[Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
Arpan Bakshi
arpanbakshi at gmail.com
Fri May 13 12:59:42 PDT 2011
Any reason these efforts cannot be merged with BEMbook? I feel the community
really wants something like BEMbook as soon as possible.
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Jeff Haberl <jhaberl at tamu.edu> wrote:
> Jason.
>
> I'd suggest you think about an ASHRAE protocol, or Guideline first, then a
> standard. I also think IBPSA/USA could easily get behind this. I'd be happy
> to be a part of the group.
>
> Jeff
> BB 8=! 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=( 8=) :=') 8=) 8=) 8=? BB
>
> Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D., P.E., FASHRAE...................jhaberl at tamu.edu
>
> Professor......................................................Office Ph:
> 979-845-6507
>
> Department of Architecture.......................Lab Ph: 979-845-6065
>
> Energy Systems Laboratory.......................FAX: 979-862-2457
>
> Texas A&M University..............................77843-3581
>
> College Station, Texas, USA.......................URL: www-esl.tamu.edu
>
> BB 8=/ 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=() 8=) 8=? 8=) 8=) 8= BB
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jason Glazer [mailto:jglazer at gard.com]
> Sent: Fri May 13 11:35:01 2011
> To: bldg-sim at onebuilding.org <bldg-sim at onebuilding.org>
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
>
> I have been thinking about trying to establish a new
> standard at ASHRAE that I tentatively titled:
>
> "Simulation Aided Design for High Performance Buildings"
>
> The new standard, once deveoped, could be referenced by
> USGBC and other organizations. The concept is similar to the
> direction that USGBC is considering. Attached is a draft
> describing the concept. I think having a group of practicing
> simulation consultants would be key to making such a
> standard usable and adopted.
>
> Please let me know if you have any comments and if you would
> be interested in participating in developing a new standard.
> If I have enough interest, I will submit the necessary
> paperwork to ASHRAE to get this considered.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jason
>
> On 5/13/2011 11:00 AM, Nick Caton wrote:
> > Arpan/Omar and others, apologies for continuing to diverge
> > on the original thread with this sub-topic!
> >
> > Marcus and other EA TAG members,
> >
> > I have a few ‘informal’ thoughts for discussion of the draft
> > language below… sorry for the wall of text, but I hope
> > you’ll find this useful feedback!
> >
> > 1.Overall, the process described below sounds very much like
> > our regular practice with certain clients, who are very into
> > EUI metrics (2030 challenge).
> >
> > 2.I think the credit language should be expanded (and
> > perhaps the onebuilding.org lists should be separately
> > engaged) to suggest more examples of what may be appropriate
> > studies for “Preliminary modeling.” Many will not be
> > familiar with the process and be stuck for ideas of what to
> > explore. In my experience, such modeling most often focuses
> > on early decisions regarding HVAC system selection, envelope
> > materials/finishes, glazing quantity/placement/orientation,
> > building shades (fixed and otherwise), and active/passive
> > day lighting design. I would note that this is often an
> > ideal time to investigate the energy effects of landscaping
> > on the building, as site layout tends to be locked down
> > early in the design process…
> >
> > 3.Potential for a game-killing conflict: A key feature of
> > such early modeling work is that much of it is very fast and
> > “loose.” The level of documentation/procedure involved in
> > today’s EAc1/EAp2 validation models is something I’d still
> > call “intense,” and still takes up a large fraction of the
> > time spent altogether on an energy model. I’m not new to
> > the game, and I’ve certainly learned to streamline my
> > workflow, but I’m sure there’s no place for *that* degree of
> > rigorous documentation in the early stages of design. I
> > suspect many architects would be quick to drop the idea of
> > engaging their energy modelers early on if they become a
> > “ball and chain” holding up the design process. It would
> > appear on this draft of the language that someone has this
> > issue in mind, but I wanted to vocalize this concern
> > separately so that this doesn’t get missed!
