[Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
Nick Caton
ncaton at smithboucher.com
Mon Jun 20 10:33:55 PDT 2011
Those who’ve followed me might recognize this is an act of self-restraint on my part… Here are some condensed thoughts (really!) =):
1. To those discussing baseline constructions and massing – I’ve posted this a few times, but attached are all the wall/roof baseline constructions ready for import, each material layer fully compliant with properties as prescribed in Appendix A. Bruce/Bill have given succinct responses as to why one ought to avoid the “weightless” route in general practice, and the ease/consistency resulting from importing/assigning constructions like this removes any concern over the extra time involved. Credits as always to Adam Boyd for originally pulling this work together.
2. To those discussing what should be required of LEED reviewers: I think it’s clear the system can be improved – let’s continue the discussion.
a. To directly answer why the reviewership as a whole (not individual reviewers) should represent expertise in a variety of modeling software, it is precisely because that very expertise is necessary in “sorting the garbage,” to extend the idiom. While the standards/rules being enforced are “software-neutral,” one needs software-specific experience to know what inputs & outputs she/he needs to check. To draw an analogy: An auto-repair mechanic may possesses the experience & fundamentals to recognize certain vibrations in an airplane ride may be indicative of a mechanical problem, but a person with expertise/experience working on planes will know how to (a) verify whether there is a problem at all, and (b) what questions to ask and what variables will correct the problem.
b. I think all model review comments could be classified as follows:
i. Those that result in correcting a misinterpretation/misapplication of the standards/rules in play,
ii. Those that result in the modeler having to provide additional information so the reviewer can do their job, and
iii. Those that result in the modeler having to explain/illustrate how the software works.
To better identify the issue: A lack of expertise in the software at-hand can result in a majority of comments to be of the last sort, which doesn’t benefit any party and eats up a lot of time without a productive result. When a review largely boils down to a “how I do my job” narrative, it is understandably frustrating for many reasons, not the least of which in that it seems to trivialize the entire exercise.
c. I am CERTAIN some of this is the simple result of good people losing their honest efforts in translation. Effective communication is an ever-present challenge for all sides in this field of energy modeling.
3. To those discussing each other, I hope the following will close that side of the conversation: For as long as I have been here, this is and has always been an inclusive forum where we’ve enjoyed the opportunity to discuss complex and difficult issues. One can come here to share experience, ask questions, gain perspectives and (importantly!) vent. “Railing against the system” is appropriate and even necessary for progress, so long as you aren’t pointing fingers where it isn’t called for. Due to the intelligence and grace shared by the subscribing community we all enjoy a professional atmosphere, but it is only the result of a give and take relationship. To be respected, be respectful! Doing otherwise does yourself and the list a disservice.
4. As a separate, emphasized point: Words like “rape” are powerful and can cut deep when you don’t expect it to. Remember that we are a large body of individuals with unique personal histories and experiences. Nobody can pretend to know where everyone is coming from, but some in this world have darn good reason to be sensitive. Please, if someone objects to choice words for professional reasons or otherwise, let’s grant the benefit of the doubt and be considerate. That’s about all I have to say on the issue, but I will happily discuss further *off-list* if anyone wishes to.
Thanks,
~Nick
NICK CATON, P.E.
SENIOR ENGINEER
Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
olathe, ks 66061
direct 913.344.0036
fax 913.345.0617
www.smithboucher.com
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Kelsey VanTassel
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:05 PM
To: Paul Diglio; Nathan Miller; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
Why should LEED reviewers be expected to be experts in every type of modeling software? The software itself is just a calculator. As long as it meets the requirements, it shouldn’t matter which program was used. The LEED reviewers judge the models on the results and the quality of the inputs. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Kelsey Van Tassel
Mechanical Engineer | kvantassel at sustaineng.com
608.836.4488 ext. 20 | Fax: 608.836.4477
Sustainable Engineering Group
901 Deming Way, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53717
www.sustaineng.com <http://www.sustaineng.com/>
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Paul Diglio
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 3:55 PM
To: Nathan Miller; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
Nathan:
I am being fair and I expect the reviewers to experts in every energy modeling program that is allow under Appendix G. The GBCI should refer specific projects using eQuest or Trace or HAP to reviewers that are competent in that software.
