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

[Nick Caton]

Paul,

I might be wrong, but I have a hunch/vague recollection that the reports do not account for air films – you might confirm by checking out the detailed sim reports PDF help file!

Also, to your LPD woes, I haven’t yet been assigned to work through the new spreadsheet so I might be missing some context, but one thing I’ve picked up in the past (with the previous spreadsheet iterations) is that no reviewer has ever given me flak for revising/reworking the spreadsheet to more clearly document things as they’re modeled…

Possibly that has changed with the new spreadsheet (might be worth asking the question through your LEED project manager, time allowing), but if you have some fundamentally different approach in your modeled inputs than what’s assumed by the spreadsheet for documentation – I might consider whether the spreadsheet is in fact “requiring” a specific approach or if you can’t simply re-work the spreadsheet to more easily document what you’re actually modeling.

~Nick

[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 Paul Diglio
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 2:41 PM
To: Sheila Sagerer
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions

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<http://www.pdigliollc.com>


________________________________
From: Sheila Sagerer <sheila at energyopportunities.com<mailto:sheila at energyopportunities.com>>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net<mailto: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<http://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<http://www.pdigliollc.com>


________________________________
From: Sheila Sagerer <sheila at energyopportunities.com<mailto:sheila at energyopportunities.com>>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net<mailto:paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>>; Daniel Knapp <danielk at arborus.ca<mailto:danielk at arborus.ca>>; PKConsulting <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com<mailto:pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>>
Cc: eQUEST Users List <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto: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<http://www.sevengroup.com/>

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto: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<http://www.pdigliollc.com>


________________________________
From: Daniel Knapp <danielk at arborus.ca<mailto:danielk at arborus.ca>>
To: PKConsulting <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com<mailto:pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>>
Cc: eQUEST Users List <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto: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<mailto: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




On 2013-04-12, at 8:55 AM, PKConsulting <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/ad22cd54/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130412/ad22cd54/attachment-0002.jpg>