[Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1

[RobertWichert]

Thanks very much to both of you.  This has been very helpful.  I will 
try to return the favor some time.


Cheers!



Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C
+1 916 966 9060
FAX +1 916 966 9068







===============================================

On 5/6/2013 8:43 AM, Nathan Miller wrote:
>
> 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, LEED^® AP BD+C, CEM*
>
> /Mechanical Engineer/Senior Energy Analyst /
>
> *RUSHING*| *D*206-788-4577 |*O*206-285-7100
>
> *Our new web site:****www.rushingco.com <http://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> 
> [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 
> <mailto: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-users%5D%20Building%20area%20method%20ASHRAE%2090.1&In-Reply-To=%3CECDF361A89E5FA479BE7E64C658B52050D8E2006%40SANDBINC4.sbi.smithboucher.com%3E>
>           <mailto:equest-users%40lists.onebuilding.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEquest-users%5D%20Building%20area%20method%20ASHRAE%2090.1&In-Reply-To=%3CECDF361A89E5FA479BE7E64C658B52050D8E2006%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 <http://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/e4430085/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/e4430085/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/e4430085/attachment-0002.jpeg>