> >
> > 4.Regarding metrics: EUI, due to the 2030 challenge, is the
> > driving force causing local architects to engage us so early
> > on projects, and for that I have to give it props... While
> > metrics like EUI & Carbon footprint may be the best metric
> > for measuring impact on polar bear habitats (?), the best
> > metric with regard to most building owners, and their
> > perception of the “validity” of the whole process, is
> > unquestionably utility bills. I wouldn’t discourage the
> > use of alternative metrics, but I’d caution against
> > requiring any alternative metrics that may be at odds with
> > the owner’s best interests...
> >
> > 5.Validation models based on the construction documents (as
> > they exist today) are not a bad thing. They are necessary
> > to prevent value engineering from decimating an otherwise
> > great building towards the end of design. I would be wary
> > of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If preliminary
> > modeling is going to be incorporated into LEED, it should
> > start out as either as a prerequisite or as a separate
> > credit (perhaps pulling points from the large pool available
> > under EAc1)… not as a replacement of the validation model.
> > At some point in the future, they may become one and the
> > same credit, but I think standards broader than 90.1
> > Appendix G will need to be written and established first,
> > which incorporate practices and procedures for preliminary
> > modeling (as others are saying).
> >
> > 6.I LIKE the inclusion of the ability to use past
> > studies/design. This mirrors real-world practice and
> > permits/encourages proven design to carry into multiple
> > projects. Keep that!
> >
> > 7.I LIKE the focus being on the analysis, not the decisions
> > made. This also reflects real-world decision making, which
> > always balances budget and other constraints against
> > relative energy impact.
> >
> > 8.Julia’s concern regarding prescribing a set # of
> > studies/analyses is pertinent and deserves consideration.
> > Not all projects require a huge investment of time in
> > preliminary studies, and not all projects would benefit…
> > then again, these sorts of studies sometimes cause design
> > teams to learn something they didn’t set out to explore.
> > The bar has to be set somewhere, and I can’t think of a
> > better alternative than a minimum number of
> > studies/iterations per building area (envelope/glazing/HVAC
> > options, etc…).
> >
> > To the broader concern of inefficient strip mall/prototype
> > projects – I’d agree LEED likely isn’t the tool to reign
> > that issue in… Developers award this sort of work to design
> > teams who are fast and efficient at cranking out a design
> > that will pass review and minimize first costs/CA. They
> > don’t budget for weeks on quality energy modeling. The only
> > effective tools to drive down such “fire-and-forget”
> > projects are the prescriptive energy codes, and their
> > effective/actual enforcement by local reviewers. Those
> > codes and their adoption/enforcement drive the market to
> > produce better products at an economical price point.
> >
> > Hope that helps!
> >
> > ~Nick
> >
> > cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB**
> >
> > **
> >
> > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.***
> >
> > PROJECT ENGINEER
> >
> > Smith & Boucher Engineers
> >
> > 25501 west valley parkway
> >
> > olathe ks 66061
> >
> > direct 913 344.0036
> >
> > fax 913 345.0617
> >
> > www.smithboucher.com__
> >
> > *From:*bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf
> > Of *Julia Beabout
> > *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 9:22 AM
> > *To:* sheffer at energyopportunities.com;
> > bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
> >
> > Omar,
> > This is cracking me up. I don't think I've ever seen this
> > much traffic on one issue! LOL.
> > Regarding the manhours for a LEED model - my opinion is that
> > the amount of time has much more to do with the level of
> > certification the project is going for, at what point the
> > modeling services are engaged in the design, and the type
> > and complexity of the building (systems). That's not to say
> > the number of manhours is completely independent of building
> > size (square footage), but its not particularly sensitive to
> > it. I find that that there is a high "low" and low "high"
> > for modeling. In other words, it's hard to complete an
> > energy model in less than 60-80 hours (all said and done -
> > paperwork, LEED responses etc), but it rarely take more than
> > 250 hours. (Although, some rare complex projects going for
> > platinmum could take up to 350 hours). Like others, I find
> > the norm for a reasonably complex bldg going for LEED silver
> > or gold typically requires between 120 and 160 hours.
> >
> > Marcus
> > Here's my two cents on below. I will look for the public
> > comment period as well. Thanks for the heads up.
