[Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic for Discussion

Justin Spencer jspencer17 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 6 06:36:23 PDT 2012


Thanks, Jeff for the great synopsis and list of sources for calibration
methods, and for others providing an enlightening discussion. Discussions
like this are why I subscribe to the bldg-sim.

I've felt for a while that standardized calibration procedures for
different kinds of buildings would be highly useful for the community of
modelers working on calibrating to existing buildings (like those of us
doing impact evaluation measurement and verification work for utilities and
regulators).

I think the whole idea of an uncalibrated model being able to predict
energy consumption of a real building is off base. Look at the BESTEST
results for different simulation engines looking at simplified results. I'm
not sure what a reasonable standard would be for prediction when you have a
well-specified set of building operating parameters, but my gut says its at
least +/-30%, and more like +/- 50%.

This is where modelers need to have a consistent, clear message on why
building energy models make sense for new construction. I'm not a new
construction modeler and never have been, but I see the value from new
construction models being to evaluate different design options for saving
energy compared to some baseline, and for estimating what the savings
fraction relative to a baseline. While these kinds of results aren't
completely independent of actual building occupancy and usage, they are
likely to be accurate enough to provide useful information to the design
process and create real value. We need to remember the inherent uncertainty
in the results, but also remember that the information is still useful for
making decisions about a building's design and which design paths are
likely to offer more cost-effective means of achieving energy efficiency
goals.

If we want to come up with target EUIs for newly constructed buildings,
then I think major benchmarking studies are much better ways to go, i.e.
what is the typical consumption of new buildings having X application with
X occupancy patterns in X climate, and what is the distribution. If you're
a standard deviation below the mean, you should have a big opportunity for
improvement.

Last, I think we should have some way of quantifiying the resiliency of
savings associated with different kinds of energy efficiency measures. This
comes down to how sophisticated the building operator needs to be to
maintain the savings as designed. For example, an improvement to the
envelope is pretty close to permanent. A high efficiency chiller or other
primary HVAC device should offer savings regardless of what the operator
does. An enthalpy-controlled economizing system is not very permanent, and
any kind of reset schedule for various airside or waterside heating and
cooling delivered to the space is only going to last with an adept building
operator in charge. It would be nice to standardize a way to differentiate
energy scoring of new buildings on the basis of where the savings are
coming from and have some way of discounting controls-based savings against
envelope or equipment-based savings as a means of showing the true value of
savings that are more resilient to the whims of building operators with a
different objective than energy savings.
Regards,
Justin Spencer
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Jeff Haberl <jhaberl at tamu.edu> wrote:

>  Hello,
>
> ******
>
> There are lots of interesting threads on this conversation. However, I
> think that there are also some misconceptions.****
>
> ** **
>
> First, model as you will for new construction, at best, in my opinion, you
> are performing a rating of the building's assets compared against a
> standard, much like the mileage ratings on a car that you purchase. If you
> are using the IECC, 90.1, 189 or the IGCC, you have to use specific rules
> to guide the input of internal heat gains, etc. Such rules have been
> carefully crafted to avoid gaming and to attempt to deliver the same result
> regardless of who performs the simulation.****
>
> ** **
>
> Therefore, it is my opinion that such a simulated asset rating of a
> building should not be construed to match the actual energy use of the
> building (period). If does happen to match the actual energy use, then a
> miracle has just taken place because the probability of this not happening
> is large. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Second, if you do attempt to match the energy use of a real building,
> there is advice about how to go about this in the literature, including the
> results of many ASHRAE projects, for example: RP827 for in situ equipment,
> RP 1404 (ongoing) for how to use short term/long term measurements to match
> a real building, RP1051 for advice about overall calibrations, RP1052 for
> advice on AHU modeling, RP1004 for advice on thermal storage modeling,
> RP865 for advice on secondary system modeling, and soon RP1468 for advice
> about modeling and BIM to thermal. So, there's hope that one can actually
