[Bldg-sim] LEED and existing envelopes

[Cheney]

Hi James,

In oder to answer your last question, two things should be clarified as
flollows:

1. Appendix G is designated for New and Major renovation Projects;
2. As per SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE TO THE MINIMUM PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS (R2), "
*Major Renovation: *Includes extensive alteration work in addition to work
on the exterior shell of the building and/or primary structural
components and/or
the core and peripheral MEP and service systems and/or site work. Typically,
the extent and nature of the work is such that the primary function
space cannot
be used for its intended purpose while the work is in progress and where a
new certificate of occupancy is required before the work area can be
reoccupied."

Your project falls into an existing building undergoing renovation or major
renovation will make big difference, I guess.

Regards,
Cheney

LinkedIN @ http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/yu-cheney-chen/27/637/72b



On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:40 PM, James Hansen <JHANSEN at ghtltd.com> wrote:

> One more follow up question:  what if the entire building skin was removed
> and replaced with new?  What the skin go to the minimum ASHRAE 90.1 values
> and whatever glass percentage is in the proposed building? ****
>
> ** **
>
> *GHT Limited
> **James Hansen, P.E., LEED AP*
> Senior Associate
> 1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 200
> Arlington, VA  22201-4749
> 703-243-1200 (office)****
>
> 703-338-5754 (cell)
> 703-276-1376 (fax)****
>
> www.ghtltd.com****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:54 PM
> *To:* Paul Riemer; James Hansen; Anne Juran;
> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Bldg-sim] LEED and existing envelopes****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ve never done a core & shell model, so take this opinion with a grain of
> salt  (it’s only my opinion):****
>
>  ****
>
> This reviewer’s interpretation seems to make a lot of sense to me.  Have
> the baseline represent the actual existing building, and have the proposed
> match the actual design.  To my understanding, the only reason we make them
> match 1:1 for new construction is there isn’t a better means (like when you
> have an existing building) to define a baseline that would treat
> evenhandedly all building types/climates/circumstances, so we have them
> match to at least ensure level playing field.****
>
>  ****
>
> Put another way, and in response to James’ query, I think if adding windows
> (nice or not) cause the energy bills to go up in an existing building, then
> that should be reflected in the energy model.    Simultaneously, if you are
> interested to add daylighting “in moderation,” and locate/orient glazing &
> shading devices in a fashion that lowers the annual bills, then that should
> also be reflected in the energy model.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> It’s important to remember not all exterior glazing is bad from an energy
> perspective, particularly when daylighting controls for the building
> interior lighting are added into the mix.  WWR is one area where “engineers
> and architects” (or “energy and aesthetics,” if that better describes your
> design team) do not need to be on opposite ends of the table!****
>
>  ****
>
> ~Nick****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]****
>
> * *****
>
> *NICK CATON, P.E.*****
>
> SENIOR ENGINEER****
>
>  ****
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers****
>
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200****
>
> olathe, ks 66061****
>
> direct 913.344.0036****
>
> fax 913.345.0617****
>
> www.smithboucher.com* *****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Riemer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2011 1:46 PM
> *To:* 'James Hansen'; Anne Juran; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED and existing envelopes****
>
>  ****
>
> I also agree with the reviewer.  The existing envelope condition
> stipulation is a double edged sword.   Do you truly think it is a net
> penalty on your LEED application to add windows?  Other LEED points reward
> daylight and views, and the thermal energy impacts of the windows are
> hopefully offset by electric lighting savings.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *Paul Riemer, PE, LEED AP BD+C* ****
>
> *DUNHAM*****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *James Hansen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2011 1:31 PM
> *To:* Anne Juran; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED and existing envelopes****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks for the responses Anne and Bill.  But this seems ridiculous, and
> goes against everything I've done to date.****
>
>  ****
>
> So if we have an existing building with no windows, and we want to reuse
> the building structure/skin (which LEED strongly encourages), we get
> penalized for wanting some daylight in the building?  ****
>
>  ****
>
> I think all of the references to the "baseline building envelope shall
> represent existing conditions" is intended to demonstrate that you can use
> existing window and wall coefficients, NOT that you can't add windows.  But
> what do I know...****
>
>  ****
>
> Does anyone know for sure?****
>
>  ****
>
> *GHT Limited
> James Hansen, P.E., LEED AP*
> Senior Associate
> 1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 200
> Arlington, VA  22201-4749
> 703-243-1200 (office)****
>
> 703-338-5754 (cell)
> 703-276-1376 (fax)****
>
> www.ghtltd.com****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Anne Juran [mailto:juran at summerconsultants.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:02 PM
> *To:* James Hansen; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Bldg-sim] LEED and existing envelopes****
>
>  ****
>
> I find existing envelopes always tricky because the information is not
> delivered in the clearest manner.  However, I think in this case the
> reviewer is correct, based on 90.1 Table G3.1.5 item f under “Baseline
> Building Performance” and page G-17 of the User’s Manual.  Also, in item c
> they explicitly state that it applies to new buildings and additions, but do
> not list existing (other than the little blip about alterations and 5.1.3.)
> ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *James Hansen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:23 AM
> *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] LEED and existing envelopes****
>
>  ****
>
> I know this has been covered before, but I just received the following
> comment from a GBCI reviewer for a v3 Core and Shell project I'm working
> on.  The project is basically an existing 5-story warehouse with almost no
> windows.  Part of the renovation is adding windows.  The comment is as
> follows:****
>
>  ****
>
> Table 1.4.1B indicates that the window-to-gross-wall ratio is identical in
> both cases; however it is unclear whether any fenestration was added or
> removed as part of the renovation. The baseline ratio must reflect the ratio
> as it existed prior to the renovation and the proposed ratio must reflect
> the ratio as it exists after the renovation. Revise the Baseline and/or
> Proposed cases as necessary so that the window-to-gross-wall ratio is
> accurately modeled and provide a revised prerequisite form and updated
> energy model output summaries as necessary. ****
>
>  ****
>
> I didn't think that this was the case - I thought that if you had an
> existing building, any EXISTING-TO-REMAIN windows would show up as the
> existing window type, but any NEW windows in the proposed alteration would
> be matched in the baseline model and comply with the Table 5.5
> requirements.  Meaning the WWR remained the 1:1 as long as it was < 40%
> glass.****
>
>  ****
>
> I think this is just a matter of educating the reviewer on our building,
> but I wanted to make sure that there hadn't been a shift in how GBCI reviews
> existing buildings.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks!****
>
>  ****
>
> *GHT Limited
> James Hansen, P.E., LEED AP*
> Senior Associate
> 1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 200
> Arlington, VA  22201-4749
> 703-243-1200 (office)****
>
> 703-338-5754 (cell)
> 703-276-1376 (fax)****
>
> www.ghtltd.com****
>
>  ****
> ------------------------------
>
> The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be
> privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee.  It is the
> property of GHT Limited.  Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
> communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> me immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to ght at ghtltd.com, and
> destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all
> attachments.  Thank you.****
> ------------------------------
>
> The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be
> privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee.  It is the
> property of GHT Limited.  Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
> communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify
> me immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to ght at ghtltd.com, and
> destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all
> attachments.  Thank you.****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111011/9f60fe3b/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111011/9f60fe3b/attachment-0002.jpeg>