> > I think the idea of incentivizing modeling early in the
> > design is a great idea, but I think requiring it is
> > completely inappropriate. Perhaps it could be encouraged by
> > awarding an extra (innovation? or EA cr 1?) point for
> > starting modeling in schematic design. Or, perhaps the
> > credit could be restructured similar to the CX credits where
> > in order to get the enhanced CX credits, you have to have
> > the CX agent involved early in the design. In some ways, the
> > current set up already does this though with the progress
> > points for increased levels of saving. Quite frankly, if you
> > are going for 50% savings, you're not gonig to get there
> > unless you start modeling really early in the process.
> >
> > I also think prescribing a certain minimum number of ECMs to
> > look at is inappropriate and would probably have the adverse
> > effect of discouraging energy modeling. The appropriate
> > number of ECMs is highly project dependent - based on
> > building size, scope, complexity, type, level of LEED
> > certification shooting for, and not least of all the owner's
> > budget. Let's face it, the vast majority of bldgs out there
> > and that consume most of the energy in the US are (strip)
> > malls, grocery stores, restaurants etc. These projects
> > barely event have a schematic, design and CD phase. While we
> > all love to work on the exotic, platinum level, cutting
> > edge, bldgs that are likely to have a large budget for
> > design, these are not the majority of bldgs consuming
> > energy. I think we should be doing more to encourage
> > modeling and energy savings amongst the every day projects
> > than the "sexy" projects. It seems to me the best way to do
> > this is to offer incentives in this direction in lieu of
> > prescriptive requirements that could discourage/put off
> > smaller projects from even attempting to incorporate modeling.
> >
> > Julia
> >
> > *From:*bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf
> > Of *Will Mak
> > *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 8:14 AM
> > *To:* sheffer at energyopportunities.com;
> > bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
> >
> > Do you know where we can get a copy of the existing draft?
> > I’d like to look more into the new wordage for EAp2/EAc1 and
> > how energy modeling will have to evolve once that new rating
> > system is released.
> >
> > *William Mak, LEED Green Associate*
> > Mechanical Design Engineer
> >
> > *EPSTEIN*
> > Architecture
> > Interiors
> > Engineering
> > Construction
> >
> > 600 West Fulton Street
> > Chicago, Illinois 60661-1259
> >
> > D: (312) 429-8116
> > F: (312) 429-8800
> >
> > E:wmak at epsteinglobal.com <mailto:wmak at epsteinglobal.com>
> > W:www.epsteinglobal.com <http://www.epsteinglobal.com/>
> >
> > þEpstein is a firm believer in sustainability. We ask that
> > you please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> >
> > *From:*bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf
> > Of *Marcus Sheffer
> > *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 7:17 AM
> > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
> >
> > If anyone has any good ideas about how to structure the LEED
> > credits to end the practice of validation models at the end
> > and encourage/require design phase modeling the folks on the
> > USGBC EA TAG would love to hear them. The current proposed
> > credit language from the first public comment phase is
> > listed below.
> >
> > NC, CS, SCHOOLS, RETAIL, WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION CENTERS,
> > HOSPITALITY
> >
> > Establish an energy performance target no later than the
> > schematic design phase. The target must be established as
> > kBTU per square foot-year of source energy use. This target
> > must be mapped on the same scale as the baseline and
> > proposed buildings, if the project follows Option 1.
> >
> > OPTION 1. Whole Building Energy Simulation
> >
> > Analyze a minimum of at least nine efficiency measures
> > during the design process and account for the results in
> > design decision-making. Analysis can include energy
> > simulation of efficiency opportunities, application of past
> > energy simulation analyses for similar projects to the
> > project, or application of published data from energy
> > analyses performed for similar projects to the project (such
> > as AEDGs).
> >
> > A minimum of six energy efficiency measures focused on load
> > reduction strategies appropriate for the facility must be
> > analyzed. This analysis must be performed during the
> > schematic design phase.
> >
> > A minimum of three energy efficiency measures focused on
> > HVAC related strategies must be analyzed (passive measures
> > are acceptable). This analysis must be performed before the
> > conclusion of the design development phase.
> >
> > The results of the analysis must be summarized in a brief
> > report or memorandum.
> >
> > The next version of LEED will be going out for public
> > comment again in July, I think, so please comment formally
> > as well as discussing here.
