[Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1

[Nathan Miller]

If it is a LEED project, I would suggest using the most recent version of
the Energy Star Multifamily High Rise Simulation Guidelines. This standard
is referenced in thee LEED for Homes Midrise program, and has a reasonable
approach for in-unit lighting to account for both hardwired and plug-in
lighting, and gives a methodology for claiming savings.  I've used this
standard on LEED NC projects that were multifamily, and the reviewer's
accepted the methodology.

 

The only trick is finding the most recent version, as there are multiple
versions floating around out there, and they haven't been consistent in
the version numbering scheme that they use. I think this is the most
recent version, dated June 2012, but I'm not positive.

 

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/bldrs_lenders_raters/downloads/mfhr/
ENERGY_STAR_MFHR_Simulation_Guidelines_V1.0.pdf 

 

Nathan Miller - PE, LEEDRAP BD+C, CEM

Mechanical Engineer/Senior Energy Analyst 

RUSHING | D 206-788-4577 | O 206-285-7100

Our new web site:  <http://www.rushingco.com/> www.rushingco.com

 

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick
Caton
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:37 AM
To: RobertWichert; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; Gina Rodda
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1

 

Hi Robert,

 

(Assuming 90.1-07)

 

With the BAM figure for multifamily @ 0.7, I expect you'll come ahead
using space-by-space.  Trick is to apply the most appropriate entry for
each space type/function.

 

COMcheck is a real fast way to get a handle on what your options are -
strongly recommend giving this a try.  

 

Here's a quick listing (1 minute effort) of entries I'd expect would apply
to a typical residential project - most are >0.7: 



 

If there's a large garage, you might be able to swing "workshop" at 1.9
W/SF but that may be a stretch ;).

 

~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
RobertWichert
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 3:43 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; Gina Rodda
Subject: [Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1

 

To bring up a topic from a year ago (below) I have a question about using
the Space by Space approach with a multi-family building.  There is a BAM
Category for Multi-Family, but not a Space by Space category for
multi-family (except for dormitories).

Is there a work-around for space by space with multi-family?

I apologize if this has been covered before.


On a working Saturday.





-- 
Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C
+1 916 966 9060
FAX +1 916 966 9068
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
===============================================
 
Nick Caton 
    ncaton at smithboucher.com
<mailto:equest-users%40lists.onebuilding.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEquest-use
rs%5D%20Building%20area%20method%20ASHRAE%2090.1&In-Reply-To=%3CECDF361A89
E5FA479BE7E64C658B52050D8E2006%40SANDBINC4.sbi.smithboucher.com%3E> 
 
<mailto:equest-users%40lists.onebuilding.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEquest-use
rs%5D%20Building%20area%20method%20ASHRAE%2090.1&In-Reply-To=%3CECDF361A89
E5FA479BE7E64C658B52050D8E2006%40SANDBINC4.sbi.smithboucher.com%3E>

 
    Wed May 23 17:57:42 PDT 2012
    

*	Previous message: [Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-
May/011648.html> 
*	Next message: [Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-
May/011643.html> 
*	Messages sorted by: [ date ]
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-
May/date.html#11649>  [ thread ]
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-
May/thread.html#11649>  [ subject ]
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-
May/subject.html#11649>  [ author ]
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2012-
May/author.html#11649>  

  _____  

David's summary looks pretty good to me! 

I want to emphasis a great point that came up along the way: Space by
space can result in more LEED points by 'padding the baseline,' sure...
But "real" savings result from closely reviewing the proposed design,
which in turn generates opportunities to identify specific means of design
improvement. 

I'll share a related strategy. Consider: Engaging the lighting designer
and improving design doesn't require tallying the space-by-space totals.
If I recognize significant improvements can be made with revised layouts,
fixture reselection, and/or tweaked control schemes, I have found it VERY
productive to simply share with the lighting designer (and design team
leaders, if necessary) posed scenarios: "If you can reduce your installed
watts by just 10%, the LEED models will earn 2 more LEED points." "If you
define your astronomical timeswitch to shut off non-critical lighting
after 2AM, the project earns a LEED point." Such 'carrot on a stick'
proposals normally get the intended results with minimal friction, engage
the designers in a positive way ("Hey, I just earned the easiest LEED
point ever!") and performing the exploratory simulations to compose these
proposals can be a lot less effort on the modeler relative to a
standard-focused space-by-space analysis (I'm thinking of big buildings). 

