[Equest-users] Voodoo Engineering

Haynes, Glenn Glenn.Haynes at kema.com
Thu May 20 09:23:03 PDT 2010


In defense of LEED modeling:  although I am not a LEED AP, I understand
that energy savings is not the primary goal.  To judge it by energy
conservation standards, therefore, is unfair.  My bag is energy
conservation program impact evaluation engineering, and I rely somewhat
on DOE2 modeling.  To help circumvent the GIGO problem, I strive for as
much real audit data as possible and calibrate the models carefully to
customer billing data whenever possible.  But I must admit that energy
conservation modeling results of buildings in the design stages must be
considered as unverified predictions (at least for a year or two).  On
the other hand, if applied carefully by experienced engineers and
architects, they're generally more reliable than simpler methods, and
definitely better than nothing.
 
Perhaps it is time for the energy conservation community, including
myself, to push for something nationally in commercial building design
that strives for the same effect as Energy Star does for the residential
sector.  But, recently, new energy codes seem to be going in that
direction with a reasonable level of aggression, if we can overcome the
problem of inconsistent enforcement.
 
John seems to have unusually strong negative feelings about the modeling
approach, but I appreciate his willingness to express his opinions
because they help keep (or make) us building energy modelers more honest
and humble.
 
Yours truly,
Glenn

________________________________

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick
Caton
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 4:17 PM
To: eQUEST Users List
Cc: Gregory Sarkisian, P.E.; Ray Yunk
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Voodoo Engineering



John et al,

 

I am merely a young EIT of 2 and some-odd years, but I and surely most
other practicing MEP designer/modelers fully sympathize with your
frustrations.  ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 (and through it, LEED) is certainly not
yet a perfect standard... but the driving committees will be quick to
point out nobody is saying it is (and may solicit you to
volunteer/contribute to development).  In any case, it's what we must
work under today... So we have to come to terms with the beast =)!

 

[ CAUTION: Skip this paragraph if you aren't interested in 90.1 nuances
- you'll risk glazing your eyes over! ]

The core baseline/proposed issues you mention are agreeably arguable on
a fundamental level!  To pick up on your example, a glass box (well, up
to 40% technically) certainly has more opportunity to demonstrate
exemplary performance over its baseline than an opaque one under the
current ruleset.  I think however most elements of the current
baseline/proposed system, including the flat 20% glazing alternative you
propose, is a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation for the
standard developers...  In my modeling experience (from an annual energy
consumption/cost perspective): "optimal glazing percentages" are not
always 0% (sometimes they are), and can vary a LOT building-to-building
when daylighting controls enter the mix.  Site shading, building element
self-shading, permanent/operable window shades, and orientations of
course all play vital roles in determining a meaningful optimal
window/wall ratio for any given space, but 90.1 Appendix G as written
nullifies each of these variables in a somewhat heavy-handed fashion for
the baseline model (sometimes the proposed also).  I understand the
purpose of these measures is generally to help us easily determine
savings/losses based on a concept of "energy conscious building/site
orientation" (which I'd argue is kind of silly in and of itself), but
it's simultaneously dumbing-down our comparative results (moving them
further from reality).  Removing self-shading/permanent shades for
example can both hurt and help the baseline/proposed comparative
performance - it's inconsistent depending on the climate and building
facade shape/orientation...  I think these rules are built partly on the
assumption that shades are always beneficial for annual energy
consumption.

[ END OF CAUTION ]

 

To come back to the surface, I sleep at night by making one thing very
clear to any owners/architects that care to listen (though I've learned
some don't want to hear it):  LEED-certified buildings, even those with
lots of energy modeling credits, do not inherently consume less energy
or pay lower utility bills than un-certified buildings*.  Comparative
LEED energy models by design are not and should not be misconstrued by
building owners as modeling reality.  As John touches on and Carol is
getting at:  modeling "reality" before a building is built is guesswork
at best, and is much harder and more complex than earning any LEED
credits.  Modeling "reality" post-construction and assuming historical
bills/behaviors will repeat themselves in the future is also
fundamentally guesswork - too much rides on the variability of actual
building occupant behavior and actual weather.  