> >
> > Marcus Sheffer
> >
> > Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company
> >
> > 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365
> >
> > 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com
> > <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com>
> >
> > www.sevengroup.com <http://www.sevengroup.com>
> >
> > *From:*John Aulbach [mailto:jra_sac at yahoo.com]
> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:46 PM
> > *To:* Carol Gardner; Marcus Sheffer
> > *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
> >
> > OK, Carol..now you threw the "bait" out there..older than
> > dirt, eh?
> >
> > I have done very limited LEED "type" modeling where you
> > compare 20 walls and 40 windows types (well, it seemed that
> > way). Correct me if I am wrong, but a Base model must be
> > built to comply with a certain level of ASHRAE 90.1 (now up
> > to 2010 ??). With all of the nuisances of eQuest 3.64, I am
> > going to build the model from scrathc and put in all the
> > relevant baseline data in by hand. And, by the way, the
> > ASHRAE baseline model might be an entirely different system.
> > I am just completing an EPACT evaluation (ASHRAE 90.1-2001)
> > and the Baseline HVAC was screwe chillers, whereas the
> > Actual building was packaged units with Turbocor compressors
> > (ask me how I did that).
> >
> > It very much depends on the complexity of the building. A
> > 40,000 sf office or a 500,000 sf hotel with casino facilites.
> >
> > I am unfamiliar with the LEED paperwork to be filled out
> > after the modeling has been done. But I would not do
> > anything of this type in under 120 hours, preferably 160
> > hours. If the client thinks he can do better, let him.
> >
> > Contingency, contingency.
> >
> > We won't discuss how old CAROL might be..
> >
> > John A.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:*Carol Gardner <cmg750 at gmail.com>
> > *To:* sheffer at energyopportunities.com
> > *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> > *Sent:* Thu, May 12, 2011 2:59:12 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
> >
> > Marcus,
> >
> > You have inadvertently hit upon why IBPSA worked with ASHRAE
> > to create a BEMP certification. That's Building Energy
> > Modeling Professional (BEMP).
> >
> > Some of us who have been in the field for awhile began to
> > worry a couple of years ago when so many new energy modelers
> > began appearing on the listserv with questions. Their
> > questions indicated a lack of training and experience that
> > was worrisome. What made it worrisome was that they didn't
> > seem to realize that they were as inexperienced as they
> > were; they didn't appear to be pursuing training to learn
> > how to do what they were doing; and we were uncertain as to
> > how or if they were practicing quality control. We hoped
> > that by creating a path to certification that we would give
> > clients one more qualification to look for in their modelers.
> >
> > If you have been in this industry for any length of time,
> > and by industry I mean the overall construction industry,
> > you know that you don't get a lot of chances if your work
> > doesn't pan out. If your energy model says I have a LEED
> > Gold building and I'm going to save $4,000/year and what I
> > really get is LEED Silver and $1,000/year, I am not going to
> > be happy. So, I will probably not give you any more work
> > but, even worse for all of us, I'll start expressing doubts
> > about the whole process. LEED - what is it good for?
> >
> > So, now we all have more training, right? We read our ASHRAE
> > Handbooks and technical manuals so we know how to model the
> > difficult stuff. We can find any topic in the DOE2 Manuals,
> > all of which are one line, available, and easily searchable.
> >
> > So now we are so good we can do these models in 40-80 hours.
> > Really? Not me and I've been doing it longer than everyone,
> > except you, John Aulbach. So I'm going to join Marcus in his
> > rant because he's on to something.
> >
> > It's up to us to not under bid this work. It's up to us to
> > educate our clients about the importance of quality in this
> > process. If they think they are getting the same analysis in
> > 40 hours that they used to get in 120 hours, they need to be
> > led around to rethinking that and to be reminded that GIGO.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> > Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Marcus Sheffer
> > <sheffer at energyopportunities.com
> > <mailto:sheffer at energyopportunities.com>> wrote:
> >
> > In our experience a final model, done right, would take
> > about 80 hours.
> >
> > WARNING – frustrated modeling rant to follow:
> >
> > Doing just a final model however completely misses the
> > point as to why we model – it is to guide design decisions!