>From another perspective: Some of us lighting designers are sensitive
creatures =D... We may have a tough exterior, but deep inside it hurts my
poor fragile feelings if someone claims "Standard XYZ states bla-bla-bla
and therefore you suck at your job." This advice applies to designers of
any discipline, of course. If you want to pursue improving design with a
standards-centric base, be mindful of this possibility. Making everyone
happy to be working with an energy modeler can be quite a challenge, but
the results are rewarding. Hope that was illuminating! ~Nick 

[cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org> ]
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
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org>  

[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org> ]
On Behalf Of David Eldridge Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:54 PM To:
eQuest Users Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1 

Patrick, the space-by-space LPD aren't mandatory requirements, so you'd be
able to trade lighting power through space-by-space or BAM. Someone will
have to perform the take-off either way to calculate the BAM weighted LPD
for the Proposed case, so you aren't saving much time on the Proposed
model. (Only saving the time to actually assign the Watts to the zone in
the model.) There will be a small time savings in Baseline model creation
by not determining and entering space-by-space power usage into the model.
I agree with Bill that 90.1's wording about "...if a lighting design
exists..." points me towards space-by-space if at all possible. But GBCI
seems to accept both, regardless of possible BAM inaccuracies which as
Nick pointed out may or may not be significant, so the main result of this
gigantic thread is: 

1. Use the same method in both cases. 

2. Several people think 90.1 suggests space-by-space if the lighting
system is designed. 
    a. Not always (ever?) enforced/requested by GBCI. 
    b. When the model is being used to inform the design or calculate
incentives, this is the more accurate approach if there is variance in the
spaces for control types, LPD values, and occupancy schedules. 

3. Although BAM may not provide the most accurate predictions of energy
usage, it may still be "legal" for EAC1 point calculation purposes. 

David David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus Associates 

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org>
<mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org> >
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
<http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org> ]
On Behalf Of Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr. Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:41 PM
To: Bishop, Bill Cc: eQuest Users; Oscar B. 

Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1 referencing
this comment: "The only obvious case for using the Building Area Method to
determine modeled LPD is the case that Nick mentioned where lighting
neither exists nor is specified." or when the lighting designer/electrical
engineer has higher lighting densities that exceed one (or more) of the
space-by-space maximum allowable lpds but compensates for it by having
lower lpds in other spaces such that the whole building lpd does not
exceed the maximum allowable by the whole building method. 

On 5/23/12 7:45 AM, Bishop, Bill wrote: Building Area and Space-by-Space
are not methods for designing lighting systems. They are prescriptive
requirements for demonstrating lighting energy compliance in 90.1. The LPD
allowances in Tables 9.5.1 and 9.6.1 do not need to be complied with if
using energy modeling to demonstrate compliance for 90.1 and for LEED.
(Only the Mandatory Provisions of 9.4 need to be met for the lighting
design.) Energy modelers only need to know the lighting power and space
use categorizations of the design as shown on the drawings (along with
schedules and controls), not the process used to design it (which
typically considers light levels in footcandles or lux). 

I think that if a lighting system has been designed, a strong argument can
be made that the space-by-space method needs to be used in both the
proposed and baseline cases, and that lighting power needs to be entered
individually for each space/zone. "If construction documents are complete,
the proposed building lighting system power is modeled as shown on the
design documents." (ASHRAE 90.1 User's Manual, p. G-17) "The LPD for the
proposed design is taken from the design documents for the building. The
LPD specified in the models must correspond to the spaces within each
thermal block." (ASHRAE 90.1 User's Manual, p. 11-14 and also p. G-18) The
only obvious case for using the Building Area Method to determine modeled
LPD is the case that Nick mentioned where lighting neither exists nor is
specified. As Maria Karpman, Nick and Patrick have mentioned, you are
likely to show higher energy savings using the Space-by-Space method.
Beyond that, using Space-by-Space allows you to give valuable feedback to
the design team, which I would argue is a responsibility of energy
modelers. It is routine for me to point out areas of potential improvement
of the lighting design in every project I model, based on the allowances
in Table 9.6.1. "Yes, Ms. Architect, that is a lovely looking light
fixture, but 2.6 W/ft2 of lounge lighting is more than twice the baseline
allowance." I don't know how you give helpful feedback if you are just
comparing two building-averaged lighting power densities. Regards, Bill - 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130506/d3cbd7e4/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 14059 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130506/d3cbd7e4/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- 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/20130506/d3cbd7e4/attachment-0002.jpeg>