[Equest-users] The DES Dilemma

[Arpan Bakshi]

According to Table 3 the proposed system changes to 4-pipe CV AHU for  
a System 3 baseline if the project has both district heating and  
cooling, which would not work w/ taking credit for the downstream HVAC  
strategies in the proposed building.



Arpan Bakshi, LEED AP BD+C
YRG sustainability

On Apr 22, 2011, at 6:30 PM, Kelsey VanTassel  
<KVanTassel at sustaineng.com> wrote:

> I don’t understand. Why can’t you follow Option 1?
>
> Without DES, your baseline system would normally be System 3—PSZ w/f 
> urnace and DX, right? Since your proposed design uses district heati 
> ng and cooling, the baseline System 3 is changed to 4-pipe CV AHU. T 
> he DES procedure does not change your proposed systems.
>
> Kelsey Van Tassel
> Mechanical Engineer | kvantassel at sustaineng.com
> 608.836.4488 ext. 20 | Fax: 608.836.4477
>
> Sustainable Engineering Group
> 901 Deming Way, Suite 201
> Madison, WI 53717
> www.sustaineng.com
>
>
>
> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest- 
> users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Arpan Bakshi
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 4:01 PM
> To: equest-users
> Subject: [Equest-users] The DES Dilemma
>
>
> PROJECT BACKGROUND
>
> Building Area
> Less than 25,000 SF
>
> Proposed Design
> TDV, DOAS, Supplemental Radiant Heating/Cooling
>
> Heating and Cooling Generation
> University District Heating and Cooling
>
>
> THE DES DILEMMA
> Reference – Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V 
> 2 and LEED 2009 – Design & Construction
>
>
> Option 1 (Building stand-alone scenario)
>
> The downstream equipment of both baseline and proposed models cannot  
> be easily isolated by tying chilled and heating hot water loops to  
> meters since the baseline building is System 3, and does not use  
> water-side systems. Neither can proposed model systems be replaced  
> by “4-pipe CV AHU” per DES Table 3 (is that a typo?) since the  
> downstream radiant systems need a water-side source of heating and c 
> ooling in the model.
>
>
> Option 2 (Model for Aggregate Building / DES Scenario)
>
> This option has a points floor of 6 for LEED NC v2009. We do not  
> anticipate a maximum of 1-3 points due to envelope design  
> inefficiencies. Therefore this project would not qualify for Option 2.
>
> ANY THOUGHTS?
>
> I’m tempted to model System 7 heating and cooling plants for both ba 
> seline and proposed models and call it even, cost-neutral. What woul 
> d you suggest?
>
> --
>
>
> Arpan Bakshi  LEED AP BD+C
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110422/0770530d/attachment-0002.htm>