 

Not to cheapen anyone's credentials**, but when one fully understands
that all energy modeling is to some small/large degree guesswork, it's
so much easier to grasp that, even at its most complex, energy modeling
is simply a tool to make decisions with.  In the right hands: a darn
useful tool, even =)! 

 

~Nick

 

*If anyone isn't following - I would consider the following article
(notably dated) required reading for anyone practicing LEED energy
modeling, if only for practical perspective:

http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/mis2014leed2014ing/

This is notably a sidebar to the following, also insightful &
tongue-in-cheek article by the same author:

http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-007-prioritizing-g
reen2014it-s-the-energy-stupid

It's not hard to google and find similar studies - LEED buildings, even
those earning high certification levels, can easily consume more energy
than their un-certified modern counterparts.

 

** I know, easy for me to say!

 

 

 

NICK CATON, E.I.T.

PROJECT ENGINEER

25501 west valley parkway

olathe ks 66061

direct 913 344.0036

fax 913 345.0617

Check out our new web-site @ www.smithboucher.com 

 

 



 

NICK CATON, E.I.T.

PROJECT ENGINEER

25501 west valley parkway

olathe ks 66061

direct 913 344.0036

fax 913 345.0617

Check out our new web-site @ www.smithboucher.com 

 

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Gregory
Sarkisian, P.E.
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:16 PM
To: 'eQUEST Users List'; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Voodoo Engineering

 

For my two cents worth, all computer simulations are relative to
something, not absolute. Energy baseline models are relative to actual
utility bills. Anything within 5-10% is considered solid. All proposed
models are relative to this good baseline. But as one of the replies
mentioned this proposed model should always be verified in the real
world.

 

Same is true from my days in the auto industry. We create finite element
models to predict low and high speed crash simulations. We had actual
performance of previous production models to baseline from, but must
always verify by actual test. You would be amazed at how close we could
get. Once the model is correlated to the actual test results all
variances built into the model can be deemed reliable.

 

Building simulation models are much simpler, and in my mind very
reliable - if the inputs are correct. I have not tried all of the
different modeling tools, but eQuest provides a relatively friendly
user-interface.

 

Gregory Sarkisian, P.E.

 
President

 

                                              P: 888-393-1470

                                                             F:
888-428-4492

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

 

From: Carol Gardner [mailto:cmg750 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:42 PM
To: Eurek, John S NWO
Cc: eQUEST Users List; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Voodoo Engineering

 

John, you army guy you...

I suggest that you embrace the art part and get good at the science.
Your model will be just as good as your input. Whats that old saw? When
you point the finger you have 3 others pointing back at you. While some
modeling tools might be close to beta and hard to use, eQUEST isn't one
of them. Each new version has bugs, but those are relatively few and are
fixed quickly. You use energy modeling to predict the energy use and
energy cost of a baseline and proposed buildings. Here in Oregon we
actually do follow-up and make sure the predicted came close to the
actual. We call it model verification. I would recommend that you spend
more time learning the art, gathering the info, creating an actual
weather file if the typical one's aren't good enough for you, and very
carefully inputting the data into your modeling tool of choice. I'd be
happy to offer you peer review services if you ever want to make sure
your work is accurate.

Best,
Carol

PS I resent the heck out of LEED paperwork and am afraid they are
rulemaking creativity out of buildings. I've seen it happen over, and
over, and over.....

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Eurek, John S NWO <
John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil> wrote:

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
>




-- 
Carol Gardner PE

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100520/3f6c2dab/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100520/3f6c2dab/attachment-0001.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 182 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100520/3f6c2dab/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 7256 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100520/3f6c2dab/attachment-0003.png>


More information about the Equest-users mailing list