[Bldg-sim] LEED Template

[Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.]

yep.  been around for years.  i've had this problem with leed reviewer's 
interpreting it this way all the way back to leed 2.1 even though 90.1 
is quite clear it is the building design, not heating design separate 
from cooling design.

approach from amit seems best.  does the "contact review team" show up 
somewhere in your leed 3 options?  it might be best to address the 
matter by quoting chapter & verse from 90.1 app g as you should get a 
response faster than from the main usgbc/gbci contact form.

On 6/10/11 7:58 AM, amit bhansali wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> I have had the same problem before for one of our projects. I have 
> taken the screenshot of section 1.3 in template and submitted it with 
> a narrative to GBCI explaining whats wrong with the results produced. 
> It seems that there is some mistake in their program behind that 
> form. I would suggest you to try the same.
> On 10 June 2011 09:32, Rob Hudson <rdh4176 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rdh4176 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I just need a clarification, and rather wait for a response from
>     LEED, i figured i'd ask you guys.  I looked through the archives
>     and couldn't find anything that adressed this issue.
>
>     In the most recent version of the LEED Online template, i have
>     entered in my unmet hours as follows:
>
>                                      proposed            baseline
>     unmet heating                 8                         91
>     unmet cooling                 120                       1
>
>     Now, if you sum them up and take the difference you get 128-92 =
>     36 which is a pass in my book.  However the LEED Online template
>     is saying that it isn't a pass because:
>     91-8 = 83 (Fail)
>     120-1 = 119 (Fail)
>
>     so what i then did was enter in numbers as follows:
>
>                                      proposed            baseline
>     unmet heating                 299                     250
>     unmet cooling                 299                     250
>
>     This should not be allowed to pass because proposed = 598 and
>     baseline = 500 unmet hours, even the difference is 98 ours, which
>     fails, but the LEED Online passes this scenario.
>
>     Any thoughts or has anyone dealt with this recently?
>     -- 
>     Rob Hudson
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Bldg-sim mailing list
>     http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>     To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
>     BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>     <mailto:BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Thanks
>
> Sincerely,
> Amit Bhansali, LEED Green Associate, M.S. , EIT
> Command Commissioning, LLC
> 8410, Sterling St
> Irving, TX  75063
>
> Office :(972)-929-1199 (Ext:328)
>  Mobile: (+1)972-207-5180
>              (+1)405-312-1047
>
> www.command-cx.com <http://www.command-cx.com/>
> www.godparents.in <http://www.godparents.in/>
> Please do not print this e-mail unless necessary
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110610/0da7541f/attachment-0002.htm>