> match a real building, if you have measured data and if you have real
> systems that match your model's systems, and if you have real weather data
> and if you have a large budget and tons of patience, etc., etc. Otherwise,
> getting a "match" is really an exercise of "matching lumps" against
> "measured lumps".****
>
> ** **
>
> Third, don't ever forget that simulations of building envelopes are just
> great big R-C networks, and when you attach a system simulation to this you
> are perhaps adding a bit of psychrometrics, and then a bunch of curve fits
> since most widely used programs do not have first principle models of their
> chillers, boilers, etc., just curve fits.****
>
> ** **
>
> Fourth, whole-building simulations do a really bad job of simulating
> faults or broken systems. For ****
>
> example, when a building is badly zoned (i.e., the thermostat and zoning
> was wrong from the building and parts of the building are always too cold
> or too hot, etc.). In such cases, you can't simulate it very well. In other
> cases, where valves are broken and/or the building has weird controls --
> best of luck.****
>
> ** **
>
> Fifth, simulations of building envelopes is still REALLY CRUDE. For
> example, simulation programs have no wall thickness. Think about it. The
> wall is just a thin 2D construct with the thickness only accounted for in
> the material definition. Hence, to get it right, a simulator has to
> “setback” the windows, since most windows are located midway in the wall
> and have a small 2 to 3 inch shade from the overhang of the lintel. Or
> consider that simulations do not consider the corners of buildings, just
> the area of the wall. So, you’ve got lots of corners in your building you
> might need to compensate. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Sixth, shaded windows in the DOE-2 family of codes use George Walton’s
> algorithm to assign the calculation point for the shading. This has 10
> divisions by default, it splits the window in half vertically, then each
> half into fifths…or if you choose 20, 30…up to 40 it keeps going. For most
> rectangular windows this doesn’t make a difference, but for a shaded,
> curved window in elevation, to get the most accurate results, you end up
> with a bit of a quilt-looking window – no kidding. RP1468 (forthcoming)
> will shed some light on items 5 and 6.****
>
> ** **
>
> So, before we make claims about how to do things better, we need to
> remember just how rough we are REALLY doing them now (actually it’s can be
> pretty good), and then choose our words carefully when we make claims about
> what is being simulated – I’m just as guilty of this as anybody.****
>
> ** **
>
> Jeff****
>
>
>
>  8=!  8=)  :=)  8=)  ;=)  8=)  8=(  8=)  8=()  8=)  8=|  8=)  :=')  8=)8=?
>
> Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E., FASHRAE..............jhaberl at tamu.edu
>
> Professor............................................................Office
> Ph: 979-845-6507
>
> Department of Architecture.............................Lab Ph:979-845-6065
>
> Energy Systems Laboratory.............................FAX: 979-862-2457
>
> Texas A&M University.....................................77843-3581
>
> College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..................URL:www.esl.tamu.edu
>
> 8=/  8=)  :=)  8=)  ;=)  8=)  8=()  8=)  :=)  8=)  8=!  8=)  8=? 8=)8=0
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] on behalf of Karen Walkerman [
> kwalkerman at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2012 10:44 AM
> *To:* Matthew W. Higgins
> *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org; Ellis, David
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic
> for Discussion
>
>   Two things:
>
> 1.  Some modeling software has lots of controls built into default HVAC
> system types.  These controls are often better than what is planned or
> installed for the building.  For example: economizers, demand controlled
> ventilation or outdoor air reset might be assumed.  Similarly, on many
> projects the HVAC controls drawings or sequence of operation is either
> missing or not useful at all.  Without good information, it's tempting as a
> modeler to assume efficient control of equipment.  However, on the actual
> building, the opposite is likely to happen.
>
> 2.  Once I account for usage patterns, if a building I modeled during
> design performs poorly in comparison to my model, I generally view at as
> the building's "fault", and not the fault of my model.  The model can be a
> great diagnostic tool for discovering where/how the building is not
> operating as was modeled.  With a cooperative engineer and facilities
> manager, we can usually make adjustments in building controls to bring the
> building more closely in line with the model.  If the building was not
> insulated properly, that is another matter, and post-occupancy adjustments
> are difficult/impossible to make.  However, I would argue that the solution
> is not to model poor construction and execution, but try to find a way to
> use the model's projected energy data to keep the energy target in sight
> through construction.
