposed case. Please confirm that
>> minimum outside airflow (in units of cfm) was modeled identically in the
>> Baseline and Proposed cases using the proposed case rates. Additionally,
>> please verify that all systems in both the baseline and proposed case are
>> modeled with zero outside air flow when fans are cycled on to meet
>> unoccupied setback temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate
>> an alternate minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the
>> unoccupied outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline
>> and Proposed case).
>>
>> The situation becomes a bit more complicated in you have systems that
>> have demand controlled ventilation (often implemented as Carbon Dioxide
>> control of outdoor air or as programmed control of outdoor air based on
>> occupancy sensors.) In this case the Baseline case energy model must
>> include the minimum outdoor air as determined by the ASHRAE 62.1
>> Ventilation Rate Procedure calculations for all systems having demand
>> controlled ventilation.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment applies to ventilation systems
>> that do have demand controlled ventilation:
>>
>> Demand control ventilation was modeled for credit in the proposed case.
>> Appendix G allows schedule changes for demand control ventilation as
>> approved by the rating authority (Table G3.1#4(Baseline)). As the LEED
>> Certification rating authority, GBCI requires that the outside air
>> ventilation rates for the Baseline case be modeled using minimum ASHRAE
>> 62.1-2004 (or 2007 for LEED-NC 2009 projects) rates wherever credit is
>> taken for demand control ventilation in the Proposed case. The proposed
>> case minimum rates at design conditions should be modeled as designed.
>> Please verify that the Baseline Case model reflects ASHRAE 62.1-2004 (or
>> 2007) minimum rates for any spaces where credit is taken for demand control
>> ventilation, or revise the model accordingly. For all other spaces, please
>> confirm that minimum outside airflow (in units of cfm) was modeled
>> identically in the Baseline and Proposed cases. Additionally, please verify
>> that all systems in both the baseline and proposed cases are modeled with
>> zero outside air flow when fans are cycled on to meet unoccupied setback
>> temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate an alternate
>> minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the unoccupied
>> outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline and
>> Proposed case).
>>
>> Finally, even though you don't address energy recovery in your question,
>> whether or not you have energy recovery in your ventilation systems may
>> affect how much better (or worse) your Proposed case energy models perform
>> in relation to your Baseline case energy models.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment addresses energy recovery in
>> EAc1 energy models as it relates to ventilation systems.
>>
>> Energy recovery is modeled for credit in the Proposed case. Please
>> provide further information regarding the energy recovery efficiency,
>> verify that outside air is modeled with zero flow in both the Baseline and
>> Proposed cases during unoccupied periods when fans are cycled on to meet
>> unoccupied setback temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate
>> an alternate minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the
>> unoccupied outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline
>> and Proposed Case), and indicate the bypass mechanism used to bypass the
>> energy recovery during mild conditions.
>>
>> I hope that helps, but if you have any further questions or concerns,
>> please feel free to use the contact form at http://www.gbci.org/contactusand select "Follow up to GBCI Response," inputting your case number from
>> this email's subject line.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Dan Katzenberger, P.E., CEM, BEMP, LEED-AP BD+C
>>
>> Green Building Certification Institute
>> 2101 L Street NW, Suite 500
>> Washington, DC 20037
>> 800-795-1746 (phone)
>> 202 828-5110 (fax)
>> www.gbci.org/contactus
>>
>> The text above represents a staff opinion of a particular issue, and does
>> NOT set any precedent to be upheld during a LEED Certification Review. For
>> official rulings in advance of a LEED Certification Review, customers
>> should utilize the Formal Inquiries process available in LEED Online that
>> results in a Project Credit Interpretation Ruling (Project CIR) and
>> possibly a LEED Interpretation (formerly CIRs or Public Rulings).
>> Applications for LEED Certification will be thoroughly reviewed based on
>> USGBC Member balloted and approved LEED Rating Systems, with addenda, and
>> USGBC approved LEED Interpretations, or Project CIRs administered by GBCI,
>> as applicable. Please note that certain inquiries submitted to USGBC are
>> forwarded to GBCI for reply as appropriate.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________
>> CUSTOMER EMAIL ADDRESS:
>> patirck@
>>
>> CUSTOMER INQUIRY:
>> I am trying to verify what the minimum outdoor airflow rate required for
>> EAc1 is and am not sure if this requires a CIR.
>>
>> If the Proposed outdoor air ventilation is a minimum of 30% higher than
>> the minimum required by ASHRAE 62 in order to achieve 1 LEED point for
>> credit IEQC2 is the Baseline outdoor air rate also 30% higher than the
>> minimum required by ASHRAE 62? or would the Baseline outdoor air
>> ventilation rate be the minimum outdoor air rate per ASHRAE 62
>> calculations.
>>
>> In other words, if ASHRAE 62 requires a minimum of 1,000 CFM of outdoor
>> air, and 1,300 CFM is provided to attain 1 LEED point via IEQC1, is the
>> Baseline outdoor air flow rate 1,000 CFM or 1,300 CFM in the energy
>> simulation?
>>
>> 90.1-2007/2004 both say the minimu m outdoor airflow rates shall be
>> the same for both the proposed and baseline building designs, as does the
>> user manual.
>>
>> But this logic seems to reward the Proposed simulation by conditioning
>> the additional outdoor air supplied (300 cfm in the example above) to
>> achieve IEQC1 in the Baseline system as well as the proposed.
>>
>> The logic of using the minimum required in the Baseline case is reflected
>> in EAC1 in the equipment efficiency requirements. Baseline efficiencies are
>> the minimum required, e.g. SEER 13 for packaged units.
>>
>> It is the intent of the requirement that I am not sure is clear.
>> Increasing the outdoor air ventilation rate increases the energy used to
>> condition the outdoor air, so if the intent is to put the onus on Proposed
>> design to show energy reduction/LEED compliance over the 90.1/62
>> requirements shouldn't the Baseline outdoor air be the minimum air flow
>> rate per the ASHRAE 62 calculations? This puts the onus on the design team
>> to provide a design that compensates for the increase in energy to meet
>> IEQC2 by providing some method of processing the increase in outdoor air
>> while still reducing energy consumption.****<http://www.gbci.org/contactus><http://www.gbci.org/contactus>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Martin Roy ing. LEED AP" <martin.roy at mra.qc.ca>
>> <martin.roy at mra.qc.ca>
>> *Date: *November 15, 2011 7:15:12 PM PST
>> *To: *Reba Schaber <Rschaber at PHMECH.com>
>> *Cc: *"equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <
>> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>, "'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org'" <
>> Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> <Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org> <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> *Subject: **Re: [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question*
>>
>>
>> Ouch!
