[Bldg-sim] New Rules of Thumb for Design Loads

Ben Hollon bhollon at antella-inc.com
Wed Oct 30 13:47:07 PDT 2013


This has been a fascinating question and thread, a few thoughts from my
limited experience as a mechanical engineer/energy modeler:



-          First off, I am a huge fan of rules of thumbs for initial design
and estimation, I would never sign off on a design that is built around
them. I will use rules of thumbs for early on, then fully anticipate
running a full load analysis/energy model later.



-          Yes the rules of thumb are based on building codes and
regulations from 30+ years ago, but at least a vast majority of our work is
renovation work, so in some cases those rules of thumb are not that
outdated. Granted we are typically updating the envelope, HVAC
efficiencies, internal loads such as lighting, but in those initial design
phases and meetings where everyone is looking at you for an answer, a rule
of thumb is often all you have, and experience and knowledge of the project
can hopefully help you hone those numbers in. But initially they are very
helpful.



-          I have also learned the owner loves when the price comes down,
not up. So if I overestimate the sizes of equipment with my rules of thumb
and later tell everyone it’s actually lower once I started my detailed
calculations, everyone understands and everyone is happy. Undersizing my
equipment and adding cost to the budget later on in the design process is
awful.



-          Finally, with all the modulating technologies we have today
oversizing equipment isn’t as terrible, at least with hydronic systems, DX
is a little tougher. Modulating chillers, boilers, pumps, fans and outside
air intake can all match the load surprisingly well, allowing for slight
oversizing, especially in the case below of the massive conference on the
hottest day of the year. Granted if my fan static pressure is 3” I’m going
to slap 6” on it, but we do have some saving grace from modulation.



[image: cid:image003.png at 01CDAB78.6524ACE0]

*Ben Hollon, EIT, LEED*®* AP BD+C, MBA*

email:  bhollon at antella-inc.com <xxxxxx at antella-inc.com>

Cell (816) 536-3434 • Tele:  (816) 421-0950 ext. 104



*From:* Joe Huang [mailto:yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:40 PM
*To:* Robert Towell
*Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
*Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] New Rules of Thumb for Design Loads



I think there's been some conflating of annual energy simulations with
loads calculations. To me, the big difference is not in their techniques,
but their objectives, and it bothers me when I read posts suggesting that
loads calculations can be done with rules of thumb, simple manual
calculations, etc., which reminds me of what a DOE officer opined in a
meeting one time that residential equipment were sized with the "door
method", i.e., "whatever fits through the door".

In my opinion, both should be (and are being) done with equal rigor.  In
fact, most of the dynamic calculation methods (cooling load temp.
difference, response factors, radiant time series, etc.) were developed for
load calculations, and only later extended to annual simulations.   From
what I know, there are plenty of load calculation tools that rely on
dynamic simulations, the main difference from annual simulations being what
they assume for the building internal conditions and the outdoor
conditions.  For an annual simulation, those are designed to be as
representative or typical as possible of actual conditions.  For load
calculations, these are the near worst case conditions (e.g., for heating -
no internal loads, 99.6% climate conditions, no sun, etc.) to derive the
peak loads, to which safety factors are often added.

When people persist in using per floor area loads, is that any different
than estimating the annual consumption using fixed kBTU/ft2-yr numbers?
Does anyone think that either is credible?  As far as oversizing HVAC
equipment, there are several factors at play - use of outdated "rules of
thumb" derived  when buildings were leakier (but cooling intensities might
actually be lower), overly conservative design conditions (as I once said
to the owner of the Agenda 21 Building in Beijing - the peak load derived
by his engineer assumes that you're hosting a conference in your building
on the hottest day of the year), and the proverbial 30% safety factor.
Leaving aside the first factor, the latter two should explain all the
differences between what a loads calculation program shows and the peak
loads from an annual simulation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should promote better load
calculations rather than simply update "rules of thumb" or develop simple
manual methods for the computer-challenged engineers.  Furthermore, as
buildings improve, such simple methods are apt to be progressively less
reliable.

Joe

Joe Huang

White Box Technologies, Inc.

346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 108D

Moraga CA 94556

yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com

http://weather.whiteboxtechnologies.com for simulation-ready weather data

(o) (925)388-0265

(c) (510)928-2683

"building energy simulations at your fingertips"


On 10/29/2013 2:04 PM, Robert Towell wrote:

Sometimes I think we get too caught up in the modeling.  Why not simply
provide a manual block load analysis for the proposed building, with basic
allowances for lighting, equipment, envelope loads, etc.  You could even
provide both old school values like 2 W/SF for lighting vs. 1 W/SF today to
show the building engineer why the values have dropped.  A one page summary
of expected loads would provide all involved a snapshot of where the
cooling loads are coming from, list assumptions, and possibly even identify
areas for additional attention.  The building engineer could help define a
“safety factor” to be included if desired.  Taking another step back in
time, I believe the 1975 (first) ASHRAE energy code only required an
average R3 window/wall insulation and R12 roof insulation.  We have come a
long way!



