[Bldg-sim] 90.1-2010 Baseline lighting power allowance calculation

[Cheney]

Hi Chris and Nick,

Did some research and below is my observation:

1. Instead of modifying the baseline, you will have to keep the same
schedule (with consideration of mandatory lighting control requirement) in
both proposed design and baseline.

2. Meanwhile, LPD from Table 9.6.1 which is 1.23W/ft2 in your case, should
remain the same in the baseline.

3. For the spaces where no mandatory lighting control requirement, you can
claim credit in the proposed design  by using:

installed lighting power under control -  installed lighting power under
control x control factor (table 9.6.2)

4. Without doing 3, you can also modify lighting schedule in the proposed
design to claim non-mandatory control savings but you have to provide
separate analysis

Do you guys agree with my interpretation? Let me know your thoughts.

*Best Regards,*
*Cheney*
Connect with me and view my   *http://lnkd.in/bqQf52i*
<http://lnkd.in/bqQf52i>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Cheney <chenyu73 at gmail.com> wrote:

> ​Wait a minute, guys. I suddenly recall that Table G3.2 has been removed
> from Appendix G by its addendum cg. In the same addendum, Table
> 3.1/6.lighting has also been modified. I just quote the relevant part for
> your consideration:
>
> Proposed design
>
> "e. The lighting schedules in the proposed building design shall reflect
> the mandatory automatic lighting control requirements in Section 9.4.1
> (e.g., programmable controls or occupancy sensors).
> Exception: Automatic daylighting controls required by Section 9.4.1 shall
> be modeled directly in the proposed building design or through schedule adjustments
> determined by a separate daylighting analysis approved by the rating
> authority.
> f. Automatic lighting controls included in the proposed building design
> but not required by Section 9.4.1 may be modeled directly in the building simulation
> or be modeled in the building simulation through schedule adjustments
> determined by a separate analysis approved by the authority having
> jurisdiction. As an alternative to modeling such lighting controls, the
> proposed building design lighting power density may be reduced by the sum
> of all additional allowances per Section 9.6.2c and Table 9.6.2, which are
> calculated individually as the lighting power under control multiplied by
> cf, where cf is the appropriate control factor given in Table 9.6.2 corresponding
> to the space type and the lighting controls designed to be used."
>
> Baseline
>
> "c. Mandatory automatic lighting controls required by Section 9.4.1 shall
> be modeled the same as the proposed building design."
>
> It looks like section 9.6.2c and Table 9.6.2 will govern the calculation
> rather than Table G3.2.
>
> *Best Regards, *
> *Cheney*
> Connect with me and view my   *http://lnkd.in/bqQf52i*
> <http://lnkd.in/bqQf52i>
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Nick Caton <nick at 360-analytics.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There are multiple ways to approach proposed vs. baseline LPD’s &
>> scheduling which would arrive at the same annualized answer for relative
>> lighting end-use energies, however Table G3.1 has another line that helps
>> clarify 90.1’s intent.  (I’m paraphrasing) “The lighting schedules (which
>> are normally identical between baseline and proposed) are understood to
>> reflect the mandatory automatic control requirements.”  The suggestion here
>> is to use the baseline LPD’s presented, unmodified, for the baseline
>> model.  In turn, the proposed model may take the prescribed “credit” for
>> occupancy sensors anywhere they are used EXCEPT for the spaces identified
>> within the mandatory requirements (section 9.4).  As an example, if you had
>> a proposed LPD of 0.90 installed in an office with occupancy sensors
>> everywhere, you could model 0.81 for all spaces excepting the
>> conference/break rooms, where you’d model the actual LPD.
>>
>>
>>
>> Incidentally, if you are performing an Appendix G model for LEED, I
>> believe this is the approach pushed by the EAp2 workbook/footnotes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Be cognizant that the inverse procedure you’ve proposed (amplifying the
>> baseline LPD, instead of reducing the proposed LPD) may have the same net
>> difference for lighting consumptions, but may result in a different
>> (possibly helpful / possibly detrimental) overall Appendix G performance
>> rating percentage, as you are now playing with distribution of the
>> baseline’s internal loads instead of the proposed model’s.
>>
>>
>>
>> Food for thought ;).
>>
>>
>>
>> ~Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *[image: 360 Logo cropped]*
>>
>> *NICK CATON, P.E.*
>> *Senior Engineer*
>>
>>
>>
>> *360 Analytics*
>> 9750 3rd Ave NE, Suite 405
>>
>> Seattle, WA 98115
>> office:  206.557.4732 ext. 205
>> www.360-Analytics.com <http://www.360-analytics.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Cheney
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:49 AM
>> *To:* Jones, Christopher
>> *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] 90.1-2010 Baseline lighting power allowance
>> calculation
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is what I understand for ASHRAE appendix G baseline but not NECB
>> baseline.
>>
>>
>> *Best Regards, *
>>
>> *Cheney*
>>
>> Connect with me and view my   *http://lnkd.in/bqQf52i*
>> <http://lnkd.in/bqQf52i>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Jones, Christopher <cjones at halsall.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I am somewhat confused about calculating the baseline lighting power
>> calculation, Space-By-Space method, with respect to lighting controls.
>>
>>
>>
>> For example, Table G3.1 states “Lighting shall be modeled having the
>> automatic and manual controls in Section 9.4.  For a
>> Conference/Meeting/Multipurpose room the LPD is 1.23 W/ft2.  9.4.1.2.(b)
>> states that a conference room shall have an occupancy sensor.  Does this
>> mean that the LPD is reduced by the factor listed in Table G3.2 is 10% for
>> occupancy sensor in buildings greater than 5000 ft2.  So would the LPD for
>> the baseline conference room be 1.23 * 0.9 = 1.1?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your assistance!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Christopher Jones**,* P.Eng.
>> Tel: 416.644.4226 • Toll Free: 1.888.425.7255 x 527
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may
>> contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended
>> recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying,
>> alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message
>> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you
>> are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by
>> replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your
>> e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140925/c915efb9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20140925/c915efb9/attachment.jpg>