[Equest-users] Voodoo Engineering
Paul Brooks
equestpaul at yahoo.com
Wed May 19 18:07:30 PDT 2010
Alex, if you look at how LEED-EB is progressing, don't be surprised if, in the not too distant future, proving ongoing sustainable building operation will be requried to keep a LEED designation.
________________________________
From: Alex Krickx <akrickx at seriousmaterials.com>
To: Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>; eQUEST Users List <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Cc: "Gregory Sarkisian, P.E." <greg at sarkassoc.com>; Ray Yunk <yunk at ksu.edu>
Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 5:46:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Voodoo Engineering
All,
If I can interject one point that hasn’t really been discussed: LEED is not just an energy tool. Forgive me if I get some of the categories wrong, but as far as I am aware there are credits for daylight provision, water savings and… exceeding the minimum outdoor requirements.
I’m under the impression that even if Building A and B have the same energy consumption per SF (or whatever metric you’d like to compare them by) building A may provide users more fresh air, more outside views, uses less water and has xx% recycled materials.
I do believe that LEED needs some work, especially in regards to comparing operational energy consumption to designed energy consumption – My personal belief is to give a design rating that expires after a few years and that a building needs to PROVE that its operations are as efficient as the proposed design.
And briefly: I’ll play devil’s advocate and say that a building should be able to use as much GREEN energy as long as it’s willing to pay for it. Sure, it’s poor practice to leave lights on overnight, but if those lights are wind-powered … well then there’s no carbon emissions and it’s just an expensive poor choice – not necessarily a climate-change inducing one.
Just because we are energy modelers doesn’t mean we should lose focus on the fact that a “green” building can have implications beyond just energy use.
My 2¢. I thought I would share it as I’ve enjoyed reading others’ opinions on this very relevant topic.
And FYI – I too am a young professional in the field fueled more by a passion and a willingness to learn than great experience.
Cheers,
Alex Krickx
Alex Krickx
Building Energy Specialist
1250 Elko Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089
(t) 408.541.8124
Warning: The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged attorney-client communications or attorney work product and/or proprietary and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient then you have received it in error and any review, distribution or copying of this message is prohibited and you are to notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete the original message immediately.
From:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:17 PM
To: eQUEST Users List
Cc: Gregory Sarkisian, P.E.; Ray Yunk
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Voodoo Engineering
John et al,
I am merely a young EIT of 2 and some-odd years, but I and surely most other practicing MEP designer/modelers fully sympathize with your frustrations. ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 (and through it, LEED) is certainly not yet a perfect standard… but the driving committees will be quick to point out nobody is saying it is (and may solicit you to volunteer/contribute to development). In any case, it’s what we must work under today... So we have to come to terms with the beast =)!
[ CAUTION: Skip this paragraph if you aren’t interested in 90.1 nuances – you’ll risk glazing your eyes over! ]
The core baseline/proposed issues you mention are agreeably arguable on a fundamental level! To pick up on your example, a glass box (well, up to 40% technically) certainly has more opportunity to demonstrate exemplary performance over its baseline than an opaque one under the current ruleset. I think however most elements of the current baseline/proposed system, including the flat 20% glazing alternative you propose, is a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don’t situation for the standard developers… In my modeling experience (from an annual energy consumption/cost perspective): “optimal glazing percentages” are not always 0% (sometimes they are), and can vary a LOT building-to-building when daylighting controls enter the mix. Site shading, building element self-shading, permanent/operable window shades, and orientations of course all play vital roles in determining a meaningful optimal window/wall ratio for any given space, but 90.1
Appendix G as written nullifies each of these variables in a somewhat heavy-handed fashion for the baseline model (sometimes the proposed also). I understand the purpose of these measures is generally to help us easily determine savings/losses based on a concept of “energy conscious building/site orientation” (which I’d argue is kind of silly in and of itself), but it’s simultaneously dumbing-down our comparative results (moving them further from reality). Removing self-shading/permanent shades for example can both hurt and help the baseline/proposed comparative performance – it’s inconsistent depending on the climate and building facade shape/orientation... I think these rules are built partly on the assumption that shades are always beneficial for annual energy consumption.
[ END OF CAUTION ]
To come back to the surface, I sleep at night by making one thing very clear to any owners/architects that care to listen (though I’ve learned some don’t want to hear it): LEED-certified buildings, even those with lots of energy modeling credits, do not inherently consume less energy or pay lower utility bills than un-certified buildings*. Comparative LEED energy models by design are not and should not be misconstrued by building owners as modeling reality. As John touches on and Carol is getting at: modeling “reality” before a building is built is guesswork at best, and is much harder and more complex than earning any LEED credits. Modeling “reality” post-construction and assuming historical bills/behaviors will repeat themselves in the future is also fundamentally guesswork – too much rides on the variability of actual building occupant behavior and actual weather.