> >
> > If I saw this RFP and all it asked me for was a model to
> > determine LEED points, during or after design, I would
> > try to educate the potential client about the purpose of
> > modeling.
> >
> > Unfortunately too many projects pursuing LEED are only
> > doing the minimum when it comes to modeling and almost
> > completely missing all the benefits. Too often the
> > “market” transforms only based on a least first cost
> > denominator basis that results in little real
> > transformation. Doing models to determine LEED points
> > does not transform the market, save any energy, and just
> > circumvents the purpose behind LEED. (the next version
> > actually requires design phase modeling!)
> >
> > Any “modeler” who does only final models without
> > attempting to explain to the owner why this is a bad
> > idea should be “drummed out of the corp” in my humble
> > opinion.
> >
> > The problem is that if you respond to this RFP with 120
> > or 160 or more hours to really do the design phase
> > modeling right, you will go up against the “modeler” who
> > claims to be able to do it in far less time. So how do
> > we get the folks who issue the RFPs to ask for a proper
> > scope of work so that they can compare fees on a level
> > playing field? It is unfortunate that we are even having
> > a discussion about doing modeling work in opposition to
> > its purpose.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant but I feel better now. J
> >
> > Marcus Sheffer
> >
> > Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company
> >
> > 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365
> >
> > 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com
> > <mailto:sheffer at sevengroup.com>
> >
> > www.sevengroup.com <http://www.sevengroup.com/>
> >
> > *From:*bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> > <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
> > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> > <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On
> > Behalf Of *Demba Ndiaye
> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 4:28 PM
> > *To:* Omar Delgado; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> > <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
> >
> > Omar,
> >
> > I would expect, for a building this size, approximately
> > 40 hours (multiply by your hourly rate). The 40 hours
> > include EAp2/EAc1 LEED documentation, and any review you
> > may have to respond to later.
> >
> > Now, given that you have never done a LEED model, it
> > will take you more time, possibly up to 40 more hours.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > _______________
> >
> > Demba NDIAYE
> >
> > *From:*bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> > <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
> > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> > <mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On
> > Behalf Of *Omar Delgado
> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:08 PM
> > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> > <mailto:bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
> > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Energy Model Cost
> >
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > I have a question regarding the cost of an energy model
> > for a LEED project. Every energy model I've done so far
> > has been for
> >
> > existing buildings, mainly for optimization purposes.
> > However, I received an RFP to model a five-story, 41,500
> > sq. ft. building
> >
> > that's currently on the design phase and is pursuing the
> > LEED-NC Silver certification. I really have no idea what
> > would be a fair
> >
> > price for this model since I'm going to have to use
> > Appendix G (ASHRAE 90.1) to evaluate the difference
> > between the base
> >
> > and proposed buildings. I don't know how much extra
> > effort this will take. I know the procedure, just
> > haven't done it before.
> >
> > Can you shed any light on this issue?
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > /Omar A. Delgado Colón, P.E., MEnvM., LEED AP BD&C/
> >
> > /Vice President/
> >
> > *EnerMech*
> >
> > PMB 340
> >
> > 130 Winston Churchill Ave.
> >
> > San Juan, PR 00926-6018
> >
> > Cel. (787) 224-6537
> >
> > odelgado at enermechpr.com <http://odelgado@enermechpr.com>
> >
> > info at enermechpr.com <mailto:info at enermechpr.com>
> >
> > www.enermechpr.com <http://www.enermechpr.com/>
> >
> > cid:image004.gif at 01CAF34A.CAB15830 /Please consider your
> > environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail/
> >
> > This Email is covered by the Electronics Communications
> > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is legally
> > priviliged. The information in this email is personal
> > and confidential and is intended solely for the
> > addressee(s). Access to this email by anyone else is
> > unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient, you
> > must not read, use or disseminate the information
> > contained in the email. Any views expressed in this
> > message are those of the individual sender and may be
> > subject to Attorney/Client privilege and/or Work
> > Product. You are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> > distribution or copying of this communications is
> > strictly prohibited.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carol Gardner PE
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> --
> Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair
> Admin for onebuilding.org building performance mailing lists
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Arpan Bakshi,* *LEED AP BD+C
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110513/d55de493/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the Bldg-sim
mailing list