[Equest-users] Another process load question

Jeremy Poling jeremy.poling at att.net
Mon Oct 22 18:12:03 PDT 2012


Dave (and the list),

Before you make a decision on this, make sure to consult all of the
relevant LEED Interpretations and ASHRAE Interpretations.  For your
question, LEED Interpretation #10237 (recently issued) is very applicable:

"The project team is inquiring about documenting improvements in a
process-energy-intensive manufacturing plant. Generally, equipment covered
by ASHRAE 90.1 requirements can be modeled according to ASHRAE 90.1
Appendix G requirements regardless of whether it serves standard building
loads, process loads, or a combination of both. If the equipment is either
being used in a manner that is incompatible with ASHRAE 90.1 requirements
or is equipment not regulated by ASHRAE 90.1, project teams should compare
the proposed design to the industry standard..."

It goes on from there, but this LEED Interpretation can be cited to
reviewers when submitting the project.  Also, reviewers have indicated that
they will defer to an ASHRAE Interpretation if one is available, and ASHRAE
"Official" Interpretations are free in cost, though it can take some time
if it is a complex question.
Jeremy R. Poling, PE, LEED AP+BDC





On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:01 PM, The Watt Doctors - Dave Weigel <
Dave.Weigel at thewattdoctors.com> wrote:

>   Thank you again, Nick!
>
> Your thinking is in line with mine.  The debate at the project meetings is
> interesting.  We have about 250 Tons of process cooling water on average.
> We can either hold that constant or take credit for savings with a more
> efficient chilled water plant.  I have been thinking that we would take
> credit for it, but also keep everyone apprised of the cost in LEED points
> if it is rejected in review.  Good documentation will help.
>
> Best to y’all,
>
> Dave
>
>  *From:* Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2012 7:25 PM
> *To:* The Watt Doctors - Dave Weigel <Dave.Weigel at thewattdoctors.com> ;
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Another process load question
>
>
> I’ve often intentionally differentiated space conditioning equipment for
> spaces housing significant process loads between my baseline/proposed
> models without incident from the LEED reviewership, per your example #1.
> Commonly occurring scenarios include server rooms and elevator machine
> rooms with small mini-split DX cooling.  ****
>
> ****
>
> I’ll maintain, this is something that can and should remain open for
> interpretation by the modeler – not one mold will fit every project.  There
> may be cases where modeling consumptions/loads and the corresponding space
> conditioning discretely is overly complex or disadvantageous, in which case
> holding everything constant between the models would be an acceptable
> approach.  A self-contained walk-in freezer with its condenser at the
> exterior comes to mind as something I probably wouldn’t break apart (but
> either interpretation could work).****
>
> ****
>
> Whatever you choose, I wouldn’t flip-flop too much on the issue within the
> same project.  Try to take a unified interpretation and apply that to both
> baseline and proposed for each space/case – it will make documentation for
> EAp2 spreadsheets easier later.  ****
>
> ****
>
> ~Nick****
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> **
>
> *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 *The Watt
> Doctors - Dave Weigel
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2012 6:32 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] Another process load question****
>
> ****
>
> Hi Friends,****
>
>  ****
>
> This is more of a LEED / ASHRAE 90.1 question, but I see a lot of
> experience in this group.  I hope someone has some experience with a LEED
> review on this issue.  It may be a moot point, but I can’t go into the
> arguments below without a little backup.****
>
>  ****
>
> A debate has arisen among engineers, architects, and a LEED AP regarding
> the cooling energy for space conditioning in an area with process loads.
> This is specifically related to 90.1-2007 exception G3.1.1.b, and to a
> literal vs. extended interpretation of 90.1-2007 part 3.2, definitions:***
> *
>
>  ****
>
> Process energy : energy consumed in support of a manufacturing,
> industrial, or commercial process [implying medical equipment as well]
> other than conditioning spaces and maintaining comfort and amenities for
> the occupants of the building.****
>
>  ****
>
> Process load: the load on a building resulting from the consumption or
> release of process energy.****
>
>  ****
>
> This may be a moot point if it has already been the subject of a LEED 2009
> CIR, or if there is an official ASHRAE interpretation or addendum.  I
> haven’t been able to find any of those.****
>
>  ****
>
> *The liberal-interpretation side views it this way:*****
>
>  ****
>
> The definition of process load says “consumption or release,” and says
> nothing about removing the heat from the space.****
>
>  ****
>
> Process energy is the total input energy to a process.  The additional
> energy to cool the space in which the process resides is not process
> energy, it is a building space conditioning load.****
>
>  ****
>
> Example 1:  A server room, MRI room, or a room full of autoclaves is
> allowed to have system 3 (packaged DX VAV) in the baseline model under this
> exception rather than system 7 (chilled water VAV).  While the process load
> itself must be simulated the same in baseline and proposed design cases,
> energy savings from the higher efficiency of the space cooling system is
> included in the bottom line savings.  This includes the cooling load
> imparted to the space by the process load, such as the waste heat from the
> autoclaves, MRI, or servers.****
>
>  ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *The conservative-interpretation side views it from the polar opposite
> position*.  They contend that all input process energy plus the energy
> required to remove its waste heat must be held constant, no matter if the
> cooling is done by a building air system or by the building chilled water
> plant.****
>
>  ****
>
> For the definition of process energy, “energy consumed in support of
> manufacturing, industrial, or commercial process,” they claim that the
> energy to remove waste heat is “in support of” the process and must be
> counted as process load.****
>
>  ****
>
> In eQuest terms, the conservative side says we must extract the hourly
> cooling loads that are due to each and every piece of waste heat from
> process equipment. Then we re-insert that cooling load profile as process
> energy and hold it constant from the baseline to the proposed design as an
> external load on the meter.  So, the MRI process load turns into the input
> power plus the energy to cool it.****
>
>  ****
>
> I'm not saying which side I'm on. I would not be a big fan of extracting
> and manipulating all those load profiles, especially in the case of that
> welder. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Dave****
>
>  ****
>
> David R. Weigel, PE****
>
> Managing Member****
>
> 1189 Golden Circle SW,  Lilburn GA 30047****
>
> 678-353-6941 office       901-619-1716 cell****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20121022/938b4fe2/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20121022/938b4fe2/attachment-0002.jpeg>


More information about the Equest-users mailing list