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

[Paul Diglio]

Nick:

Thanks for the heads-up on the air films, Sheila also mentioned that.

I tried some edits on the spreadsheet, but there are so many macros that I was 
messing it up.  If you develop some handy hints, I would be interested to hear.

One of the  LPD problems I am having is that the EE did not zone the building as 
I did.  As you know, we don't always zone every tiny closet separately.  In 
addition this building has a L shaped corridor with an exit stair at either 
end.  The EE chose to increase the LPD for the 10' of the corridor in front of 
the stairwell doors so I need to apportion the LPD based on areas and 
percentages.  Table 1.4 does not allow notes in the Lighting table.  It would be 
so much easier to keep track of combined spaces and averaged LPD's if a note 
section, per space, was provided.  In the past, I have just sent the engineer's 
LPD spreadsheet and it was accepted by the GBCI.

The spreadsheet does have some advantages in the Air Side HVAC tab.  It will 
calculate the allowed fan power and highlight the cell in red if it is too low 
or too high.  I find that I need to keep revising the model in order to get the 
allowed fan power right, which does effect the system size due to the motor heat 
introduced into the air-stream, which in turn slightly alters the allowed fan 
power, on and on.

Anyway, I think it will take me some time to become accustomed to this new form.

Have a great weekend.

 Paul Diglio, CEM, CBCP


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


www.pdigliollc.com




________________________________
From: Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>; Sheila Sagerer 
<sheila at energyopportunities.com>
Cc: "equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Sent: Fri, April 12, 2013 4:21:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] LEED Review Comment for Appendix A constructions

 
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
 
 
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
 
 

________________________________
 
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/a3832442/attachment-0002.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/a3832442/attachment-0002.jpg>