Robert L. Towell, P.E. LEED AP, QCxP

[image: CXE Logo with Text Small]

20A Edwardsville Professional Park

Edwardsville, Illinois 62025-3602

Phone:  618-307-5882

Cell:      314-591-6543









*From:* Dru Crawley [mailto:dbcrawley at gmail.com <dbcrawley at gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:12 PM
*To:* Christian Kaltreider
*Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
*Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] New Rules of Thumb for Design Loads



Those old rules of thumb can mean significantly higher capital cost. I
remember a project in the DC area about 20 years ago. Their rules of thumb
came up with 10,000 tons (yeah a big building) ... but when a colleague did
a back of the envelope calc (in the days before we even hope for low-energy
buildings), he came up with 3,000 tons... and that was very conservative.
So the owner was about to (and did) pay for 3x the size needed and I'm
willing to bet the building rarely goes over 2,000 tons.



On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Christian Kaltreider <
ckaltreider at sudassociates.com> wrote:

David, Dru, Jim,

Thanks.  I will consider the DOE reference buildings as an option, at least
for comparison.

Jim, to answer your questions without getting into project details...We have
been asked to give our opinion on the expected loads for a proposed building
so the owner can have an idea of what impact it will have on their central
plants.  We'll do this based primarily on similar past projects of ours.
However, the owner has an on-site engineer who is using very old ASHRAE
documentation to come up with his own (very high) design load estimates.
Apparently ASHRAE used to publish sf/ton guidance for office buildings?  I
would like to have some more current documentation to show the engineer to
help support my explanation of why our prediction will be lower than his.
Also, I think my wording concerning credibility came out wrong.  I certainly
wasn't implying that my company isn't highly capable/credible.  But it's
always nice to have a DOE report as backup documentation!

Thanks for your help,
Christian

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Dirkes [mailto:jim at buildingperformanceteam.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:48 AM
To: Christian Kaltreider; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] New Rules of Thumb for Design Loads

Christian,
I suspect that you and your company are very credible and shouldn't hesitate
to claim the truth of that.  Your client probably would not have retained
you if that were not true!  It would be nice to have a 1000 building study
from DOE, though :) I wonder why your client is asking?  There are so many
design possibilities and at the end of the day, design load affects only
equipment size (including the electricity and fuel services).  These, in
turn, can be "managed" by choices for insulation, lighting, etc.
Another thing to consider (after assessing your firm's liability from
lawsuits) is that design loads occur infrequently in most climates, so much
so that a full energy model analysis can sometimes show that the impact on
comfort is minimal for a nominally UNDERsized HVAC system.
It's a tangled web!  I think I'd ask the basis of their concern about peak
load.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Kaltreider [mailto:ckaltreider at sudassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:21 AM
To: Jim Dirkes; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] New Rules of Thumb for Design Loads

Jim,

Thanks.  Yes, I can do my own little study, and I can also just look back at
results from past projects.  That's a good suggestion.  But I was hoping to
have something credible to reference (outside my own firm) for the owner.  I
have seen DOE/National Lab comparisons of annual energy usage between the
different versions of 90.1...I was hoping there might be something similar
for design loads.

Thanks,
Christian

Christian Kaltreider, LEED AP | Energy Analyst Sud Associates, P.A. | T
828.255.4691 | F 828.255.4949 | www.sudassociates.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Dirkes [mailto:jim at buildingperformanceteam.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:11 AM
To: Christian Kaltreider; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] New Rules of Thumb for Design Loads

Dear Christian,
I do not know of any such resources!
What do you think about creating a "typical" building and trying out various
envelope, lighting, plug load and HVAC options in your climate to see the
impact of each? That should not be too daunting a task.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Christian
Kaltreider
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:06 AM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] New Rules of Thumb for Design Loads

Hello Group,

Does anyone know of any articles/papers/publications which address peak
design loads for buildings as energy codes evolve?  I am looking for basic
rules of thumb for sf/ton (cooling) and btuh/sf (heating).  People use these
rules of thumb all the time for initial assessments, sanity checks on
simulation results, etc, but I'm not sure that the rules of thumb are being
updated as energy codes become more aggressive.  For example, the engineers
I have been around since I entered the engineering world (granted, that was
only a few years ago) seem to always go back to 400 sf/ton as a standard
value, then adjust up or down depending on building characteristics.  I
haven't seen this  number change as buildings improve, or as I move to
different climate zones.  To be clear, I am interested in design loads, not
annual energy usage.

(Note:  Before anyone lambasts me for even bringing up rules of thumb for
design, I'll go ahead and say that I know they are gross estimations at
best, and should be used with extreme caution and judgment.  Nonetheless, I
see them used all the time, so I might as well get as good numbers as I can.
And a project I am on right now actually requires it (by owner) in
preliminary design.)

Thanks for your help,
Christian


Christian Kaltreider, LEED AP | Energy Analyst Sud Associates, P.A. | T
828.255.4691 | F 828.255.4949 | www.sudassociates.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







_______________________________________________

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

-- 


 ------------------------------
 Antella Consulting Engineers, inc.

1600 Genessee, Suite 667 • Kansas City, MO 64102 • Tele: (816) 421-0950 • Fax: 
(816) 249-2439 • www.antella-inc.com

 

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this electronic communication, as 
well as in any attachments, is privileged and confidential and intended 
solely for use by the addressee(s). Any other use, dissemination, or 
copying of this electronic communication is strictly prohibited and is an 
interference with Antella Consulting Engineers, inc. confidential business 
relationships. If you received this communication in error, please notify 
me immediately and permanently delete the original and any electronic or 
printed copies of this electronic communication. 

------------------------------

  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20131030/b79e1987/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 17316 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20131030/b79e1987/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5178 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20131030/b79e1987/attachment-0002.jpeg>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list