>
> --
> Karen
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Matthew W. Higgins <MWHiggins at bpce.com>wrote:
>
>>  Hi all. I’d like to echo Jim’s comment, and express excitement about
>> what RMI is doing. Related to the “reality factor,” I’ve seen a tremendous
>> gap between what LEED/GBCI wants and what will actually take place in the
>> building, and the lack of sanity checks in modeling software. Though it is
>> the responsibility of the modeler to perform sanity checks, and quality
>> control, just spending the extra couple of hours each project can make the
>> world of difference. On that end I’ve created a slew of my own sanity-check
>> post-processing tools for eQuest and feel like our deliverables have
>> improved significantly as a result.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> What some of the data our clients are sharing has begun to express the
>> overwhelming need for these checks in all modeling, which includes analyses
>> I’ve reviewed on behalf of our clients. In recent projects I’ve gone so far
>> as to assume building-user error, reflected in schedules and temperatures,
>> which has been spot on when comparing to metered data. This is somewhat
>> taboo, because not many people are likely to voice these foreseeable
>> shortcomings when delivering EUI’s during design that look inflated, for a
>> new “high performance” building, but as sanity checks and associated tools
>> develop it may become easier.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> What we can do, as an industry, is get better at setting expectations
>> parallel to educating the building community about the usefulness/value of
>> a good model.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Great thread folks.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Matthew Higgins, CEM, HBDP, LEED-AP (BD+C)* *
>>
>> *Energy Project Manager***
>>
>> **
>>
>> *Bridgers & Paxton Consulting Engineers, Inc.*
>>
>> 4600-C Montgomery Blvd. NE****
>>
>> Albuquerque, NM  87109****
>>
>> 505.883.4111  *(t)*****
>>
>> 505.888.1436  *(f)***
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
>> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Ellen Franconi
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:48 PM
>> *To:* Ellis, David
>> *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic
>> for Discussion****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> This is a timely issue to be raised. I appreciate David Ellis' overview.
>> As he states, the industry expects the need for adjustments/corrections to
>> verified savings models so the same should nominally be expected for
>> whole-building simulation models developed to inform design decision. ***
>> *
>>
>> ****
>>
>> During the RMI Building Energy Modeling Summit (
>> http://www.rmi.org/ReportsBEMInnovationSummit), the Methods & Processes
>> break-out group came to agree that part of the modeling credibility
>> challenge could be managed by addressing owner's expectations. We
>> determined that modeling was performed for one of three objectives - 1) for
>> making performance comparisons (e.g. comparing design options), 2)
>> demonstrating compliance (e.g. LEED baseline or code) or 3) predicting
>> performance. Depending on the objective, the level of effort and associated
>> costs are different (as others have acknowledged on this email chain). The
>> owner and statement of work need to recognize these differences. And as
>> others have pointed out, a building simulation model assumes ideal
>> conditions. It can be used to benchmark actual operation against and detect
>> operational issues. But it can't be expected to reflect conditions other
>> than those assumed in the model. ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Inspired by the work plan developed by the Methods & Processes break out
>> group (see link for final report and work plan), I submitted a proposal to
>> DOE to complete work in line with what David proposed for the industry. We
>> are just getting it underway. We refer to it as the Building Energy
>> Modeling Library or Modeling for Investor Confidence. While this is a broad
>> area, we are starting by structuring and documenting modeling best practice
>> procedures to facilitate their use in modeling guidelines, standards,
>> scopes of work etc. As much as possible, we aim to include risk
>> assessment/management into the methods. Once developed, the methods will be
>> posted on the internet. I'll share our progress as we go with the
>> list-serve. ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> I also recently co-authored a paper on risked-based building energy
>> modeling, which provides a pretty good overview and some new ideas to
>> support the topic. If anyone is interested to read it. let me know and I'll
>> email you a copy.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Best regards,****
>>
>> Ellen. ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Ellis, David <David.Ellis at hdrinc.com>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> Bill, Jim, Dennis, et al ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> This is a tough nut. In the ESPC or ESCO world, where performance must be
>> depended upon to achieve financial returns, there are understood and
>> controlling processes in what equipment is bought, how it is installed, how
>> it is maintained, how it is operated and expected duty schedule. Contracts
>> are written to reduce uncertainty to the point that in some cases any
>> deviance, in seemly minor matters, throws the performance expectations up
>> for renegotiations.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> While weather changes can be adjusted for after the fact (and thus
>> readily understood as a reason for some differences between real and
>> modeled performance), outside of the ESPC/ESCO arena, a design
>> engineer/modeler can make their best fine tuned efforts on construction
>> intent equipment and operations, to be undone by changes in installation,
>> commissioning, operational practices and occupancy that are not under their
>> control, and are frequently difficult to document after the fact.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> In the design arena, modeling is a means to assess options on a level
>> plane, and should not be offered as a predictor of actual cost unless that
>> risk is fully evaluated and compensated for (both in labor/risk fees and in
>> the processes to assure changes are documented). There is a real need to
>> fully vet an industry standard approach to identifying the risks (for fair
>> negotiation), and establishing standards in best practices.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Yes, our modeling does inform sequences of operations, as strategies can
>> be involved, and are a combined designer and modeler effort. They do indeed
>> make their way into construction intent documents … but implementation and
>> ongoing maintenance are another matter.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> A calibrated model is an excellent tool for more realistically evaluating
>> operational and systems changes. But here too, the results should be