Not to cheapen anyone’s credentials**, but when one fully understands that all energy modeling is to some small/large degree guesswork, it’s so much easier to grasp that, even at its most complex, energy modeling is simply a tool to make decisions with. In the right hands: a darn useful tool, even =)!
~Nick
*If anyone isn’t following – I would consider the following article (notably dated) required reading for anyone practicing LEED energy modeling, if only for practical perspective:
http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/mis2014leed2014ing/
This is notably a sidebar to the following, also insightful & tongue-in-cheek article by the same author:
http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-007-prioritizing-green2014it-s-the-energy-stupid
It’s not hard to google and find similar studies – LEED buildings, even those earning high certification levels, can easily consume more energy than their un-certified modern counterparts.
** I know, easy for me to say!
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
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
From:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Sarkisian, P.E.
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:16 PM
To: 'eQUEST Users List'; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Voodoo Engineering
For my two cents worth, all computer simulations are relative to something, not absolute. Energy baseline models are relative to actual utility bills. Anything within 5-10% is considered solid. All proposed models are relative to this good baseline. But as one of the replies mentioned this proposed model should always be verified in the real world.
Same is true from my days in the auto industry. We create finite element models to predict low and high speed crash simulations. We had actual performance of previous production models to baseline from, but must always verify by actual test. You would be amazed at how close we could get. Once the model is correlated to the actual test results all variances built into the model can be deemed reliable.
Building simulation models are much simpler, and in my mind very reliable – if the inputs are correct. I have not tried all of the different modeling tools, but eQuest provides a relatively friendly user-interface.
Gregory Sarkisian, P.E.
President
P: 888-393-1470
F: 888-428-4492
www.sarkassoc.com
From:Carol Gardner [mailto:cmg750 at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:42 PM
To: Eurek, John S NWO
Cc: eQUEST Users List; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Voodoo Engineering
John, you army guy you...
I suggest that you embrace the art part and get good at the science. Your model will be just as good as your input. Whats that old saw? When you point the finger you have 3 others pointing back at you. While some modeling tools might be close to beta and hard to use, eQUEST isn't one of them. Each new version has bugs, but those are relatively few and are fixed quickly. You use energy modeling to predict the energy use and energy cost of a baseline and proposed buildings. Here in Oregon we actually do follow-up and make sure the predicted came close to the actual. We call it model verification. I would recommend that you spend more time learning the art, gathering the info, creating an actual weather file if the typical one's aren't good enough for you, and very carefully inputting the data into your modeling tool of choice. I'd be happy to offer you peer review services if you ever want to make sure your work is accurate.
Best,
Carol
PS I resent the heck out of LEED paperwork and am afraid they are rulemaking creativity out of buildings. I've seen it happen over, and over, and over.....
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Eurek, John S NWO <John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil> wrote:
Varkie, I read your attached paper.
"Energy programs are external to the design process. The results are not used
to generate construction drawings." This may be my #1 beef with energy
modeling. What is the purpose?
If you say, to save energy... It does not.
I think of an artist who "wants" a glass box building. Then some intelligent
people come along and explain that this design would waste energy. They
convince him to have a smaller building with less glass. The change of design
just saved a lot of energy..... Is this counted in the model? No.
Why do we compare our buildings to themselves? I can design a turd and
polish it to LEED standards. Where are the points for having a well designed
building over a poor design? The baseline should have 20% glass... Period.
If I use 10% glass I am saving energy. Even better would be a set BTU/Ft^2,
you can do whatever you want as long as you meet the GPM like measure.
As an engineer, I think about the numbers a lot. With LEED (energy modeling)
if I have very efficient equipment I can show more energy savings by
increasing windows. (The more my model uses the equipment, the more the
efficiency difference shows up.) Then I can play all day with people
schedules, infiltration, and ect. (All I have to do is justify what I used.)
I have been involved in only 4 buildings which required energy modeling. We
used innovative new technologies. 3 of the building could not be modeled due
to limitations of the energy modeling programming. (One design used the
rejected heat from the heat pump for reheat instead of going into the loop
field. The other I used a split system and placed the condensing unit in the
mechanical room for free heat.)
Why are we being made to follow LEED (energy modeling) when the tools to do
it are so primitive. Some (Blankety blank blank *$%#!&$) is having us go
someplace where the technology is not reached. (Beta testing sucks)
It feels like we are smoking unfiltered cigarettes, driving cars with no
seatbelts, and painting with lead paint. People are going to look back at
what we did and wonder how we couldn't see how dumb we were. I see it now.
There has got to be a better way. A better way to show we are saving energy.
The sooner we find it, the better.
I found out last week that the person who's position I filled left because of
LEED (energy modeling). I can't stand this obvious misguided attempt to save
the world. As a person who values logic, every day suffering this ill-logic
is torturous.
John Eurek
LEEP AP
P.S. Eric the energy model IS a statistical analysis. You assume a weather
pattern, you assume a occupantacy schedule, you assume the activity level,
you assume the amount the printer is used, the computer use, the number of
times the elevator is used. You assume everything about a pretend senario
and get a pretend number.