>> In the Model energy code in Canada only up to 20% more than ASHRAE 62 is
>> allowed in the base case. Imagine a building with 100% more OA and a ERV
>> of 70% on the proposed case it can easily reach 10 EAcr1 point especially
>> in cold climate.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> At 21:41 15/11/2011, Reba Schaber wrote:
>>
>> Content-Language: en-US
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> ** **boundary="_000_FAA9B7F58E5E4A46BDDF900F4CCAC3FE03ABA763DD3DPHSERVERphm_"
>>
>> RE: *“. . . can’t find) anything in 621.1 which says that unoccupied
>> ventilation should be zero.”
>>
>> *I think this requirement comes from the mandatory provisions of 90.1.
>>
>> *6.4.3.4.3 Shutoff Damper Controls. *Both *outdoor
>> air *supply and exhaust systems shall be equipped with motorized
>> dampers that will automatically shut when the systems or
>> spaces served are not in use. Ventilation *outdoor air *dampers
>> shall be capable of automatically shutting off during preoccupancy
>> building warm-up, cool down, and *setback, *except
>> when *ventilation *reduces energy costs (e.g., night purge) or
>> when ventilation must be supplied to meet code requirements.
>>
>> Thoughts??
>>
>> Reba
>>
>> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
>> mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Jim Dirkes
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2011 9:32 AM
>> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> '
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question
>>
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> Thank you for sharing this GBCI response! It is very informative and,
>> while I won’t admit that I’ve been modeling anything incorrectly, I *am*going to change a couple of things J.
>> In particular, I have heard on several occasions that the Increased
>> Ventilation credit was a clear case of “IEQ vs. energy”; you make a
>> decision to trade one against the other. After reading the GBCI response
>> below and then double-checking with ASHRAE 90.1, I find that they are
>> consistent with each other and effectively allow no penalty for the
>> increased energy caused by increased ventilation. Very curious,
>> considering there is no science which demonstrates a health benefit for
>> outdoor airflows greater than that required by ASHRAE 62.1!
>> The other item is that I failed to notice (and still can’t find) anything
>> in 621.1 which says that unoccupied ventilation should be zero. I guess
>> that is OK, but is also curious, since a portion of the ventilation calcs
>> in 62.1 include consideration for off-gassing materials (which are always
>> present.)
>> All in all, I’m smarter than I was as a result of your post, so it’s a
>> good day! Thanks again.
>>
>> *The Building Performance Team
>> James V. Dirkes II, P.E., BEMP , LEED AP
>> *1631 Acacia Drive NW
>> Grand Rapids, MI 49504
>> 616 450 8653
>>
>> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
>> mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2011 11:46 AM
>> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question
>>
>> back in september there was a thread about what the outdoor air rate in a
>> baseline simulation should be compared to a proposed simulation,
>> specifically when one is adding 30% more outdoor air to meet the ieqc2
>> requirement and earn 1 leed point. there were differences of opinions
>> about the flow rates between baseline and proposed being either the same
>> (as required in 90.1 app g) or the baseline being the calculated per 62.1
>> and the proposed being as designed.
>>
>> so i submitted a support request to the usgbc and the reply i received is
>> below, but in short the response is that unless you're using dcv optionally
>> the outdoor air rates in the baseline and proposed energy simulations for
>> eac1 should be the same. the response below gives the standard responses
>> to differing outdoor air rate scenarios.
>>
>> regards,
>> patrick
>>
>> [Fwd: Case 00531150: General LEED Questions
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> *Subject:
>> *
>>
>> Case 00531150: General LEED Questions [ ref:00D49UeD.5004GN692:ref ]
>> *Date:
>> *
>>
>> Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:51 +0000 (GMT)
>> *From:
>> *
>>
>> "No reply GBCI" <no-reply at gbci.org> <no-reply at gbci.org>
>> *To:
>> *
>>
>> patrick@
>>
>>
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> Thank you for contacting the Green Building Certification Institute.
>>
>> You ask very good questions related to the relationship between ASHRAE
>> Standards 62.1 and 90.1, and how these standards are applied across
>> multiple LEED Rating System prerequisites and credits.
>>
>> The simple answer to your question is that, for systems without demand
>> controlled ventilation, the outdoor air included in EA Credit 1 energy
>> simulations must be the same in the Baseline and Proposed cases. If the
>> project is attempting IEQ Credit 2 Increased Ventilation, then the values
>> calculated in IEQc2 must be used in the EAc1 Basline and Proposed case
>> energy models. Note that IEQc2 does not limit the project to providing only
>> 30% more outdoor air than AHRAE 62.1 Ventilation Rate Procedure minimums,
>> so higher amounts are acceptable, as long as they are modeled identically
>> in both the Baseline and Proposed case energy models.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment applies to ventilation systems
>> that do not have demand controlled ventilation:
>>
>> It is unclear whether the minimum outside air rates (in CFM) were modeled
>> identically in the Baseline and Proposed case for all zones not having
>> Demand Control Ventilation in the Proposed case. Please confirm that
>> minimum outside airflow (in units of cfm) was modeled identically in the
>> Baseline and Proposed cases using the proposed case rates. Additionally,
>> please verify that all systems in both the baseline and proposed case are
>> modeled with zero outside air flow when fans are cycled on to meet
>> unoccupied setback temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate
>> an alternate minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the
>> unoccupied outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline
>> and Proposed case).
>>
>> The situation becomes a bit more complicated in you have systems that
>> have demand controlled ventilation (often implemented as Carbon Dioxide
>> control of outdoor air or as programmed control of outdoor air based on
>> occupancy sensors.) In this case the Baseline case energy model must
>> include the minimum outdoor air as determined by the ASHRAE 62.1
>> Ventilation Rate Procedure calculations for all systems having demand
>> controlled ventilation.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment applies to ventilation systems
>> that do have demand controlled ventilation:
>>
>> Demand control ventilation was modeled for credit in the proposed case.