>> considered as a way to evaluate options on a level playing field, as
>> control over so many variables is out of the modelers scope.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> I would encourage the development of collective industry guidance towards
>> understanding these risks and offering clarification on expectations for
>> client informational purposes.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *David Ellis
>> *PE (VA, MD, DC)****
>>
>> LEED AP BD+C****
>>
>> CEM****
>>
>> PMP****
>>
>> *HDR Architecture Inc**
>> *Energy Services Technical Director, NC****
>>
>> 1101 King Street, Suite 400  | Alexandria, VA 22314
>> 703.647.7735 | c: 703.343.6758
>> David.Ellis at hdrinc.com <first.last at hdrinc.com> | hdrarchitecture.com<http://www.hdrinc.com/markets/architecture>
>> ****
>>
>> Follow Us – *Architizer<http://www.architizer.com/en_us/firms/view/hdr-architecture/8916/>|
>> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/HDR-Inc/142672125757519?ref=ts>|
>> Twitter <http://twitter.com/#!/HDR_Inc> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/HDRinc>|
>> Flickr <http://www.flickr.com/photos/hdrarchitecture/sets/>*****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *From:* Bishop, Bill [mailto:bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:33 AM
>> *To:* Jim Dirkes; Dennis Knight; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org****
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic
>> for Discussion****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Jim said most of what I was going to say. Additionally,****
>>
>> ·         An energy modeler’s task for a new construction project is
>> rarely to accurately predict energy use, but to demonstrate compliance
>> with, and improvement over, code performance.****
>>
>> ·         Modelers generally do not fine tune plug loads, occupant
>> numbers and schedules etc. because these are kept identical for determining
>> improved performance over code.****
>>
>> ·         Sequence of operations. The modeler is usually not the
>> engineer of record, and should therefore not be dictating the sequence of
>> operations of HVAC/plant equipment. I may provide the mechanical engineer
>> with suggestions on controls strategies and setpoints, and sometimes they
>> are receptive. However, my focus as energy modeler is energy, and not
>> comfort, system complexity or reliability. Regardless, the exact sequence
>> of operations, even if meticulously described in the design documents, may
>> not be implemented, or may be changed many times during the first year or
>> two of building operation.****
>>
>> ·         No/poor commissioning of buildings. Buildings designed to be
>> very energy efficient often rely on complex controls for HVAC and lighting
>> systems. Many buildings are not commissioned, and even in the ones that
>> are, commissioning is often little more than verifying that the equipment
>> and controls were installed as designed. The commissioning agent rarely has
>> the time/budget/scope to determine that all control strategies are
>> operating as designed. Also, the commissioning agent cannot change the
>> weather conditions during which the building is commissioned, making it
>> next to impossible to check CHW controls during winter for example.****
>>
>> ·         New buildings often go through many changes in operating
>> conditions during their first year or two. New buildings are often in use
>> after hours due to people moving into their new offices, or because they
>> are nice facilities and the demand to utilize them is high.****
>>
>> ·         One of the best ways to predict energy performance is data
>> mining of existing building performance. Hopefully, CBECS and other
>> building performance databases will be a big area of focus for our field.
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> *From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
>> mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jim Dirkes
>> <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>*
>>  *Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:56 AM
>> To: Dennis Knight; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic for
>> Discussion <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>*
>>
>>  **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> Dear Dennis and BldgSim Community,**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> 1.       I think the tools are absolutely up to the task.  My own
>> practice uses EnergyPlus exclusively, but I know that most of the other
>> tools are based in solid thermodynamic and physical principles – so they
>> start on a solid foundation.**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> 2.       Current best practices is another story altogether!****<wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> a.       Keeping in mind that I know only the “Best practices” for my
>> own firm …**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> b.      Energy modelers of new construction are normally given scant
>> information.  **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> ·   Partly this is due to the owner not knowing exactly how the new
>> facility will be used.**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> ·   Partly this is due to the Owner and Designer not caring about, not
>> appreciating the importance of, or just not needing to gather detailed
>> information about the operation of a building that hasn’t been built.****<wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> ·   Partly it’s because “as built” is never “as designed”. (Think of fan
>> and pump pressure estimates differing from actual, weather variances,
>> occupancy schedule changes, etc.)**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> ·   The energy modeling community has, it seems, a lot of bright young
>> men and women who are “learning the ropes”.  The fact that they are
>> becoming involved is very exciting!  Their education must be broadened,
>> however, in order for them to become effective at modeling existingbuildings. It’s no longer just theory;  there is a lot of practical, “hands
>> on” activity that is needed.**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> 3.       Inferred above is the host of variables that differ in an
>> actual building’s operation from what may have been assumed.  The older the
>> building, the more variations there are!**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> 4.       Most building operators, if they exist within the building as a
>> full time position, are distracted with many other details and spent
>> precious little time optimizing energy performance.  If there is no full
>> time building operator …..**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> 5.       This is a field ripe with opportunity!  The first and hardest
>> task, I think, is to get building owners convinced that the ROI for optimal
>> building performance is better than any of their other opportunities for
>> investing.  The next task is to streamline the process of calibration and
>> identification of opportunities so that they is faster and more economical.
