[Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings

Jones, Christopher cjones at halsall.com
Thu May 21 08:00:00 PDT 2015


A couple of points to add to the list:

1.      Thermal bridging – I only know of one firm who attempt to include the effects of all thermal bridging in the building envelope: slab edges/balconies, window connections, curtain wall transitions, shelf angles, etc.

2.      Equipment performance curves.  It is difficult and time consuming to chase down the manufacturer data for creating performance curves.

Christopher Jones, P.Eng.
Tel: 416.644.4226 • Toll Free: 1.888.425.7255 x 527

From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jim Dirkes
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:36 AM
To: Nathan Kegel
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings

I agree fully with all of the above comments and would like to add these:

  *   Even buildings that are commissioned properly will see their performance erode over time.  There are hundreds of reason for this, ranging from poor maintenance to well-intentioned maintenance people not having time to monitor operations well.  There is NO BUILDING that operates well for long.
  *   Buildings often see changes in operation, occupancy and schedule.  These are oftimes gradual changes over a period of years, but can be substantial

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Nathan Kegel <nathan.kegel at iesve.com<mailto:nathan.kegel at iesve.com>> wrote:
Climate files used in the simulations versus the actual weather.

I’m in the midst of a project that shows a variance in EUI of up to 200% just by changing the climate file for the DOE primary school.  Full results to be presented in September.

Add in all the other factors already mentioned, and if your 90.1 model comes anywhere close the real buildings’ it’s far more likely that the 90.1 model was extremely “lucky” than it is that the model used accurate assumptions.

Regards,

Nathan

[cid:image001.png at 01D093B4.9DB31520]<http://www.iesve.com/>

Nathan Kegel
Business Development Manager

O:

  763.276.9981<tel:763.276.9981>

M:

  415.420.9314<tel:415.420.9314>

http://www.iesve.com<http://www.iesve.com/>


Integrated Environmental Solutions Limited. Registered in Scotland No. SC151456
Registered Office - Helix Building, West Of Scotland Science Park, Glasgow G20 0SP

Email Disclaimer<http://www.iesve.com/disclaimer.html>



From: Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] On Behalf Of Maria-Lida Kou
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 9:17 AM
To: Jacob Dunn
Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Comparing ASHRAE 90.1 App G Models to Real Buildings

Jacob,

Happy to hear that other people are thinking the same.

I was into this subject on my own thoughts recently.

I would like to add in your list: Occupants' behavior actually which is not in the stage to be included into the prediction.
I would add commissioning as well along with controls simulation and controls operation.

Apologies because I haven't worked with LEED projects but I think the above applied in general to "the performance gap".

Really looking forward to hearing more about this subject as I am not that experienced engineer yet, but really interested in "the performance" side of buildings.

Best,
Maria-Lida Kounadi


2015-05-21 15:04 GMT+01:00 Jacob Dunn <jdunn at eskewdumezripple.com<mailto:jdunn at eskewdumezripple.com>>:
Bldg-Sim Community –

I’m trying to compile a list of why it might be inappropriate to compare Appendix G models to actual consumption data.  This comes about because I recently got into a debate with one of my co-workers when looking at the infamous NBI chart/study that shows little correlation to predicted and actual energy values of LEED buildings.  I was trying to explain that the Appendix G model’s intent is NOT to be compared to actual consumption, as it is a modeling protocol aimed at creating consistent relative comparisons for LEED points.

Here are the reasons thus far that support this notion (that App G models shouldn’t be compared to actual data).  Does anyone know of any resources out there that expand upon this?  Or can you think other reasons?


-          Appendix G does not take into account external shading, which can be critical in urban environments for accurate energy predictions

-          Schedules are typically not created with the intent of being predictive.  Overall building hours are adhered to, but detailed schedule creation is not usually in the scope of a LEED model (or is it, in your experience?).  For instance, typical plug load base values during unoccupied times are .3, this is a pretty big assumption.

-          The App G model uses a TMY weather file, which can vary from the current weather year (I wonder on average by how much?)

-          Infiltration values are assumed, unless blower door testing has been done (which is rare for commercial buildings).

-          Thermostat values are modeled as consistent across the building, which is rarely the case in an actual operating building

Any additional insight is much appreciated!


Jacob Dunn LEED AP BD+C
ESKEW+DUMEZ+RIPPLE, APC
2014 AIA National Architecture Firm Award

365 Canal Street Suite 3150
New Orleans LA 70130
504.561.8686<tel:504.561.8686>
eskewdumezripple.com<http://www.eskewdumezripple.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<mailto: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<mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>



--
James V Dirkes II, PE, BEMP, LEED AP
CEO/President
The Building Performance Team Inc.
1631 Acacia Dr, GR, Mi 49504

Direct: 616.450.8653
jim at buildingperformanceteam.com<mailto:jim at buildingperformanceteam.com>

Website <http://buildingperformanceteamcom> l  LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jim-dirkes/7/444/413>

The truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it.  A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it.

________________________________

You are receiving this communication because you are listed as a current Parsons Brinckerhoff Halsall Inc. contact. Should you have any questions regarding Parsons Brinckerhoff Halsall’s electronic communications policy, please consult our Anti-Spam Commitment<http://www.halsall.com/global/anti_spam.aspx> or contact us at caslcompliance at halsall.com<mailto:caslcompliance at halsall.com>.

CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying or in any way using this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and destroy and delete any copies you may have received.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150521/d6df6711/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5346 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150521/d6df6711/attachment.png>


More information about the Bldg-sim mailing list