>> Appendix G allows schedule changes for demand control ventilation as
>> approved by the rating authority (Table G3.1#4(Baseline)). As the LEED
>> Certification rating authority, GBCI requires that the outside air
>> ventilation rates for the Baseline case be modeled using minimum ASHRAE
>> 62.1-2004 (or 2007 for LEED-NC 2009 projects) rates wherever credit is
>> taken for demand control ventilation in the Proposed case. The proposed
>> case minimum rates at design conditions should be modeled as designed.
>> Please verify that the Baseline Case model reflects ASHRAE 62.1-2004 (or
>> 2007) minimum rates for any spaces where credit is taken for demand control
>> ventilation, or revise the model accordingly. For all other spaces, please
>> confirm that minimum outside airflow (in units of cfm) was modeled
>> identically in the Baseline and Proposed cases. Additionally, please verify
>> that all systems in both the baseline and proposed cases are modeled with
>> zero outside air flow when fans are cycled on to meet unoccupied setback
>> temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate an alternate
>> minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the unoccupied
>> outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline and
>> Proposed case).
>>
>> Finally, even though you don't address energy recovery in your question,
>> whether or not you have energy recovery in your ventilation systems may
>> affect how much better (or worse) your Proposed case energy models perform
>> in relation to your Baseline case energy models.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment addresses energy recovery in
>> EAc1 energy models as it relates to ventilation systems.
>>
>> Energy recovery is modeled for credit in the Proposed case. Please
>> provide further information regarding the energy recovery efficiency,
>> verify that outside air is modeled with zero flow in both the Baseline and
>> Proposed cases during unoccupied periods when fans are cycled on to meet
>> unoccupied setback temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate
>> an alternate minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the
>> unoccupied outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline
>> and Proposed Case), and indicate the bypass mechanism used to bypass the
>> energy recovery during mild conditions.
>>
>> I hope that helps, but if you have any further questions or concerns,
>> please feel free to use the contact form at http://www.gbci.org/contactusand select "Follow up to GBCI Response," inputting your case number from
>> this email's subject line.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Dan Katzenberger, P.E., CEM, BEMP, LEED-AP BD+C
>>
>> Green Building Certification Institute
>> 2101 L Street NW, Suite 500
>> Washington, DC 20037
>> 800-795-1746 (phone)
>> 202 828-5110 (fax)
>> www.gbci.org/contactus
>>
>> The text above represents a staff opinion of a particular issue, and does
>> NOT set any precedent to be upheld during a LEED Certification Review. For
>> official rulings in advance of a LEED Certification Review, customers
>> should utilize the Formal Inquiries process available in LEED Online that
>> results in a Project Credit Interpretation Ruling (Project CIR) and
>> possibly a LEED Interpretation (formerly CIRs or Public Rulings).
>> Applications for LEED Certification will be thoroughly reviewed based on
>> USGBC Member balloted and approved LEED Rating Systems, with addenda, and
>> USGBC approved LEED Interpretations, or Project CIRs administered by GBCI,
>> as applicable. Please note that certain inquiries submitted to USGBC are
>> forwarded to GBCI for reply as appropriate.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________
>> CUSTOMER EMAIL ADDRESS:
>> patirck@
>>
>> CUSTOMER INQUIRY:
>> I am trying to verify what the minimum outdoor airflow rate required for
>> EAc1 is and am not sure if this requires a CIR.
>>
>> If the Proposed outdoor air ventilation is a minimum of 30% higher than
>> the minimum required by ASHRAE 62 in order to achieve 1 LEED point for
>> credit IEQC2 is the Baseline outdoor air rate also 30% higher than the
>> minimum required by ASHRAE 62? or would the Baseline outdoor air
>> ventilation rate be the minimum outdoor air rate per ASHRAE 62
>> calculations.
>>
>> In other words, if ASHRAE 62 requires a minimum of 1,000 CFM of outdoor
>> air, and 1,300 CFM is provided to attain 1 LEED point via IEQC1, is the
>> Baseline outdoor air flow rate 1,000 CFM or 1,300 CFM in the energy
>> simulation?
>>
>> 90.1-2007/2004 both say the minimu m outdoor airflow rates shall be
>> the same for both the proposed and baseline building designs, as does the
>> user manual.
>>
>> But this logic seems to reward the Proposed simulation by conditioning
>> the additional outdoor air supplied (300 cfm in the example above) to
>> achieve IEQC1 in the Baseline system as well as the proposed.
>>
>> The logic of using the minimum required in the Baseline case is reflected
>> in EAC1 in the equipment efficiency requirements. Baseline efficiencies are
>> the minimum required, e.g. SEER 13 for packaged units.
>>
>> It is the intent of the requirement that I am not sure is clear.
>> Increasing the outdoor air ventilation rate increases the energy used to
>> condition the outdoor air, so if the intent is to put the onus on Proposed
>> design to show energy reduction/LEED compliance over the 90.1/62
>> requirements shouldn't the Baseline outdoor air be the minimum air flow
>> rate per the ASHRAE 62 calculations? This puts the onus on the design team
>> to provide a design that compensates for the increase in energy to meet
>> IEQC2 by providing some method of processing the increase in outdoor air
>> while still reducing energy consumption.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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<http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org><http://www.gbci.org/contactus><http://www.gbci.org/contactus><no-reply at gbci.org><no-reply at gbci.org><bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>>
>> **
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Martin Roy, ing. PA LEED®, président
>> Martin Roy et associés
>> 1805 chemin Oka,
>> Deux-Montagnes, Qc
>> J7R 1N3
>>
>>
>> Tel: 450-623-0340
>> Cell. 514-594-6352
>>
>> www.mra.qc.ca
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Message de confidentialité
>> *Ce courriel (de même que les fichiers joints) est strictement réservé à
>> l'usage de la personne ou de l'entité à qui il est adressé et peut contenir
>> de l'information privilégiée et confidentielle. Toute divulgation,
>> distribution ou copie de ce courriel est strictement prohibée et peut être
>> l’objet de poursuites judiciaires. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par
>> erreur, veuillez nous en aviser et le supprimer de votre système
>> informatique sans l'imprimer, le copier ou le faire suivre a quiconque.
