[Bldg-sim] App G Wall boundary condition when abutting an adjacent building

[Julien Marrec]

Hey Nick,

Thanks for your answer!

I think we're on the same page as to what needs to be done, including doing
a simple rotation (which is equivalent to "rotating the entire city block"
as it's been suggested to me on Unmet Hours)

Unless anyone else has something different to offer, I'm just going to
assume this is the correct approach.

Cheers,
Julien


--
Julien Marrec, EBCP, BPI MFBA
Energy&Sustainability Engineer
T: +33 6 95 14 42 13

LinkedIn (en) : www.linkedin.com/in/julienmarrec
LinkedIn (fr) : www.linkedin.com/in/julienmarrec/fr
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/julienmarrec>

2015-04-30 21:41 GMT+02:00 Nicholas Caton <ncaton at catonenergy.com>:

> Hi Julien,
>
>
>
> 1.       Adiabatic makes sense if you can assert they’re similarly
> conditioned structures
>
> 2.       I’d exclude such shared walls for the purposes of determining WWR
>
> 3.       If you frame the adjacent abutting properties as “existing
> envelope conditions” precluding the design team from choosing any other
> orientation, you might be able to cite CI #5224 as precedent to avoid the
> rotation issues altogether:
> http://in.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=5224+&=Search.  I might try
> that first for preliminary submission, carefully citing that CI and
> explaining the lack of rotations on the EAp2 template, within the 1.4
> tables spreadsheet, and optionally within any supplemental narrative/report
> you may include with preliminary submissions, if that’s your thing.
>
>
>
> That explanation puts the issue on the table for the reviewer to agree
> with or otherwise respond to.  In the event you are made to perform
> rotations for final submission,  I wouldn’t “go nuts” or do anything
> special beyond simply rotating the entire model unless given specific
> further direction by the reviewer in preliminary review commentary.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, maybe someone “in the know” will chime in on or
> off-list for you ;)… it’s been known to happen!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> *NICK CATON, P.E.*
> *Owner*
>
>
>
> *Caton Energy Consulting*
>   1150 N. 192nd St., #4-202
>
>   Shoreline, WA 98133
>   office:  785.410.3317
>
> www.catonenergy.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Julien Marrec
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:59 PM
> *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] App G Wall boundary condition when abutting an
> adjacent building
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Considering this is a software agnostic question, I thought I would ask it
> to bldg-sim.
>
> *I'm wondering how people have been treating the walls between the modeled
> building and any adjacent, existing, buildings it's abutting in the
> proposed design, when doing New Construction, especially with ASHRAE
> Appendix G*
>
> For EB and retrofit, there's no question, I'll treat it as adiabatic,
> unless I have thorough reasons to believe the next door building is or will
> be soon empty or even knocked down.
>
> For New Construction, I'm a little bit more confused, especially
> considering you're supposed to rotate your building for the baseline...
>
> If I were to go crazy down that path: if I treat it as adiabatic, does
> this mean I'd have to rotate the building manually, see what end ups in
> contact with the adjacent building, and remove the windows there, while
> setting the former adiabatic portion to exterior wall?
>
> Here's an example of a project I'm working on right now (my building is 32
> stories, the abutting are about 12 stories):
>
> [image: My building is abutting three buildings]
>
> *So what say you, fellow modelers?*
>
>    - *Do you treat it as adiabatic? *
>    - *If so, do you include that wall area in calculating the Window to
>    Wall Ratio?*
>    - *Do you rotate the building?*
>
> *Do you have any sources for claiming one or another?* (ASHRAE
> interpretation, LEED credit interpretation).
>
>
>
> My personal two cents:
>
> - I treat it as adiabatic
>
> - Per Table G3.1.5a, "If it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
> Program Evaluator that the building orientation is dictated by site
> considerations" ==> I don't rotate the building
>
> - I don't include the adiabatic walls in the WWR calculation as I think
> the intent was like this, though 90.1-2010 Table G3.1.5c (Baseline) does
> only say: "...gross above-grade wall area" which could be interpreted
> otherwise.
>
> Original question on Unmet hours is here
> <https://unmethours.com/question/4709/wall-boundary-condition-when-abutting-an-adjacent-building>
>
>
>
> Thanks for any insights,
>
> Best,
>
> Julien
>
> --
>
> Julien Marrec, EBCP, BPI MFBA
> Energy&Sustainability Engineer
> T: +33 6 95 14 42 13
>
> LinkedIn (en) : www.linkedin.com/in/julienmarrec
> LinkedIn (fr) : www.linkedin.com/in/julienmarrec/fr
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150504/d9b81200/attachment.htm>