[Equest-users] LEED-parking garage question/advice needed

[Pasha Korber-Gonzalez]

Hi Nick,

I can't remember how long you've been modeling, but your advice exudes
'knowledge beyond your years.'   At least from my perspective, I didn't
think I could have it a win-win situation for this project, but I like your
approach.

Also, thanks for pointing out the idea of garages being nothing more than
building shades & process/ltg loads   I hadn't thought of inputting the
"idea" of the garage as building shades.  :)

Importing the separate models into one later on seems daunting & tedious,
but with the separate-to-one approach I guess it can always be an option
that I decide later if it seems necessary, or for comparative purposes & a
chance at a sensitivity analysis...

I always appreciate the multitude of intelligent answers and supportive
comments from fellow simulators on this list.  Now we can keep moving
forward until the next hurdle.

Thanks,
Pasha  :)

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com> wrote:

>  A few extra thoughts,
>
>
>
> In line with Jeremy’s suggestion regarding a campus model being a useful
> approach… Perhaps you can have your cake and eat it too?
>
>
>
> The new (3.64) wizard screens have a new input field for each shell that
> allow you to assign custom prefixes suffixes to each shell – if you utilize
> this while making separate files (prefix each group of shells with N#,E#,S#,
> W#), and make a point to define your geometries from a holistic CAD
> reference, I’ll bet you can end up with 4 distinct files that will all
> import cleanly into each other when all’s said and done as a final step…
> you’d want to continue the nomenclature when defining things in detailed
> mode of course.
>
>
>
> I haven’t submitted but one garage for LEED, but I’m of the opinion any
> unconditioned garage isn’t anything more complicated than a collection of
> building shades and/or process / external lighting loads to an eQuest
> modeler!  To Kristy’s cautions, one can easily define multiple exterior
> lighting loads (up to 10 I think) – with distinct magnitudes and/or
> scheduling… allowing you to model interior/perimeter and daytime/nighttime
> controls.  Photocell scheduling functions are available for perimeter
> lighting as well.
>
>
>
> Pasha, it’ll ultimately come down to how you want to move forward, but 4
> separate models sounds like it might work for you:  Each would feature
> distinct component prefixes and building shades mimicking the entire garage,
> but external lighting/process loads representing a quarter of the garage.
> When the time comes that a campus model is desireable for whatever reason,
> you can delete the garage-shades in models 2,3 and 4, and import into #1,
> then modify your exterior loads to ensure you’re modeling the full garage.
>
>
>
> If you desire extra accuracy in the separate models, you may want to
> consider creating some building shades to represent the other 3 buildings –
> but you’d want to delete those later when importing the files together for a
> campus  model...
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *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 *Pasha
> Korber-Gonzalez
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 05, 2010 9:05 AM
> *To:* Jeremy Poling
> *Cc:* eQUEST Users List
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] LEED-parking garage question/advice needed
>
>
>
> Thanks Jeremy,
>
> I wasn't aware of the 5-year metering requirement for Energy Star...that
> does help me 'accept' the advice for the model a bit more.  However, it
> still doesn't sit right with me to split a buiding amongst several model
> files for the same reason that you mentioned about disproportionate sim
> results.
>
> I liked your observations for the finished model--thanks for sharing your
> experience on that.  I also like the idea of doing a separate model for the
> garage itself with the approach of keeping all the models in separate files,
> but I think I will have to reconsider the multi-files approach versus
> inputting all 5 structures into one model file.   hmmmm......
>
> pkg
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Jeremy Poling <jpoling at epsteinglobal.com>
> wrote:
>
> As a note, the USGBC reviewer’s advice is in line with the requirements of
> Energy Star for detached buildings on a campus with shared parking: for
> separate buildings on a campus, the parking area (surface and/or garage)
> must be divided between the buildings when entered into Portfolio Manager.
> If this is a LEED 2009 project and the owner plans to comply with the 5-year
> metering requirement via Energy Star, setting up the model in that manner
> will make it consistent with the mandatory minimum M&V requirements.  I’m
> not sure what led to the decision to model each building in a separate PD2
> file (other than scheduling of the design work meaning Building 4’s model
> won’t be needed for some time after Building 1’s model is done), but it
> might provide some benefit to model the campus in one file.  I would think
> this would be true in 2 specific cases:
>
> -        If there is a single meter covering all campus electrical use
> (not uncommon for campuses), allowing the model to calculate a coincident
> demand for cost purposes that might be lower than the sum of the demands for
> the four separate model
>
> -        Credit for daylighting is being pursued and there is a potential
> for one of the buildings to shade another, making the combined model file