>>
>> *Devez-vous vraiment imprimer ce courriel ? Pensons environnement...
>> *** <http://www.mra.qc.ca/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Sachin Sharma" <sachin5787 at gmail.com>
>> <sachin5787 at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *November 16, 2011 2:55:12 AM PST
>> *To: *"'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org'" <Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> <Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org> <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> *Subject: **[Bldg-sim] EnergyPlus: Outlet Nodes not matching error*
>>
>>
>> Hi,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I am getting the below error, I have checked the inlet and outlet nodes
>> of all the branches and components, all node names are matching but still I
>> am getting this error.****
>>
>> Is it that I am making a fundamental error? Please suggest how to
>> rectify it.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> <image001.png>****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *With regards,*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *Sachin Sharma*
>>
>> *M.Tech Energy Engg.*
>>
>> *Department of Mechanical Engineering*
>>
>> *NIT Jaipur*
>>
>> *+91 9983912512*
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr." <poleary1969 at gmail.com>
>> <poleary1969 at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *November 16, 2011 4:13:53 AM PST
>> *To: *bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> *Subject: **Re: [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question*
>>
>>
>> imagine a building with 100% oa and evaporatively cooled ... 10 eac1
>> points ... unless you're gbci reviewer who doesn't understand evap cooling
>>
>> On 11/15/11 8:15 PM, Martin Roy ing. LEED AP wrote:
>>
>> Ouch!
>>
>> In the Model energy code in Canada only up to 20% more than ASHRAE 62 is
>> allowed in the base case. Imagine a building with 100% more OA and a ERV
>> of 70% on the proposed case it can easily reach 10 EAcr1 point especially
>> in cold climate.
>>
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Jim Dirkes" <jim at buildingperformanceteam.com>
>> <jim at buildingperformanceteam.com>
>> *Date: *November 16, 2011 5:53:12 AM PST
>> *To: *"'Martin Roy ing. LEED AP'" <martin.roy at mra.qc.ca>, "'Reba
>> Schaber'" <Rschaber at PHMECH.com>
>> <martin.roy at mra.qc.ca>
>> *Cc: *equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org, "'
>> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org'" <Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> <Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org> <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> *Subject: **Re: [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question*
>>
>>
>> While ASHRAE 90.1 does a pretty good job of defining higher efficiency
>> practices, it’s not perfect. On the other hand, that’s why Appendix G is
>> there; you can show why your idea is better, at least on the energy part of
>> things.****
>>
>> There are still issues with the general level of knowledge among both the
>> reviewer community as well as the energy modeling community, and that may
>> never cease. As is commonly the case, a designer often is facing either
>> (energy efficiency) / or (greater IAQ & productivity). The challenge is
>> how to get the best combination of both.****
>>
>> One benefit of LEED certification seems to have been that many engineer
>> designers have responded to the challenge of greater efficiency and
>> performance and changed their standard designs in favor of something with
>> better performance. That’s probably very good, largely because stagnation
>> is never good.****
>>
>> There certainly is experimentation going on, not all of which is
>> producing great results, but I still prefer a real attitude of “continuous
>> improvement” over stagnation!****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *The Building Performance Team
>> **James V. Dirkes II, P.E., BEMP , LEED AP
>> *1631 Acacia Drive NW
>> Grand Rapids, MI 49504
>> 616 450 8653****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Martin Roy ing. LEED AP [mailto:martin.roy at mra.qc.ca]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:15 PM
>> *To:* Reba Schaber
>> *Cc:* Jim Dirkes; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; '
>> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org'
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question****<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><martin.roy at mra.qc.ca>
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Ouch!
>> In the Model energy code in Canada only up to 20% more than ASHRAE 62 is
>> allowed in the base case. Imagine a building with 100% more OA and a ERV
>> of 70% on the proposed case it can easily reach 10 EAcr1 point especially
>> in cold climate.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> At 21:41 15/11/2011, Reba Schaber wrote:
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Content-Language: en-US
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>
>> boundary="_000_FAA9B7F58E5E4A46BDDF900F4CCAC3FE03ABA763DD3DPHSERVERphm_"
>>
>> RE: *“. . . can’t find) anything in 621.1 which says that unoccupied
>> ventilation should be zero.”
>>
>> *I think this requirement comes from the mandatory provisions of 90.1.
>>
>> *6.4.3.4.3 Shutoff Damper Controls. *Both *outdoor
>> air *supply and exhaust systems shall be equipped with motorized
>> dampers that will automatically shut when the systems or
>> spaces served are not in use. Ventilation *outdoor air *dampers
>> shall be capable of automatically shutting off during preoccupancy
>> building warm-up, cool down, and *setback, *except
>> when *ventilation *reduces energy costs (e.g., night purge) or
>> when ventilation must be supplied to meet code requirements.
>>
>> Thoughts??
>>
>> Reba
>>
>> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
>> mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Jim Dirkes
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2011 9:32 AM
>> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> '
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question
>>
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> Thank you for sharing this GBCI response! It is very informative and,
>> while I won’t admit that I’ve been modeling anything incorrectly, I *am*going to change a couple of things J.
>> In particular, I have heard on several occasions that the Increased
>> Ventilation credit was a clear case of “IEQ vs. energy”; you make a
>> decision to trade one against the other. After reading the GBCI response
>> below and then double-checking with ASHRAE 90.1, I find that they are
>> consistent with each other and effectively allow no penalty for the
>> increased energy caused by increased ventilation. Very curious,
>> considering there is no science which demonstrates a health benefit for
>> outdoor airflows greater than that required by ASHRAE 62.1!
>> The other item is that I failed to notice (and still can’t find) anything
>> in 621.1 which says that unoccupied ventilation should be zero. I guess
>> that is OK, but is also curious, since a portion of the ventilation calcs
>> in 62.1 include consideration for off-gassing materials (which are always
>> present.)
>> All in all, I’m smarter than I was as a result of your post, so it’s a
>> good day! Thanks again.
