[Equest-users] Baseline Rotations as per ASHRAE 90.1

Nick Caton ncaton at smithboucher.com
Tue Jul 6 09:38:05 PDT 2010


Vikram is absolutely right...

I've received a few other direct emails, and I'm afraid in creating an
example/illustration I may have been a bit broad in my brushstrokes!
The essential point I was trying to convey is, all other things being
equal, smaller envelope surface areas are generally preferable to larger
surface areas if you're trying to improve building energy performance.
I don't mean to infer a high-surface area building shape is inherently a
bad idea.  Design variables including (but not limited to) glazing
placement, building/site shading, ventilation strategy, climate,
daylighting controls and other building automation can all play a
significant part in addition to the variable of envelope surface area,
and can definitely make a non-cubic building shape make a lot of sense -
but only if done with consideration.  Re-iterating, I was also making
the point that 90.1's Appendix G "baseline rotation averaging" rule can
be misleading on the design side of things.

Simultaneously, external loads are often a good thing for at least part
of the year, as is having a degree of "thermal breathability" with the
exterior.  Free tools like Sketchup + the free IES-VE plugin are great
for quickly experimenting with a variety of building shape tweaks, and
I'd encourage anyone in the position to experiment with this process to
give it a go - you can learn a lot quickly just playing with different
tweaks and observing the effects.

Also, I was very curious to learn about this Mr./Ms. Banlave's work...
but after a bit of googling I suppose you meant balance =)?

~Nick

NICK CATON, E.I.T.
PROJECT ENGINEER
25501 west valley parkway
olathe ks 66061
direct 913 344.0036
fax 913 345.0617
Check out our new web-site @ www.smithboucher.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: Sami, Vikram [mailto:Vikram.Sami at perkinswill.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 11:04 AM
To: Nick Caton; Soham Babu; Omar Katanani;
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] Baseline Rotations as per ASHRAE 90.1

Interesting hypthesis.

I think it depends. Longer, thinner footprints work better if you are
trying to daylight you building. They also wotk better with other
passive strategies and natural ventilation. In terms of heat balance,
high internal load buildings sometimes shed loads better with more skin.

That being said - it really depends on climate and usage. Balanve point
temperature is a good way of studying this.


________________________________
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton
[ncaton at smithboucher.com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 10:52 AM
To: Soham Babu; Omar Katanani; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Baseline Rotations as per ASHRAE 90.1

Small rotational differences are typical of buildings with similar
surface areas on the east, west, north, and south elevations.  I would
only expect a significant difference if you have a very "long"
footprint, or one side of your building is largely unconditioned along
the perimeter.  Conceptually, I suppose we're being "rewarded" for
choosing an optimal orientation rotation on the building site - but if
anything we're really being rewarded for designing "long" building
footprints as they can have a larger difference against the averaged
baseline...

That said, if an architect asks me at a conceptual design stage, the
most thermally efficient building shape considering exterior surface
area is theoretically a hemisphere - barring that a "cubic," compact 3D
shape is better than any "long" shape with larger surface area for the
given volume/footprint.  If the goal is to maximize LEED points
(relative baseline performance), you might suggest a thermally
inefficient, but optimally-oriented "long" shape that will do better
than it's averaged baseline... (I wouldn't!)  If the goal is to reduce
energy consumption/utilities however for the end-users, reduce the
building shape surface area.

~Nick

[cid:image002.jpg at 01CB19CA.D1BAA770]

NICK CATON, E.I.T.
PROJECT ENGINEER
25501 west valley parkway
olathe ks 66061
direct 913 344.0036
fax 913 345.0617
Check out our new web-site @ www.smithboucher.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Soham
Babu
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:29 AM
To: Omar Katanani; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Baseline Rotations as per ASHRAE 90.1

Omar,

 Simulation for 4 rotations value will be small difference only, in some
of the cases it will be same also. it all depends upon the building
location & orientation.

Regards
Soham

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Omar
Katanani
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 12:48 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] Baseline Rotations as per ASHRAE 90.1

Dear all,

I performed a simulation of my baseline building over the 4 rotations.
The difference between the lowest consumption and the highest one out of
the 4 runs was only 1.33% (1,312,500 to 1,329,200 kWh).

Is this a normal value? This is my first project but I thought I would
have a bigger number.

Any advice out of your experience is greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,
Omar
___________________________
Omar Katanani
Sustainable Design Engineer
Email: omar at ecoconsulting.net<mailto:omar at ecoconsulting.net>

EcoConsulting (Lebanon)
Nahas Building, 4th floor
4 St-Maron Street / Georges Haddad Avenue Postal Code: 2028 5806 SAIFI
Beirut, Lebanon
Tel:          +961 (0) 1 971 255
Mobile:    +961 (0) 3 045 045

EcoConsulting (UK) Ltd
28 Marshalsea Road
London, SE1 1HF
Tel:  +44 (0) 207 939 0989
Fax:  +44 (0) 207 939 0981
Website: www.ecoconsulting.net<http://www.ecoconsulting.net/>


 [cid:image003.jpg at 01CB19CA.D1BAA770]





This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee
you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email.



More information about the Equest-users mailing list