[Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions

Paul Diglio paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net
Fri Apr 12 12:41:08 PDT 2013


Shiela:

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was offended.  I was not.  I am  somewhat 
curt by nature.  Too much time spent growling at my laptop instead of  talking 
to people!

You did bring up some good points.  I usually develop a  sort of matrix with all 
the baseline and proposed information (i.e. wall  u-values, glazing u-values, 
etc) and submit that with my LEED model.  I  just find that the Table 1.4 
Dec-2012 is much more involved that the  Table 1.4 Sept-2011 and am working on a 
project that I priced before this new table became effective, so like Pasha, I 
am somewhat taken back.  I think filling out this table has added 3-4 days onto 
the project.  For example, since my space areas and those used by the electrical 
engineer differ and I need to add spaces together and apportion the LPD by 
percentages.

I can understand the GBCI position that assembly performance rating needs to be 
calculated using the 90.1 Appendix A since eQuest does not always calculate 
accurate u-values when building an assembly using the materials in the library.

One  question that I would like to ask.  I sometimes input a  wall u-value using 
the Specification Method- Layers Input of say .064.  Then when I look at the 
LV-D simulation report the u-value there does not match my input.  For example 
on a current project, in order to get the LV-D to report an exterior wall 
u-value of .064, I needed to tweak my exterior wall construction layers to be 
.066.  Have you had this problem?  Same for the vertical fenestration.

Is it something I am doing wrong?  Perhaps the Specification Method-Resistance 
is not correct?

Anyway, you have a great weekend also.

 
 Paul Diglio, CEM, CBCP


87 Fairmont Avenue
New Haven, CT  06513
203-415-0082


www.pdigliollc.com




________________________________
From: Sheila Sagerer <sheila at energyopportunities.com>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Fri, April 12, 2013 3:14:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions


Good afternoon Paul,
 
I see you often on these lists and have a lot of respect for your knowledge. The 
information that you impart is of great value. And, I do agree that it takes 
significant time to fill out the new 1.4 tables. My comments were not directed 
at you given your experience and technical expertise. For you and others like 
us, yes, we may see an increase in overall time charged to the modeling budget.  
But, alas, we are the minority here…
 
Given who was involved in these discussions this morning (and who these comments 
were directed at will remain anonymous), I could not resist commenting. For 
those modelers who do not take the time to know what the standards require or 
what acceptable modeling protocols are or take the time to learn them, the new 
spreadsheets most likely will show modeling budget cost benefits and greater 
benefit to the project owners.  Does it take more time to fill out the new 1.4 
tables and abide by the standards or have to respond to 10-12 reviewer comments 
and make the necessary revisions and hope that appeal won’t be necessary?
 
I apologize if my comments offended in any way.  Again, they were not directed 
at you.
 
Best Regards, and have a nice weekend!
 
Sheila Sagerer
Energy Engineer, EIT, LEED AP
Energy Opportunities, Inc, a 7group company
Phone: 717-880-9069
www.sevengroup.com
 
From:Paul Diglio [mailto:paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 10:46 AM
To: Sheila Sagerer; Daniel Knapp;  PKConsulting
Cc: eQUEST Users List
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions
 
Sheila:

I find it takes significant additional time to fill out the form.  Additionally 
NC-2009 EAp2 requires that we download it, fill it out and upload it.
 
Paul Diglio, CEM, CBCP
87 Fairmont Avenue
New Haven, CT 06513
203-415-0082
 
www.pdigliollc.com
 
 

________________________________

From:Sheila Sagerer <sheila at energyopportunities.com>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>; Daniel Knapp <danielk at arborus.ca>; 
PKConsulting <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>
Cc: eQUEST Users List <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Sent: Fri, April 12, 2013 10:29:35 AM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions
Good morning,
 
Just some thoughts…
 
My understanding is that the new Section 1.4 Tables are a tool provided to 
project teams which should be used during design development and before doing a 
final model for submission to LEED.  The spreadsheets are designed to highlight 
many of the common errors made in modeling both the Proposed and Baseline 
buildings. 

 
If modelers are aware of these common issues during design development AND pay 
attention to them, the end result would be a more accurate model for informing 
design decisions as well as a reduced number of comments needing to be addressed 
and fewer revisions required between review phases. It should also increase the 
chances of having a Preliminary model awarded in the Preliminary Review.  That 
in the long run should result in savings for the modeling budget, not cost more 
time and money just to fill out the form…
 
Best Regards,
 
Sheila Sagerer
Energy Engineer, EIT, LEED AP
Energy Opportunities, Inc, a 7group company
Phone: 717-880-9069
www.sevengroup.com
 
From:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Paul Diglio
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 10:12 AM
To: Daniel Knapp; PKConsulting
Cc: eQUEST Users List
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions
 
The new LEED Section 1 4 Table (Dec 2012) requires the use of Appendix A for 
calculating assembly u-values.