>> **** <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>>
>> *The Building Performance Team
>> James V. Dirkes II, P.E., BEMP , LEED AP
>> *1631 Acacia Drive NW
>> Grand Rapids, MI 49504
>> 616 450 8653****
>>
>>
>> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
>> mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2011 11:46 AM
>> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question
>>
>> back in september there was a thread about what the outdoor air rate in a
>> baseline simulation should be compared to a proposed simulation,
>> specifically when one is adding 30% more outdoor air to meet the ieqc2
>> requirement and earn 1 leed point. there were differences of opinions
>> about the flow rates between baseline and proposed being either the same
>> (as required in 90.1 app g) or the baseline being the calculated per 62.1
>> and the proposed being as designed.
>>
>> so i submitted a support request to the usgbc and the reply i received is
>> below, but in short the response is that unless you're using dcv optionally
>> the outdoor air rates in the baseline and proposed energy simulations for
>> eac1 should be the same. the response below gives the standard responses
>> to differing outdoor air rate scenarios.
>>
>> regards,
>> patrick
>>
>> [Fwd: Case 00531150: General LEED Questions
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------**** <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>>
>> *Subject: *****
>>
>>
>> Case 00531150: General LEED Questions [ ref:00D49UeD.5004GN692:ref ]****
>>
>> *Date: *****
>>
>>
>> Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:51 +0000 (GMT)****
>>
>> *From: *****
>>
>>
>> "No reply GBCI" <no-reply at gbci.org> <no-reply at gbci.org>****<no-reply at gbci.org><no-reply at gbci.org>
>>
>> *To: *****
>>
>>
>> patrick@
>>
>>
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> Thank you for contacting the Green Building Certification Institute.
>>
>> You ask very good questions related to the relationship between ASHRAE
>> Standards 62.1 and 90.1, and how these standards are applied across
>> multiple LEED Rating System prerequisites and credits.
>>
>> The simple answer to your question is that, for systems without demand
>> controlled ventilation, the outdoor air included in EA Credit 1 energy
>> simulations must be the same in the Baseline and Proposed cases. If the
>> project is attempting IEQ Credit 2 Increased Ventilation, then the values
>> calculated in IEQc2 must be used in the EAc1 Basline and Proposed case
>> energy models. Note that IEQc2 does not limit the project to providing only
>> 30% more outdoor air than AHRAE 62.1 Ventilation Rate Procedure minimums,
>> so higher amounts are acceptable, as long as they are modeled identically
>> in both the Baseline and Proposed case energy models.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment applies to ventilation systems
>> that do not have demand controlled ventilation:
>>
>> It is unclear whether the minimum outside air rates (in CFM) were modeled
>> identically in the Baseline and Proposed case for all zones not having
>> Demand Control Ventilation in the Proposed case. Please confirm that
>> minimum outside airflow (in units of cfm) was modeled identically in the
>> Baseline and Proposed cases using the proposed case rates. Additionally,
>> please verify that all systems in both the baseline and proposed case are
>> modeled with zero outside air flow when fans are cycled on to meet
>> unoccupied setback temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate
>> an alternate minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the
>> unoccupied outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline
>> and Proposed case).
>>
>> The situation becomes a bit more complicated in you have systems that
>> have demand controlled ventilation (often implemented as Carbon Dioxide
>> control of outdoor air or as programmed control of outdoor air based on
>> occupancy sensors.) In this case the Baseline case energy model must
>> include the minimum outdoor air as determined by the ASHRAE 62.1
>> Ventilation Rate Procedure calculations for all systems having demand
>> controlled ventilation.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment applies to ventilation systems
>> that do have demand controlled ventilation:
>>
>> Demand control ventilation was modeled for credit in the proposed case.
>> Appendix G allows schedule changes for demand control ventilation as
>> approved by the rating authority (Table G3.1#4(Baseline)). As the LEED
>> Certification rating authority, GBCI requires that the outside air
>> ventilation rates for the Baseline case be modeled using minimum ASHRAE
>> 62.1-2004 (or 2007 for LEED-NC 2009 projects) rates wherever credit is
>> taken for demand control ventilation in the Proposed case. The proposed
>> case minimum rates at design conditions should be modeled as designed.
>> Please verify that the Baseline Case model reflects ASHRAE 62.1-2004 (or
>> 2007) minimum rates for any spaces where credit is taken for demand control
>> ventilation, or revise the model accordingly. For all other spaces, please
>> confirm that minimum outside airflow (in units of cfm) was modeled
>> identically in the Baseline and Proposed cases. Additionally, please verify
>> that all systems in both the baseline and proposed cases are modeled with
>> zero outside air flow when fans are cycled on to meet unoccupied setback
>> temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate an alternate
>> minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the unoccupied
>> outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline and
>> Proposed case).
>>
>> Finally, even though you don't address energy recovery in your question,
>> whether or not you have energy recovery in your ventilation systems may
>> affect how much better (or worse) your Proposed case energy models perform
>> in relation to your Baseline case energy models.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment addresses energy recovery in
>> EAc1 energy models as it relates to ventilation systems.
>>
>> Energy recovery is modeled for credit in the Proposed case. Please
>> provide further information regarding the energy recovery efficiency,
>> verify that outside air is modeled with zero flow in both the Baseline and
>> Proposed cases during unoccupied periods when fans are cycled on to meet
>> unoccupied setback temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate
>> an alternate minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the
>> unoccupied outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline
>> and Proposed Case), and indicate the bypass mechanism used to bypass the
>> energy recovery during mild conditions.
>>
>> I hope that helps, but if you have any further questions or concerns,
>> please feel free to use the contact form at http://www.gbci.org/contactusand select "Follow up to GBCI Response," inputting your case number from
>> this email's subject line.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Dan Katzenberger, P.E., CEM, BEMP, LEED-AP BD+C
>>
>> Green Building Certification Institute
>> 2101 L Street NW, Suite 500
>> Washington, DC 20037
>> 800-795-1746 (phone)
>> 202 828-5110 (fax)
>> www.gbci.org/contactus
>>
>> The text above represents a staff opinion of a particular issue, and does
>> NOT set any precedent to be upheld during a LEED Certification Review. For
>> official rulings in advance of a LEED Certification Review, customers
>> should utilize the Formal Inquiries process available in LEED Online that
>> results in a Project Credit Interpretation Ruling (Project CIR) and
>> possibly a LEED Interpretation (formerly CIRs or Public Rulings).