There must be a better way to prove an energy efficient design. (My company
usually works late hours, most people do, are we to model this? We could, we
could not, we can make up so much.) We need a solid baseline... Not
statistical models.
P.P.S. It will all be smoke and mirrors until start looking at actual energy
usage per square foot. If you want to use models to predict it, okay.
Results matter, but not in LEED (energy modeling).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvCP3s7Xq48
-----Original Message-----
From: Varkie C Thomas [mailto:thomasv at iit.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:08 AM
To: Eurek, John S NWO
Subject: Voodoo Engineering
Academia institutions and research centers tend to attach disproportionate
amount of importance to energy modeling. Most them have not dealt with real
buildings. Attached are my views on energy modeling.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eurek, John S NWO" <John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:14 am
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set for Oregon
>
> I would prefer Lynn work to ban/destroy/do-away-with energy modeling.
>
> Any chance this voo-doo engineering will go away any time soon?
> It is only
> statistical analysis with no meaningful/useful results for anyone.
>
> As a community I think we are going in the wrong direction for the
> rightgoals.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Carol
> Gardner
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:30 AM
> To: Scott Criswell
> Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; curt.strobehn at eesinet.com
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set for Oregon
>
> All,
>
> Lynn Bellenger will soon be the first female president of
> ASHRAE..ASHRAE is
> 117 years young. Lynn's goal is to improve energy modeling. She is a
> PE and a BEMP and a LEED AP. She has even more letters after her name
> but you will have to ask her. She deserves every one of them. Lynn
> rocks. If I was a betting woman, I would bet on Lynn to try to get
> this done. You will see I have attempted to cc her on this. I have
> also bcc'd her to make sure she gets the message.
>
> A good night to all and to all a good night!
>
> Carol
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Scott Criswell
> <scott.criswell at doe2.com>wrote:
>
>
> There is no work to my knowledge either proposed or under development
> that would result in 90.1-2004 or 2007 compliance analysis.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> Paul Buchheit wrote:
>
> Hello Scott,
>
> Thanks for the help on this question.
> Is there anything available now or in the works for ASHRAE
> 90.1-2004 or 2007 compliance analysis?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Buchheit
> Mechanical Engineer
> EESI
> phone: 541-754-1062
> fax: 541-753-3948
> paul.buchheit at eesinet.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Criswell <mailto:scott.criswell at doe2.com>
>
> To: curt.strobehn at eesinet.com
> Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set for
> Oregon
>
> Correction on Carol's response -
> There is no "compliance analysis" ruleset for either
> Oregon or 90.1-2004. What Carol was referring to in eQUEST v3.63 (and
> later) is a jurisdiction-based defaulting mechanism within the
> building
> creationwizard(s) that includes Oregon-specific selections and
> defaults (which are based on the Oregon energy code).
>
> Compliance Analysis is quite a different feature.
> The CA Title-24 compliance analysis feature enables users to press the
> compliance analysis button in the interface (the button Curt pressed
> which resulted in the message he circulated) to initiate a mechanism
> that performs a complete, performance-based compliance analysis on the
> proposed buildingdesign loaded into eQUEST.
> Two additional features are on the near horizon with
> regards to compliance analysis in eQUEST -
> (1) a LEED baseline generation ruleset which does not
> perform a complete LEED analysis but does generate a LEED (90.1-2007
> Appendix-G) baseline model based on a user's proposed design.
> This is
> included in v3.64 which should be made available in the coming weeks
> (pending CEC certification).
> (2) compliance analysis based on Canada's MNECB
> ruleset - to be included in a Canadian derivative of eQUEST, called
> CAN-QUEST. Not sure of the exact release date for CAN-QUEST, but I
> can tell you that users are training on it today @ the eSIM conference
> in
> Winnipeg.
> There is nothing in the works to my knowledge in
terms
> of developing a compliance analysis capability for Oregon.
>
> - Scott
>
>
> Carol Gardner wrote:
>
> Hi Curt.
>
> The Oregon rule set is in VS 3.63. I helped
> Scott put it there. When you select your city in Oregon you will see
> the Oregon rules. In your email you say 90.1-2004. The Oregon
> compliance rule set is probably 2004 I just don't have time to confirm
> for sure.
>
> Good Luck,
> Carol
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Curtis
> Strobehn <curt.strobehn at eesinet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello all,
> Need help.
> Is there an ASHRAE 90.1-2004 rule set
> file that can be downloaded and used
> for compliance
> analysis.
>
> See attachment
>
> Thanks,
>
> Curt
>
>
> EESI
> phone: 541-754-1062
> fax: 541-753-3948
> Curt.strobehn at eesinet.com
> paul.buchheit at eesinet.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list
> send a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carol Gardner PE
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a
> blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank
> message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carol Gardner PE
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
--
Carol Gardner PE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100519/5e17bb4d/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list