> more conservative on energy savings from daylighting than the four
> individual models
>
>
>
> I have done a split PD2 file approach on a model before and while it made
> sense when it was setup and the project was small (10K SF total), responding
> to comments was more difficult.  For example, if there was some error in the
> baseline U-Value then each model file would have to be corrected
> individually instead of changing the wall type in a single model (4 changes
> instead of 1).  Just some thoughts to consider.
>
>
>
> I would partially agree with the reviewer, though – the parking garage
> needs to be part of the model and with a split model you would have to put
> the parking garage into each of the four models.  I probably would have
> taken a slightly different approach, though – If the campus is not modeled
> in a single model, the parking garage should be modeled on its own, with the
> resulting energy divided between the four models proportionate to the number
> of spaces allocated to each building or the proposed occupancy of each
> building, since those are the factors that determine how much of the garage
> each building would use.
>
>
>
> *JEREMY R. POLING, PE, LEED AP*
> Associate Vice President,
>
> Senior Sustainability Analyst
> Strategic Services
> *Site Solutions | Operations | Sustainability*
>
> *EPSTEIN*
> Architecture
> Interiors
> Engineering
> Construction
>
> *Epstein is a firm believer in sustainability. We ask that you please
> consider the environment before printing this e-mail.*
>
>
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Walson, Kristy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:21 AM
> *To:* 'Pasha Korber-Gonzalez'; eQUEST Users List
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] LEED-parking garage question/advice needed
>
>
>
> Hi Pasha,
>
>
>
> Having modeled a few parking garages in various software at this point, I
> also do not agree with the LEED representative's suggestion.  In my
> experience, parking garages typically have daylighting controls to turn off
> perimeter lights during the day.  This would be tough for a simulation
> program to model without creating a separate building for the parking
> garage.  I know you said that the parking garage would not be utilizing any
> ECM's, but I like to leave my options open in case an owner comes back and
> decides that the payback is well worth the money spent up-front for
> controls.
>
>
>
> If you end up incorporating the lighting as a bulk load on the electrical
> meter at each building, just remember that you'll need 2 bulk loads - one
> for daytime garage lighting and one for night time exterior lighting.  If
> you're sure they won't be adding ECM's at a later date, then I think the
> bulk load idea will work.  Just be sure to spend some time on your lighting
> schedule because the lighting savings seen between the baseline and proposed
> models for a parking garage can be significant and you don't want to lose
> any of this benefit.  Good luck!
>
>
>
> *Kristy Walson, PE, LEED AP*
>
> *Mechanical Engineer / Sustainable Design*
>
>
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Pasha
> Korber-Gonzalez
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 05, 2010 9:13 AM
> *To:* eQUEST Users List
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] LEED-parking garage question/advice needed
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to get a few opinions from some fellow simulators on a
> modeling approach for a LEED project.   Please share your opinion/advice if
> you are interested.
>
> Project:    Four separate buildings that surround an open-air parking
> garage structure (all above grade.)--Location is Miami, FL
> Intent:    All Four buildings (as a whole project) are going for LEED
> certification.  Each building will be modeled in it's own .pd2 file as the
> simulator would prefer to manage the models in this manner versus using a
> campus modeling approach in a single .pd2 file.
>
> USGBC recommendations where that the parking garage should be divided (or
> split) into four pieces and 1/4 of the parking garage should be included
> with the buildings in each of the separate model files.
>
> The ISSUE is this:   My simulation gut instinct is telling me that this is
> a really bad way to include the energy use of a parking garage in a project
> model....(I was actually shocked that this was the advice from a LEED
> representative.)    So I am trying to advise my colleague that it might be
> better to not include the actual parking structure (i.e. separate shell) in
> each model, but to calculate the lighting use (on a schedule of operation)
> for the parking garage lighting and then simply add in that energy as a kW
> input on a separate meter and assign a ltg operating schedule to it.    With
> this approach it would be easier to take the advice of the LEED folks and
> input 1/4 of the installed kW in each of the separate model files, rather
> than wasting time with building in (& managing) another shell in each model
> file.   (FYI-there are no other ECM's that will be accounted for in the
> parking garage.)
>
>
> What do you think of this approach?   Do you think that it is significant
> and important to include the "physical" presence of the parking garage in
> each of the model files?   What approach would you take?
>
> Thanks for your time as always...
>
> Pasha :)
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20101005/6b380396/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20101005/6b380396/attachment-0001.jpeg>