>> Applications for LEED Certification will be thoroughly reviewed based on
>> USGBC Member balloted and approved LEED Rating Systems, with addenda, and
>> USGBC approved LEED Interpretations, or Project CIRs administered by GBCI,
>> as applicable. Please note that certain inquiries submitted to USGBC are
>> forwarded to GBCI for reply as appropriate.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________
>> CUSTOMER EMAIL ADDRESS:
>> patirck@
>>
>> CUSTOMER INQUIRY:
>> I am trying to verify what the minimum outdoor airflow rate required for
>> EAc1 is and am not sure if this requires a CIR.
>>
>> If the Proposed outdoor air ventilation is a minimum of 30% higher than
>> the minimum required by ASHRAE 62 in order to achieve 1 LEED point for
>> credit IEQC2 is the Baseline outdoor air rate also 30% higher than the
>> minimum required by ASHRAE 62? or would the Baseline outdoor air
>> ventilation rate be the minimum outdoor air rate per ASHRAE 62
>> calculations.
>>
>> In other words, if ASHRAE 62 requires a minimum of 1,000 CFM of outdoor
>> air, and 1,300 CFM is provided to attain 1 LEED point via IEQC1, is the
>> Baseline outdoor air flow rate 1,000 CFM or 1,300 CFM in the energy
>> simulation?
>>
>> 90.1-2007/2004 both say the minimu m outdoor airflow rates shall be
>> the same for both the proposed and baseline building designs, as does the
>> user manual.
>>
>> But this logic seems to reward the Proposed simulation by conditioning
>> the additional outdoor air supplied (300 cfm in the example above) to
>> achieve IEQC1 in the Baseline system as well as the proposed.
>>
>> The logic of using the minimum required in the Baseline case is reflected
>> in EAC1 in the equipment efficiency requirements. Baseline efficiencies are
>> the minimum required, e.g. SEER 13 for packaged units.
>>
>> It is the intent of the requirement that I am not sure is clear.
>> Increasing the outdoor air ventilation rate increases the energy used to
>> condition the outdoor air, so if the intent is to put the onus on Proposed
>> design to show energy reduction/LEED compliance over the 90.1/62
>> requirements shouldn't the Baseline outdoor air be the minimum air flow
>> rate per the ASHRAE 62 calculations? This puts the onus on the design team
>> to provide a design that compensates for the increase in energy to meet
>> IEQC2 by providing some method of processing the increase in outdoor air
>> while still reducing energy consumption.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG><http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org><http://www.gbci.org/contactus><http://www.gbci.org/contactus>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Martin Roy, ing. PA LEED®, président
>> Martin Roy et associés
>> 1805 chemin Oka,
>> Deux-Montagnes, Qc
>> J7R 1N3
>>
>>
>> Tel: 450-623-0340
>> Cell. 514-594-6352
>>
>> www.mra.qc.ca
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Message de confidentialité
>> *Ce courriel (de même que les fichiers joints) est strictement réservé à
>> l'usage de la personne ou de l'entité à qui il est adressé et peut contenir
>> de l'information privilégiée et confidentielle. Toute divulgation,
>> distribution ou copie de ce courriel est strictement prohibée et peut être
>> l’objet de poursuites judiciaires. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par
>> erreur, veuillez nous en aviser et le supprimer de votre système
>> informatique sans l'imprimer, le copier ou le faire suivre a quiconque.
>>
>> *Devez-vous vraiment imprimer ce courriel ? Pensons environnement...****
>> * <http://www.mra.qc.ca/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Linda Lawrie <linda at fortlawrie.com>
>> <linda at fortlawrie.com>
>> *Date: *November 16, 2011 5:56:23 AM PST
>> *To: *"Sachin Sharma" <sachin5787 at gmail.com>
>> <sachin5787 at gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> *Subject: **Re: [Bldg-sim] EnergyPlus: Outlet Nodes not matching error*
>>
>>
>> Send your input file to the helpdesk: http://energyplus.helpdesk.com
>>
>> The BldgSim list is not a list to supply EnergyPlus support.
>>
>> Linda
>> EnergyPlus Development Team
>>
>> At 03:55 AM 11/16/2011, Sachin Sharma wrote:
>>
>> <http://energyplus.helpdesk.com/>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am getting the below error, I have checked the inlet and outlet nodes
>> of all the branches and components, all node names are matching but still I
>> am getting this error.
>> Is it that I am making a fundamental error? Please suggest how to
>> rectify it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Jeremy Poling <Jeremy.Poling at transwestern.net>
>> <Jeremy.Poling at transwestern.net>
>> *Date: *November 16, 2011 7:28:10 AM PST
>> *To: *Reba Schaber <Rschaber at PHMECH.com>, Jim Dirkes <
>> jim at buildingperformanceteam.com>, <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>, "
>> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org" <Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> <Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org> <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><jim at buildingperformanceteam.com>
>> *Subject: **Re: [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question*
>>
>>
>> There was an earlier discussion on the list about this:****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> 62.1-2007, Section 5.4 states “Mechanical ventilation systems shall
>> include controls, manual or automatic, that enable the fan system to
>> operate whenever the spaces served are occupied. The system shall be
>> designed to maintain the minimum outdoor airflow as required by Section 6
>> under any load condition.”****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> 62.1-2007, Section 6.2.6.1 states “Ventilation systems shall be designed
>> to be capable of providing the required ventilation rates in the breathing
>> zone whenever the zones served by the system are occupied, including all
>> full- and part-load conditions.”****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> These are generally applied to mean that the system is not required to
>> operate when spaces are unoccupied. Yes, the standard does not explicitly
>> state that unoccupied ventilation should be zero but the standard does not
>> explicitly state that unoccupied ventilation can’t be zero. Section 5.4
>> and 6.2.6.1 only require controls and ventilation rates “whenever the
>> spaces/zones served by the system are occupied” so it can be implied that
>> the requirement doesn’t apply when the spaces/zones are unoccupied.