Filling out this form adds considerable time onto modeling projects, so you 
might want to take a look before you bid you next job.

Regards,
 
Paul Diglio, CEM, CBCP
87 Fairmont Avenue
New Haven, CT 06513
203-415-0082
 
www.pdigliollc.com
 
 

________________________________

From:Daniel Knapp <danielk at arborus.ca>
To: PKConsulting <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>
Cc: eQUEST Users List <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Sent: Fri, April 12, 2013 9:50:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions

I think he's referring to Table G3.1, No. 1.a for the Proposed model where it 
states that the simulation model of the proposed design shall be consistent with 
the design documents, including proper accounting of fenestration and opaque 
envelope types and areas.  


I can't speak to the inconsistency on GBCI reviews.  Was the U-value in this 
case particularly low?  As for the comment itself, I think it simply speaks to 
the need to include the effects of thermal bridging in determining the overall 
U-value for the assembly.  Maybe you've already done this, in which case I would 
suggest you simply document your approach in your  response.  


I highly recommend checking out this paper published in 2011 which uses 3D heat 
flow modelling to calculate thermal transmittance through steel-framing, 
parapets, balconies, spandrels, etc.  


http://www.morrisonhershfield.com/ashrae1365research/Documents/MH_1365RP_Final_%20small.pdf


All the best,
Dan

—
Daniel Knapp, PhD, P Phys, LEED® AP O+M
danielk at arborus.ca

Arborus Consulting
Energy Strategies for the Built Environment
www.arborus.ca
76 Chamberlain Avenue 
Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9 
Phone: (613) 234-7178 ext. 113
Fax: (613) 234-0740




On 2013-04-12,  at 8:55 AM, PKConsulting <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Cam,  I couldn't find where it reads this in Table g3.1,  Could you give 
>me a page reference please?  I need to provide my client with this reference 
>info for their future projects.
> 
> Also can you explain why this hasn't been addressed on LEED projects in the 
>past?  This is the first time I have received this comment on any of my LEED 
>submissions.
> 
> Thanks,
> Pasha
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Apr 12, 2013, at 5:45 AM, "Cam Fitzgerald" <cam at energyopportunities.com> 
>wrote:
> 
>> Good morning, Pasha,
>>  
>> Appendix G primarily provides very specific guidance for building the 
>>appropriate Baseline model to use as a benchmark to calculate the projected 
>>energy savings for your Proposed building as designed. Most of the guidance in 
>>Table G3.1 for the Proposed model indicates it must be modeled as designed. This 
>>is where appendix A comes in for the Proposed constructions. U-values  may only 
>>be calculated using the inverse of the sum of the R-values if each layer is 
>>continuous (e.g. uninterrupted by other materials such as steel studs or 
>>joists). Appendix A provides tables with the effective U-values for various 
>>common heterogeneous constructions. Depending on the construction, the overall 
>>U-value for the assembly can vary significantly from the U-value calculated by 
>>summing the U-value of the major components. The Appendix A assembly performance 
>>must be used for the Proposed constructions to accurately reflect performance of 
>>the building  envelope. Hope this helps.
>>  
>> Have a great day!
>>  
>> Cam Fitzgerald
>>  
>> Energy Opportunities/a 7group company
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
>>[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Pasha 
>>Korber-Gonzalez
>> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:00 PM
>> To: eQUEST Users List
>> Subject: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions
>>  
>> Hi --  hopefully others have run into this  before.    We have a review comment 
>>that suggests that we need to revise our Proposed Construction performance 
>>values by reference of Appendix A constructions from 90.1 standard.
>>  
>> This is a new comment which I have not experienced LEED Reviewers addressing on 
>>past projects, and it seems to be in line with the release of the new Table 1.4 
>>that is so interactive and also requires reference to Appendix A tables for 
>>proposed construction performance values.
>>  
>> I have re-read Appendix G and cannot find any required reference to using 
>>Appendix A performance values for proposed construction except for Fenestration 
>>that is Not NFRC rated.    Where does it state the requirement to use Appendix A 
>>values for all of the proposed envelope construction values??  Why is GBCI 
>>implementing this now, and it was never a factor before?
>>  
>> I need some education on  this one please, I couldn't find any specific 
>>references on my own.
>>  
>> Thanks!
>>  
>> Pasha
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130412/2d5f0ea6/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the Equest-users mailing list