[Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

[Brenda V. Morawa]

Paul,

 

Perhaps you should volunteer your time on the ASHRAE 90.1 committee.

 

Brenda V. Morawa, PE, QCxP, HPBDP, LEED AP

President/Principal

Co-Vice Chair, USGBC Implementation Committee

BVMELogo3jpg

BVM Engineering, Inc.

834 Inman Village Parkway

Suite 230

Atlanta, Georgia 30307

404.806.2018 x 101

(c)404.210.6593

 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grahovac
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:55 AM
To: sheffer at energyopportunities.com; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

I am sure there is just as much baseline for air leakage reduction benefit
as there is for the concrete walls and wooden studs that the User's Manual
says can be modeled and their energy savings captured for inclusion in the
overall modeling results.

 

I cannot accept that the USGBC and ASHRAE can arbitrarily say reduction in
air leakage will not be considered, but that increases in thermal mass
energy-savings from using concrete walls or energy benefits from using
wooden studs will be used to compute building energy performance.  This
obviously rewards concrete block producers and wood stud suppliers and
penalizes air barrier suppliers.  

 

I'm reminded of Lord Acton's famous observation:  "Power corrupts, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely."  Fortunately, even the power of
organizations like ASHRAE and USGBC are subject to some ultimate check.
Such organizations are prohibited by law from arbitrary practices that favor
one group over another.  Below are excerpts from the leading United States
Supreme Court case on the subject. 

 

Paul Grahovac, LEED AP

 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corporation, 

456 U.S. 556, 102 S.Ct. 1935, 72 L.Ed.2d. 330

(1982), Supreme Court Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority:

 

"Furthermore, a standard setting organization like ASME can be rife with

opportunities for anti competitive activity. Many of ASME's officials are

associated with members of the industries regulated by ASME's codes.

Although, undoubtedly, most serve ASME without concern for the interests of

their corporate employers, some may well view their positions with ASME, at

least in part, as an opportunity to benefit their employers. When the great

influence of ASME's reputation is placed at their disposal, the less
altruistic of

ASME's agents have an opportunity to harm their employers' competitors

through manipulation of ASME's codes."

ID.., at 571, 102 S.Ct., at 1946.

 

In American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed
a jury

verdict that awarded treble damages to the company that was injured by
certain members of the

trade organization that had manipulated the trade organization and its role
in the industry to set

standards designed to enrich those members' corporation and diminish the
ability of its

competitors to fairly compete in the marketplace. In deciding to hold the
trade organization

responsible for the actions of its members, the Court explained:

 

"It is true that imposing liability on ASME's agents themselves will have
some

deterrent effect, because they will know that if they violate antitrust laws
through

their participation in ASME, they risk the consequences of personal civil
liability.

But if, in addition, ASME is civilly liable for the antitrust violations of
its agents

acting with apparent authority, it is much more likely that similar
antitrust

violation will not occur in the future. "Pressure will be brought on the

organization to see to it that its agents abide by the law." United States
v. A&P

Trucking Co., 358 U.S. 121, 126, 79 S.Ct. 203, 207, 3 L.Ed.2d 165 (1958).
Only

ASME can take systematic steps to make improper conduct on the part of all
its

agents unlikely, and the possibility of civil liability will inevitably be a
powerful

incentive for ASME to take those steps. Thus, a rule that imposes liability
on the

standard setting organization- which is best situated to prevent antitrust
violations

through the abuse of its reputation-is most faithful to the congressional
intent that

the private right of action deters antitrust violations."

14:., at 572-573, 102 S.Ct., at 1946.

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Marcus Sheffer [mailto:sheffer at energyopportunities.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 8:22 AM
To: Paul Grahovac; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

As I understand it the issue is that the 90.1 Standard does not establish a
base line condition for air leakage so no savings can be claimed.  I
certainly agree that the savings are real and should be counted.  I know
that the Appendix G committee has this issue on their extensive "to do"
list.

 

Marcus Sheffer, Chair - USGBC EA TAG

7group

 

 

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Paul Grahovac
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:00 PM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Air leakage, LEED, and Appendix G of ASHRAE 90.1

 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did an extensive
study documenting a greater than 40% natural gas savings and a greater than
25% electricity savings across the nation for building energy consumption if
buildings were uniformly constructed with air barrier systems installed.
They evaluated 116 existing buildings and computer modeled several different
building types.  The purpose of their study was to provide information to
ASHRAE concerning whether it would be desirable to add an air barrier
requirement to ASHRAE 90.1.

 

As a result, I've always thought that Appendix G to ASHRAE 90.1 allows you
to change the air leakage rate off the default and onto a rate corresponding
to an air barrier installation, so that you could claim LEED points for the
corresponding energy savings.  However, an architect at a presentation I did
said you could not do that under the LEED and ASHRAE requirements.  (I know
the models will do it, because I've done it on the TRANE model and obtained
results that support the NIST findings.)

 

I see in Appendix G that:  "G3.1.2.5. Ventilation.  Minimum outdoor air
ventilation rates shall be the same for the proposed and baseline building
designs."  However, I searched the document for "outdoor air ventilation"
and the phrase occurs only in the context of mechanical systems that are
designed to intentionally bring air into the building.  If this section is
the basis for concluding that air leakage barriers should be left out of the
modeling, then I have trouble understanding why.

 

Appendix G says that all components of the building are to be modeled as
designed.  That would preclude modeling as if an air barrier system did not
exist in the design.  It says the baseline building model is to have
steel-framed above-grade walls, and it is silent about the design building,
but the User's Manual says that if the design building walls are block or
cast concrete, then "the mass is credited in the building performance rating
method."  Likewise, if the walls are wood stud instead of steel, then the
Manual says credit is given for the superior energy performance of wood
frame versus steel frame.  The User's Manual states that it:  "Offers
information on the intent and application of Standard 90.1."  Given these
examples in the Manual based on existing thermal mass energy-saving data and
wood-versus-steel stud energy data, it is difficult to conclude that a wall
that is constructed with materials meeting the air leakage limits and
installation requirements of the Air Barrier Association of America and
determined to produce significant energy savings by the NIST study based on
those same limits and requirements should be modeled as if it leaked air
like a building without an air barrier. 

 

Please let me know what you think, and if you know of any reason why it is
not proper to change the air leakage rate through the building envelope in
the design model to show the benefit of air barriers.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul Grahovac, LEED AP

R-GUARD Air & Water-Resistive Barrier Product Manager

PROSOCO, Inc.

3741 Greenway Circle

Lawrence, Kansas  66046

(785) 830-7355

(888) 376-3417 fax

pgrahovac at prosoco.com

web site  http://www.prosoco.com/

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090824/a0fc1f32/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2325 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090824/a0fc1f32/attachment-0001.jpeg>