>> There’s a fine interpretive line there, but many of the official
>> interpretations on 62.1 also lean this direction. If in doubt, put in an
>> official interpretation request specifically on this with ASHRAE on the
>> topic to clarify.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *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 *Reba Schaber
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 15, 2011 8:42 PM
>> *To:* Jim Dirkes; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; '
>> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org'
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question****<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> RE: *“. . . can’t find) anything in 621.1 which says that unoccupied
>> ventilation should be zero.”*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> I think this requirement comes from the mandatory provisions of 90.1.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *6.4.3.4.3 Shutoff Damper Controls. *Both *outdoor*
>>
>> *air *supply and exhaust systems shall be equipped with motorized****
>>
>> dampers that will automatically shut when the systems or****
>>
>> spaces served are not in use. Ventilation *outdoor air *dampers****
>>
>> shall be capable of automatically shutting off during preoccupancy****
>>
>> building warm-up, cool down, and *setback, *except****
>>
>> when *ventilation *reduces energy costs (e.g., night purge) or****
>>
>> when ventilation must be supplied to meet code requirements.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thoughts??****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Reba****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
>> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Jim Dirkes
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2011 9:32 AM
>> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> '
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question****<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Dear Patrick,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thank you for sharing this GBCI response! It is very informative and,
>> while I won’t admit that I’ve been modeling anything incorrectly, I *am*going to change a couple of things
>> J.****
>>
>> In particular, I have heard on several occasions that the Increased
>> Ventilation credit was a clear case of “IEQ vs. energy”; you make a
>> decision to trade one against the other. After reading the GBCI response
>> below and then double-checking with ASHRAE 90.1, I find that they are
>> consistent with each other and effectively allow no penalty for the
>> increased energy caused by increased ventilation. Very curious,
>> considering there is no science which demonstrates a health benefit for
>> outdoor airflows greater than that required by ASHRAE 62.1!****
>>
>> The other item is that I failed to notice (and still can’t find) anything
>> in 621.1 which says that unoccupied ventilation should be zero. I guess
>> that is OK, but is also curious, since a portion of the ventilation calcs
>> in 62.1 include consideration for off-gassing materials (which are always
>> present.)****
>>
>> All in all, I’m smarter than I was as a result of your post, so it’s a
>> good day! Thanks again.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *The Building Performance Team
>> **James V. Dirkes II, P.E., BEMP , LEED AP
>> *1631 Acacia Drive NW
>> Grand Rapids, MI 49504
>> 616 450 8653****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
>> mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2011 11:46 AM
>> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] usgbc response to outdoor air question****<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org><equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> back in september there was a thread about what the outdoor air rate in a
>> baseline simulation should be compared to a proposed simulation,
>> specifically when one is adding 30% more outdoor air to meet the ieqc2
>> requirement and earn 1 leed point. there were differences of opinions
>> about the flow rates between baseline and proposed being either the same
>> (as required in 90.1 app g) or the baseline being the calculated per 62.1
>> and the proposed being as designed.
>>
>> so i submitted a support request to the usgbc and the reply i received is
>> below, but in short the response is that unless you're using dcv optionally
>> the outdoor air rates in the baseline and proposed energy simulations for
>> eac1 should be the same. the response below gives the standard responses
>> to differing outdoor air rate scenarios.
>>
>> regards,
>> patrick****
>>
>> [Fwd: Case 00531150: General LEED Questions****
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------****
>>
>> *Subject: *
>>
>> Case 00531150: General LEED Questions [ ref:00D49UeD.5004GN692:ref ]****
>>
>> *Date: *
>>
>> Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:54:51 +0000 (GMT)****
>>
>> *From: *
>>
>> "No reply GBCI" <no-reply at gbci.org> <no-reply at gbci.org>****<no-reply at gbci.org><no-reply at gbci.org>
>>
>> *To: *
>>
>> patrick@****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Dear Patrick,
>>
>> Thank you for contacting the Green Building Certification Institute.
>>
>> You ask very good questions related to the relationship between ASHRAE
>> Standards 62.1 and 90.1, and how these standards are applied across
>> multiple LEED Rating System prerequisites and credits.
>>
>> The simple answer to your question is that, for systems without demand
>> controlled ventilation, the outdoor air included in EA Credit 1 energy
>> simulations must be the same in the Baseline and Proposed cases. If the
>> project is attempting IEQ Credit 2 Increased Ventilation, then the values
>> calculated in IEQc2 must be used in the EAc1 Basline and Proposed case
>> energy models. Note that IEQc2 does not limit the project to providing only
>> 30% more outdoor air than AHRAE 62.1 Ventilation Rate Procedure minimums,
>> so higher amounts are acceptable, as long as they are modeled identically
>> in both the Baseline and Proposed case energy models.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment applies to ventilation systems
>> that do not have demand controlled ventilation:
>>
>> It is unclear whether the minimum outside air rates (in CFM) were modeled
>> identically in the Baseline and Proposed case for all zones not having
>> Demand Control Ventilation in the Proposed case. Please confirm that
>> minimum outside airflow (in units of cfm) was modeled identically in the
>> Baseline and Proposed cases using the proposed case rates. Additionally,
>> please verify that all systems in both the baseline and proposed case are
>> modeled with zero outside air flow when fans are cycled on to meet
>> unoccupied setback temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate
>> an alternate minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the
>> unoccupied outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline
>> and Proposed case).
>>
>> The situation becomes a bit more complicated in you have systems that
>> have demand controlled ventilation (often implemented as Carbon Dioxide
>> control of outdoor air or as programmed control of outdoor air based on
>> occupancy sensors.) In this case the Baseline case energy model must
>> include the minimum outdoor air as determined by the ASHRAE 62.1
>> Ventilation Rate Procedure calculations for all systems having demand
>> controlled ventilation.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment applies to ventilation systems
>> that do have demand controlled ventilation:
>>
>> Demand control ventilation was modeled for credit in the proposed case.
>> Appendix G allows schedule changes for demand control ventilation as
>> approved by the rating authority (Table G3.1#4(Baseline)). As the LEED
>> Certification rating authority, GBCI requires that the outside air
>> ventilation rates for the Baseline case be modeled using minimum ASHRAE
>> 62.1-2004 (or 2007 for LEED-NC 2009 projects) rates wherever credit is
>> taken for demand control ventilation in the Proposed case. The proposed
>> case minimum rates at design conditions should be modeled as designed.
>> Please verify that the Baseline Case model reflects ASHRAE 62.1-2004 (or
>> 2007) minimum rates for any spaces where credit is taken for demand control
>> ventilation, or revise the model accordingly. For all other spaces, please
>> confirm that minimum outside airflow (in units of cfm) was modeled
>> identically in the Baseline and Proposed cases. Additionally, please verify
>> that all systems in both the baseline and proposed cases are modeled with
>> zero outside air flow when fans are cycled on to meet unoccupied setback
>> temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate an alternate
>> minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the unoccupied
>> outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline and
>> Proposed case).
