[Equest-users] LEED Fenestration Modeling Question

[Cam Fitzgerald]

Good morning, Paul,

 

It appears you are confusing the prescriptive envelope requirements with the mandatory provisions. The envelope minimum performance can be violated when using an energy model to show overall building performance. Hope this helps!

 

 

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 Paul Diglio
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 3:34 PM
To: Bishop, Bill; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] LEED Fenestration Modeling Question

 

Thanks Bill, the comment you received is encouraging.

 

Paul Diglio, CEM, CBCP

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

 

www.pdigliollc.com

 

 

  _____  

From: "Bishop, Bill" <bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>; "equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Sent: Mon, April 15, 2013 2:45:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] LEED Fenestration Modeling Question

Paul,

 

I recently received the following comment in a LEED review for a LEED-NC v2009 project:



This implies that Window v6.3 calculations are acceptable in lieu of NFRC ratings. The comment does not exclude the modeler from performing the calculation.

Of course, I have no idea if this is boilerplate language or if LEED reviewers have discretion here. It is also possible that requirements will become stricter for newer projects.

 

Regards,

Bill

 

William Bishop, PE, BEMP, LEED AP | Pathfinder Engineers & Architects LLP

Senior Energy Engineer

 

134 South Fitzhugh Street                 Rochester, NY 14608

T: (585) 325-6004 Ext. 114            F: (585) 325-6005

 <mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com            <http://www.pathfinder-ea.com/> www.pathfinder-ea.com

P   Sustainability – the forest AND the trees. P   

 

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Paul Diglio
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 2:34 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] LEED Fenestration Modeling Question

 

Folks:

I am a bit confused when modeling unrated vertical fenestration for the proposed model.  90.1 states that we need to use the values determined in accordance with NFRC 100 or we can use the data in Table A8.2 for vertical fenestration per Exception b, Section 5.8.2.4.

If so, the values in Table A8.2 exceed the maximum allowed fenestration u-values listed in Table 5.5-5 (my zone), so will this not disqualify the proposed building model?

I have often found it impossible to get the architect to supply the NFRC assembly ratings of the glazing and field erected curtain-wall systems.

I have used the LBNL Window 6.3 program to calculate the vertical fenestration ratings, but 90.1 Section 5.8.8.2 states that the fenestration product shall have a permanently installed nameplate or the manufacturer shall provide a signed and dated certification for the installed fenestration.

I don't see any wiggle-room where 90.1 allows the modeler to calculate the NFRC rating of vertical fenestration.  

Saying that, I have submitted projects where I calculated the fenestration assembly u-values without any kick-back from the GBCI.

I am concerned that the reviewers will push this issue since it is now clearly defined on the new Section 1.4 Table and if I submit my own ratings I will end up remodeling the project and/or the proposed building envelope will be rejected since it doesn't meet the mandatory requirements of Section 5.4.

Any thoughts?

Thank you,

 

Paul Diglio, CEM, CBCP

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

 

www.pdigliollc.com

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130416/c8298fdf/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 52818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130416/c8298fdf/attachment-0002.png>