Paul Diglio
________________________________
From: Nathan Miller <nathanm at rushingco.com>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>; Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Fri, June 17, 2011 4:45:45 PM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
Paul,
I think you are being a bit unfair to the reviewers (full disclosure, I reviewed EAc1 submittals in the pre-GBCI days, when consulting teams performed the reviews).
They don’t go into a review with all of the knowledge that we had while building up the model. All they get is the template and the supplementary documentation that we as submitters have decided to provide them. Sometimes these documents are a bare minimum, and sometimes it is a flood of information that is too much to try to go over.
They have to piece together if the saving you are presenting make sense given the building and system components that have been described. It can be quite a puzzle to figure out , for example, if it makes sense that someone is showing 35% ventilation fan energy savings when comparing their series VAV system to the baseline parallel VAV system. Reviewers can try to be helpful, and point out specific items they want verified, though sometimes they do in fact make mistakes and look like idiots for what they are asking (I’m thinking of the electric resistance heating question from earlier in the thread). Alternately they can be vague with their comments and put the onus on the submitter to prove that the savings make sense, but that can be equally frustrating to respond to.
Additionally I don’t think it is fair for them to be experts in every energy modeling program that is allowed under Appendix G. That is completely unrealistic. They won’t necessarily know that one program puts boiler supplementary energy in the space heating end use category, as that could be different with different programs, and certainly isn’t intuitive.
Sincerely,
Nathan Miller, PE, LEED®AP
Senior Energy Engineer/Mechanical Engineer
D 206-788-4577
www.rushingco.com <http://www.rushingco.com/>
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Paul Diglio
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:03 PM
To: Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
Pasha:
No problem, it is raping as far as I am concerned. GBCI is using incompetent reviewers and they expect us to train them. They take the application fees and offer nothing in return except ridiculous comments.
I have a similar problem with Northeast Utilities serving CT and MA. NU offers a modeling incentive of $6,000, an efficiency incentive up to $2.00 ft2 and a LEED incentive up to $15,000. They employ reviewers that have no modeling or eQuest experience. One reviewer expected that I would explain how custom performance curves are built for an eQuest VRV system.
I told them I wasn't in the business of training their employees at the client's expense. I would provide the manufacturer's performance tables and my eQuest curve coefficients, but I was not going to spend time to explain how to verify that my curves are accurate. They need to spend money to train their reviewers or hire experienced reviewers.
I feel that the comments that you received from the GBCI were indicative of a person who has no clue and is not qualified to review building simulations.
Regards,
Paul Diglio
________________________________
From: Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Fri, June 17, 2011 3:45:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
Hi Paul-- thanks for receiving my comment in the most professional sense of the term as it relates to the economics of the LEED simulation & Compliance markets.
I didn't really feel it was unprofessional, but I didn't desire to offend anyone with the terms that i chose. I was pretty sure that I wasn't completely alone with the 'feeling' or sense I was getting from others comments I've seen with the forum (past & present).
I offer a sincere professional apology if my chosen adjectives offended anyone. (were they adjectives? I don't know I'm not an english major...) :)
Cheers,
Pasha
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Pasha:
I agree with your 'raping' verb and do not think it is inappropriate for the forum. Dan is out of sync.
Paul Diglio
________________________________
From: Daniel Knapp <danielk at arborus.ca>
To: Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Fri, June 17, 2011 3:32:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment - Exhaust Fans
Dear Pasha,
client has already paid them. DEAR USGBC---please stop raping the industry for the money monopoly that you have created. The sense of GREED is oozing from everything that comes out of USGBC/GBCI with a price tag on it or a cost associated with it.
I hear that you are very frustrated with the review process, however, I find this kind of language inappropriate for a public forum and would ask that you take more care in the future.
With all best wishes,
Dan
—
Daniel Knapp, PhD, LEED® AP O+M
danielk at arborus.ca
Arborus Consulting
Energy Strategies for the Built Environment
www.arborus.ca <http://www.arborus.ca/>
76 Chamberlain Avenue
Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9
Phone: (613) 234-7178 ext. 113
Fax: (613) 234-0740
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110620/1355e05f/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110620/1355e05f/attachment-0002.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Ashrae 90,1 Baseline Constructions.inp
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3730 bytes
Desc: Ashrae 90,1 Baseline Constructions.inp
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110620/1355e05f/attachment-0002.obj>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list