>>
>> Finally, even though you don't address energy recovery in your question,
>> whether or not you have energy recovery in your ventilation systems may
>> affect how much better (or worse) your Proposed case energy models perform
>> in relation to your Baseline case energy models.
>>
>> The following generic LEED Review Comment addresses energy recovery in
>> EAc1 energy models as it relates to ventilation systems.
>>
>> Energy recovery is modeled for credit in the Proposed case. Please
>> provide further information regarding the energy recovery efficiency,
>> verify that outside air is modeled with zero flow in both the Baseline and
>> Proposed cases during unoccupied periods when fans are cycled on to meet
>> unoccupied setback temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate
>> an alternate minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which case, the
>> unoccupied outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline
>> and Proposed Case), and indicate the bypass mechanism used to bypass the
>> energy recovery during mild conditions.
>>
>> I hope that helps, but if you have any further questions or concerns,
>> please feel free to use the contact form at http://www.gbci.org/contactusand select "Follow up to GBCI Response," inputting your case number from
>> this email's subject line.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Dan Katzenberger, P.E., CEM, BEMP, LEED-AP BD+C
>>
>> Green Building Certification Institute
>> 2101 L Street NW, Suite 500
>> Washington, DC 20037
>> 800-795-1746 (phone)
>> 202 828-5110 (fax)
>> www.gbci.org/contactus
>>
>> The text above represents a staff opinion of a particular issue, and does
>> NOT set any precedent to be upheld during a LEED Certification Review. For
>> official rulings in advance of a LEED Certification Review, customers
>> should utilize the Formal Inquiries process available in LEED Online that
>> results in a Project Credit Interpretation Ruling (Project CIR) and
>> possibly a LEED Interpretation (formerly CIRs or Public Rulings).
>> Applications for LEED Certification will be thoroughly reviewed based on
>> USGBC Member balloted and approved LEED Rating Systems, with addenda, and
>> USGBC approved LEED Interpretations, or Project CIRs administered by GBCI,
>> as applicable. Please note that certain inquiries submitted to USGBC are
>> forwarded to GBCI for reply as appropriate.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________
>> CUSTOMER EMAIL ADDRESS:
>> patirck@
>>
>> CUSTOMER INQUIRY:
>> I am trying to verify what the minimum outdoor airflow rate required for
>> EAc1 is and am not sure if this requires a CIR.
>>
>> If the Proposed outdoor air ventilation is a minimum of 30% higher than
>> the minimum required by ASHRAE 62 in order to achieve 1 LEED point for
>> credit IEQC2 is the Baseline outdoor air rate also 30% higher than the
>> minimum required by ASHRAE 62? or would the Baseline outdoor air
>> ventilation rate be the minimum outdoor air rate per ASHRAE 62
>> calculations.
>>
>> In other words, if ASHRAE 62 requires a minimum of 1,000 CFM of outdoor
>> air, and 1,300 CFM is provided to attain 1 LEED point via IEQC1, is the
>> Baseline outdoor air flow rate 1,000 CFM or 1,300 CFM in the energy
>> simulation?
>>
>> 90.1-2007/2004 both say the minimu m outdoor airflow rates shall be
>> the same for both the proposed and baseline building designs, as does the
>> user manual.
>>
>> But this logic seems to reward the Proposed simulation by conditioning
>> the additional outdoor air supplied (300 cfm in the example above) to
>> achieve IEQC1 in the Baseline system as well as the proposed.
>>
>> The logic of using the minimum required in the Baseline case is reflected
>> in EAC1 in the equipment efficiency requirements. Baseline efficiencies are
>> the minimum required, e.g. SEER 13 for packaged units.
>>
>> It is the intent of the requirement that I am not sure is clear.
>> Increasing the outdoor air ventilation rate increases the energy used to
>> condition the outdoor air, so if the intent is to put the onus on Proposed
>> design to show energy reduction/LEED compliance over the 90.1/62
>> requirements shouldn't the Baseline outdoor air be the minimum air flow
>> rate per the ASHRAE 62 calculations? This puts the onus on the design team
>> to provide a design that compensates for the increase in energy to meet
>> IEQC2 by providing some method of processing the increase in outdoor air
>> while still reducing energy consumption.****<http://www.gbci.org/contactus><http://www.gbci.org/contactus>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Sandor Rosta <srosta at swinter.com>
>> <srosta at swinter.com>
>> *Date: *November 16, 2011 11:25:49 AM PST
>> *To: *"bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org" <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org> <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
>> *Subject: **[Bldg-sim] HELP WANTED: Energy Modeler SWA (NY-CT)*
>>
>>
>> Steven Winter Associates, Inc. (SWA) seeks a qualified professional to
>> provide energy analysis for high performance and green buildings, including
>> multifamily, commercial, and institutional buildings. Work will primarily
>> focus on energy modeling in eQUEST/Energy Plus. Energy modeling will
>> support LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) projects
>> nationally, NYSERDA Multifamily Program or New Construction Program
>> projects. Depending on experience and interest, other opportunities may be
>> available in energy auditing services and building performance diagnostics.
>> Opening may be available in either SWA’s New York or Connecticut offices.
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> For more information, view the posting on our web site:
>>
>> http://www.swinter.com/da44e168-725f-4ea5-9b89-9fd91e8ebb31/about-us-careers-details-nyc.htm
>> ****<http://www.swinter.com/da44e168-725f-4ea5-9b89-9fd91e8ebb31/about-us-careers-details-nyc.htm>
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *Thanks*
>>
>> *Sandor Rosta
>> *Senior Mechanical Engineer, LEED AP*
>> *212.564.5800 x125 (direct)
>> 212.741.8673 (fax)
>> srosta at swinter.com ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> <http://www.messagelabs.com/email>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bldg-sim mailing list
>> Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>> <Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org> <bldg-sim-owner at lists.onebuilding.org><bldg-sim-request at lists.onebuilding.org><http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org><bldg-sim at lists.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
>>
>> <http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111116/f8678d48/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the Bldg-sim
mailing list