[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [EnergyPlus_Support] ASHRAE 90.1 Proposed Design



Hello everyone, the discussion is interesting. Thank you all for the post.

Use of App G is all dependent on it's purpose. Prescriptive and Mandatory simulation methods are all that mentioned in the app G can be used during LEED rating and awarding the projects. Municipal governments or regulatory bodies would use them for general sake of identification as a green projects.

Coming back to App G guidelines Prescriptive and Mandatory, it is up to developer or project proponent who has to select the options. E.g., In India, most developers opt for pre-rating where Prescriptive method and related specifications used to comply from App G. All of us agree that Mandatory method and related specifications used to comply where whole building simulation required to compare between baseline standard building design vs proposed design to calculate energy cost savings. It is essential for LEED and carbon emission reduction project documentation. I still have some concerns over prescriptive methods, it seems it is not effective  compliance mode.
 
Arun Bhandari
eCUBE solution 
Bangalore

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 28, 2014, at 6:42 PM, "'jeannieboef@xxxxxxxxx' jeannieboef@xxxxxxxxx [EnergyPlus_Support]" <EnergyPlus_Support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

Jim is correct. In all cases the rating authority has the final say. It often also nitpicks which parts of the standard are to be met. In the case of LEED, try not to "lump" all the requirements, rather handle them one by one, credit for credit.
E.g.
LEED NC 2009 EAp2 requires
1) Manditory requirements to be at least met
2) (for this path) a simulation(s) as per App. G (which requires the proposed model to be 'as designed' and the construction U-values, g-values, etc. of the design to be assigned as per App. A. If your design documentation reflect other values for some contructions, then it is because it used other than App. A methods for deturmining them. You should include a narritive explaining deviations, but App. A takes presidence. It is also the rating value methedology used by e+ and the baseline model and is therefore keeping consistancy for proper comparison.

1) does not care about 2) and may be controlled by different people or firms. Again, the same goes for EAc1, which should be thought of as entirely different. :-)  

Mit freundlichen GrüÃ?en- Sent from my iPhone (excuse the brevity)

i. A.
Jean Marais
b.i.g. bechtold
Tel.   +49 30 6706662-23

On 28.07.2014, at 13:26, "Jim Dirkes jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [EnergyPlus_Support]" <EnergyPlus_Support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

Actually, I think Appendix G allows you to ignore the mandatory provisions for things like insulation and EER.  We discussed this recently in our office and it seems that as long as you demonstrate improved annual energy performance compared to the Baseline (which follows all of the mandatory requirements), you are OK.

 

James V Dirkes II, PE, BEMP, LEED AP
www.buildingperformanceteam.com
Energy Analysis, Commissioning & Training Services
1631 Acacia Drive, Grand Rapids, MI 49504 USA
616 450 8653

 

From: EnergyPlus_Support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:EnergyPlus_Support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:43 AM
To: EnergyPlus_Support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [EnergyPlus_Support] ASHRAE 90.1 Proposed Design

 

 

Thank you very much, Santiago.

But could you please in more detail "The building must also comply with Mandatory provisions (sections x.4), this doesn't mean that the parameters are going to be equal to either Mandatory provisions for Prescriptive requirements."?

If we do not need to change/alter some parameters, how we can comply with .....?

Regards,

Sean



---In EnergyPlus_Support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, <santiagogvelez@...> wrote :

Dear Sean, 

Appendix G PRM method requires you to model proposed design as reflected by design or 'as built'  documents. The building must also comply with Mandatory provisions (sections x.4), this doesn't mean that the parameters are going to be equal to either Mandatory provisions or Prescriptive requirements. 

 

Cheers,

Santiago.

 

2014-07-28 7:10 GMT-03:00 seanking.1970@... [EnergyPlus_Support] <EnergyPlus_Support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

 

Dear all,

 

"The simulation model of the proposed design shall be consistent with the design documents including proper accounting of fenestration and opaque envelope types and area; interior lighting power and controls; HVAC system type, sizes, and controls; and service hot water heating systems and controls."

 

Some other interpretation says "must be exactly as shown on design drawings/documents" (sorry, cannot find where now).

 

My question is: do these settings need to be modified in order to comply with the Standard's mandatory provisions and prescriptive requirements (such as envelope U-factors, efficiencies of HVAC systems)? My initial thought was we just need to follow the statements shown in first and second paragraphs above, which implies the settings in proposed design can be arbitrary. It looks like I am wrong.

 

Anybody is clear with it, please give a direction. Thanks a lot.

 

Best regards,

 

Sean

 



__._,_.___
Posted by: Arun <arynum@xxxxxxxxxxx>


Primary EnergyPlus support is found at:
http://energyplus.helpserve.com or send a message to energyplus-support@xxxxxxxx

The primary EnergyPlus web site is found at:
http://www.energyplus.gov

The group web site is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EnergyPlus_Support/

Attachments are currently allowed but be mindful that not everyone has a high speed connection.  Limit attachments to small files.

EnergyPlus Documentation is searchable.  Open EPlusMainMenu.pdf under the Documentation link and press the "search" button.




__,_._,___