[Equest-users] FW: Voodoo Engineering
Eric O'Neill
elo at MichaelsEngineering.com
Wed May 19 14:02:13 PDT 2010
I'll post my response to John now that his email I'm responding to has
been posted (what's the proper procedure on this? Should private
responses be posted with responses for the greater good?)...Comments
welcome.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric O'Neill
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:04 PM
To: 'Eurek, John S NWO'; Varkie C Thomas
Cc: cmg750 at gmail.com
Subject: RE: Voodoo Engineering
John,
The purpose of energy modeling is to identify differences between two
energy related setups. The idea is to tell you how much you could
conceivably save by switching from one design to another. This is useful
for a payback analysis or life cycle cost analysis.
For instance, if you were considering going to three inches of
continuous insulation on your roof, you could do one of three things (I
think).
1) Cross your fingers and hope the savings justify the costs (probably
not).
2) Do a hand calculation. You'll need to use U*A*dT, and make
assumptions based on past historical weather as to what your future
weather will be. If you really want to get accurate, you'll need to
factor the roof albedo, wind corrections, solar gains, thermal lags,
etc. This is extremely time intensive and is not simple. To top it off,
I can almost guarantee the savings (for an insulation calculation) will
be less than the time it takes you to develop the calculation.
3) Use your energy model. All those factors I listed above are included
in the energy model. It uses the same assumptions (what you're referring
to as statistics - weather, occupancy, activities, etc.) that you'd need
to use in your hand calculation.
Energy modeling is about making smart, financially sound decisions about
building systems. LEED should be a secondary concern. It is certainly
(in my opinion) a waste of money if designers don't use energy modeling
early in the process to effectively guide decisions, but that is the
design team's issue, not the USGBC's.
The calculations that are preformed do not use any statistical equations
(to my knowledge). They use tried and true engineering equations.
Obviously, they will be limited by the assumptions you make (weather,
occupancy, activities, etc.) but the idea is to hold those assumptions
constant between the analysis. For this reason, unless they are
significantly off (using weather from LA on a building going into
Minneapolis), the assumptions shouldn't have a significant impact on the
outcome. Yes, if you screw with the assumptions between the two models,
you will generate false results. That's not the idea.
I understand your frustration with exceptional calculations, but I
disagree with the idea that these tools are primitive. They can do
vastly more than can be done by hand, and this is due to the tools being
developed for over 30 years. If you would like to convince yourself of
this, try to set up an insulation calculation based on the variables
listed above. I needed to do this for a utility program and it took me
several weeks to get working decently (the ASHRAE fundamentals book has
good sections on how to calculate this). It's still extremely buggy and
needs significant modification based on specifics of new projects. And
that's for something as simple as roof insulation!
New technology will always be a challenge, but the time saved using an
energy model is dramatic compared to doing everything by hand. The
fundamental laws of physics which govern this stuff aren't changing, and
they certainly aren't getting any easier, so I don't think hoping for a
better way is going to provide anything other than false hope.
Hope this helps, (I'm really not trying to be inflammatory :) )
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Eurek, John S NWO [mailto:John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:19 AM
To: Varkie C Thomas
Cc: Eric O'Neill; cmg750 at gmail.com
Subject: RE: Voodoo Engineering
Varkie, I read your attached paper.
"Energy programs are external to the design process. The results are not
used
to generate construction drawings." This may be my #1 beef with energy
modeling. What is the purpose?
If you say, to save energy... It does not.
I think of an artist who "wants" a glass box building. Then some
intelligent
people come along and explain that this design would waste energy. They
convince him to have a smaller building with less glass. The change of
design
just saved a lot of energy..... Is this counted in the model? No.
Why do we compare our buildings to themselves? I can design a turd and
polish it to LEED standards. Where are the points for having a well
designed
building over a poor design? The baseline should have 20% glass...
Period.
If I use 10% glass I am saving energy. Even better would be a set
BTU/Ft^2,
you can do whatever you want as long as you meet the GPM like measure.
As an engineer, I think about the numbers a lot. With LEED (energy
modeling)
if I have very efficient equipment I can show more energy savings by
increasing windows. (The more my model uses the equipment, the more the
efficiency difference shows up.) Then I can play all day with people
schedules, infiltration, and ect. (All I have to do is justify what I
used.)
I have been involved in only 4 buildings which required energy modeling.
We
used innovative new technologies. 3 of the building could not be
modeled due
to limitations of the energy modeling programming. (One design used the
rejected heat from the heat pump for reheat instead of going into the
loop
field. The other I used a split system and placed the condensing unit
in the
mechanical room for free heat.)
Why are we being made to follow LEED (energy modeling) when the tools to
do
it are so primitive. Some (Blankety blank blank *$%#!&$) is having us
go
someplace where the technology is not reached. (Beta testing sucks)
It feels like we are smoking unfiltered cigarettes, driving cars with no
seatbelts, and painting with lead paint. People are going to look back
at
what we did and wonder how we couldn't see how dumb we were. I see it
now.
There has got to be a better way. A better way to show we are saving
energy.
The sooner we find it, the better.
I found out last week that the person who's position I filled left
because of
LEED (energy modeling). I can't stand this obvious misguided attempt to
save
the world. As a person who values logic, every day suffering this
ill-logic
is torturous.