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> 6.       … and I’d love to expand this discussion during the Q&A period
>> at my presentation on this topic during the ASHRAE Energy Modeling
>> Conference!**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> *James V Dirkes II, PE, BEMP, LEED AP
>> www.buildingperformanceteam.com
>> Energy Analysis, Commissioning & Training Services
>> 1631 Acacia Drive, Grand Rapids, MI 49504 USA
>> 616 450 8653 <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>*
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> *From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
>> mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Knight
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:24 AM
>> To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> Subject: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 2012 Energy Modeling Conference Topic for
>> Discussion <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>*
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> I am the Chair of the conference committee for the ASHRAE 2012 Energy
>> Modeling Conference that will be held in Atlanta on October 1, 2 & 3 this
>> year (see link below).  The conference is focused on bringing
>> practitioners, software developers, researchers and facility users together
>> for 3 days of in depth discussion on current modeling software capabilities
>> and current best practices in energy modeling.  I have two questions that I
>> would like to pose to this group to get some feedback to help provider
>> richer content for the discussions planned at the conference;****<wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> 1. Are the current energy modeling tools available to an energy modeling
>> practitioner reliable enough to allow the modeler to predict a building's
>> actual energy consumption with a high degree of confidence such that an
>> accurate energy target can be established and recommended to the building
>> owner for the new building or a  renovation/retrofit? ****<wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> 2. Are the current best practices of the energy modeling
>> community reliable enough, and well understood by most practitioners, to
>> allow the modeler to predict a building's actual energy consumption with a
>> high degree of confidence such that an accurate energy target can be
>> established and recommended to the building owner for the new building or a
>> renovation/retrofit? **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> Background for the discussion:**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> These questions recently came up in a discussion among the conference
>> committee.  It seems that one our colleagues from the UK indicated that in
>> the UK new schools have performed very poorly in comparison with their
>> predicted energy use.**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> Another comment that was made was as follows:****<wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> "Often a building's actual energy consumption is 1.5 to 2 times as much
>> as the results of an energy model that was used to make decisions during
>> design about the building's energy using systems.  Is it the the energy
>> modeling tools or is it the processes used by energy modelers to describe
>> the systems and how they operate in the software? Should energy models be
>> used to "predict" a building's future energy performance or just be used to
>> inform better decisions during design?**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> I have reviewed a good many models and, almost without fail, I never see
>> a modeler start by writing a sequence of operation and I also never see the
>> sequence of operation used by the modeler make its way into a set of
>> construction documents.  **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> Also, when I am the modeler and I am "calibrating" a model to an existing
>> building's actual energy consumption it is a very iterative process.  I
>> know what things to manipulate in the model to effect demand and what
>> things to manipulate to effect consumption.  I just keep going back and
>> forth until I have a model that you can almost lay its output on top of the
>> building's utility bill history. I also have a good understanding of how
>> the building is actually being operated and maintained - which I hope helps
>> make the model more accurate, but, does that process really give me a
>> better model to make decisions from?"**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> I invite everyone to please, tell us what you think.****<wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> Sincerely,**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> Link to conference webpage: *
>> http://www.ashrae.org/membership--conferences/conferences/ashrae-conferences/emc2012
>> ***** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> --
>> M. Dennis Knight, P.E.**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> Founder & CEO**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> *Whole Building Systems, LLC <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>*
>>
>> P.O. Box 1845**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465**** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> Phone: *843-437-3647***** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> Email: *dknight at wholebuildingsystems.com***** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> Website: *www.wholebuildingsystems.com***** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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***** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> **** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> --
>> Ellen Franconi, PhD, LEED AP, BEMP
>> Senior Consultant, Built Environment Team
>>
>> Rocky Mountain Institute
>> 1820 Folsom Street
>> Boulder, CO 80302
>> 303.567.8609 (Desk)
>> 303.245.7213 (Fax)
>>
>> Rocky Mountain Institute drives the efficient and restorative use of
>> resources, creating a world thriving, verdant, and secure, for all, for
>> ever.
>>
>> *http://www.rmi.org***** <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20120906/8a821ccd/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list