John Eurek
LEEP AP
P.S. Eric the energy model IS a statistical analysis. You assume a
weather
pattern, you assume a occupantacy schedule, you assume the activity
level,
you assume the amount the printer is used, the computer use, the number
of
times the elevator is used. You assume everything about a pretend
senario
and get a pretend number.
There must be a better way to prove an energy efficient design. (My
company
usually works late hours, most people do, are we to model this? We
could, we
could not, we can make up so much.) We need a solid baseline... Not
statistical models.
P.P.S. It will all be smoke and mirrors until start looking at actual
energy
usage per square foot. If you want to use models to predict it, okay.
Results matter, but not in LEED (energy modeling).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvCP3s7Xq48
-----Original Message-----
From: Varkie C Thomas [mailto:thomasv at iit.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:08 AM
To: Eurek, John S NWO
Subject: Voodoo Engineering
Academia institutions and research centers tend to attach
disproportionate
amount of importance to energy modeling. Most them have not dealt with
real
buildings. Attached are my views on energy modeling.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eurek, John S NWO" <John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:14 am
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set for Oregon
>
> I would prefer Lynn work to ban/destroy/do-away-with energy modeling.
>
> Any chance this voo-doo engineering will go away any time soon?
> It is only
> statistical analysis with no meaningful/useful results for anyone.
>
> As a community I think we are going in the wrong direction for the
> rightgoals.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Carol
> Gardner
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:30 AM
> To: Scott Criswell
> Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; curt.strobehn at eesinet.com
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set for Oregon
>
> All,
>
> Lynn Bellenger will soon be the first female president of
> ASHRAE..ASHRAE is
> 117 years young. Lynn's goal is to improve energy modeling. She is a
> PE and a BEMP and a LEED AP. She has even more letters after her name
> but you will have to ask her. She deserves every one of them. Lynn
> rocks. If I was a betting woman, I would bet on Lynn to try to get
> this done. You will see I have attempted to cc her on this. I have
> also bcc'd her to make sure she gets the message.
>
> A good night to all and to all a good night!
>
> Carol
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Scott Criswell
> <scott.criswell at doe2.com>wrote:
>
>
> There is no work to my knowledge either proposed or under
development
> that would result in 90.1-2004 or 2007 compliance analysis.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> Paul Buchheit wrote:
>
> Hello Scott,
>
> Thanks for the help on this question.
> Is there anything available now or in the works for
ASHRAE
> 90.1-2004 or 2007 compliance analysis?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Buchheit
> Mechanical Engineer
> EESI
> phone: 541-754-1062
> fax: 541-753-3948
> paul.buchheit at eesinet.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Criswell
<mailto:scott.criswell at doe2.com>
>
> To: curt.strobehn at eesinet.com
> Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set
for
> Oregon
>
> Correction on Carol's response -
> There is no "compliance analysis" ruleset for
either
> Oregon or 90.1-2004. What Carol was referring to in eQUEST v3.63 (and
> later) is a jurisdiction-based defaulting mechanism within the
> building
> creationwizard(s) that includes Oregon-specific selections and
> defaults (which are based on the Oregon energy code).
>
> Compliance Analysis is quite a different
feature.
> The CA Title-24 compliance analysis feature enables users to press the
> compliance analysis button in the interface (the button Curt pressed
> which resulted in the message he circulated) to initiate a mechanism
> that performs a complete, performance-based compliance analysis on the
> proposed buildingdesign loaded into eQUEST.
> Two additional features are on the near horizon
with
> regards to compliance analysis in eQUEST -
> (1) a LEED baseline generation ruleset which
does not
> perform a complete LEED analysis but does generate a LEED (90.1-2007
> Appendix-G) baseline model based on a user's proposed design.
> This is
> included in v3.64 which should be made available in the coming weeks
> (pending CEC certification).
> (2) compliance analysis based on Canada's MNECB
> ruleset - to be included in a Canadian derivative of eQUEST, called
> CAN-QUEST. Not sure of the exact release date for CAN-QUEST, but I
> can tell you that users are training on it today @ the eSIM conference
> in
> Winnipeg.
> There is nothing in the works to my knowledge in
terms
> of developing a compliance analysis capability for Oregon.
>
> - Scott
>
>
> Carol Gardner wrote:
>
> Hi Curt.
>
> The Oregon rule set is in VS 3.63. I
helped
> Scott put it there. When you select your city in Oregon you will see
> the Oregon rules. In your email you say 90.1-2004. The Oregon
> compliance rule set is probably 2004 I just don't have time to confirm
> for sure.
>
> Good Luck,
> Carol
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Curtis
> Strobehn <curt.strobehn at eesinet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello all,
> Need help.
> Is there an ASHRAE 90.1-2004
rule set
> file that can be downloaded and used
> for compliance
> analysis.
>
> See attachment
>
> Thanks,
>
> Curt
>
>
> EESI
> phone: 541-754-1062
> fax: 541-753-3948
> Curt.strobehn at eesinet.com
> paul.buchheit at eesinet.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing
list
> send a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carol Gardner PE
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list
send a
> blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a
blank
> message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carol Gardner PE
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list