[Equest-users] Adding Insulationtoexistingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)

[Nick Caton]

Hey Joe!

I may be missing something fundamental here...  can anyone set me
straight?

Understanding that "super-insulation" levels slow the passage of heat
into a building in the hottest hours of the day, I can understand
concluding an envelope that doesn't "breathe" thermally doesn't seem so
bad, but what about when interior spaces are hotter than the exterior
during the cooling seasons (i.e. night/morning)? I speculate this
"night-time heatsink" effect likely isn't very much present in humid/hot
climates, but in dry/4-season climates I think the swing seasons and
portions of the summer can be expected to have this potential...  

Perhaps these effects in combination cancel each other out in some
climates/cases, but I've found multiple times in the past that there's a
point where adding insulation beyond a certain point can have a
detrimental effect on the net heating/cooling consumptions over the
year.  Is this just a result of my limited experience pool?

John: Sorry, I mis-read the tone of your posting!  I do know you to be a
respectful/respectable character, but I thought a caution on anonymity
may be beneficial for the community. 

~Nick

NICK CATON, P.E.
SENIOR ENGINEER

Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
olathe, ks 66061
direct 913.344.0036
fax 913.345.0617
www.smithboucher.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Joe
Huang
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:09 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Adding
Insulationtoexistingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)

I have to admit that I read this thread solely because the subject line
said, 
"UNCLASSIFIED" :-)
However, having skimmed through what has been written, I take issue with
the statement that
adding too much insulation would push up the cooling load by "trapping"
internal heat gains.
As has been said, if the outside air temperature is cooler, the internal
heat gains can be 
flushed
out using natural or forced ventilation, i.e., an economizer.  But what
about when the 
outside air
temperature is higher than indoors?  Well, in that case the direction of
heat flow would 
be inwards,
so added insulation would be beneficial!  In summary, my conclusion has
been that adding too
much insulation would be ineffectual or not cost-effective, but not
detrimental.  The one 
caveat
would be if the increased fan electricity for the economizer is greater
than the savings 
in heating
and cooling energy use.

Joe

Joe Huang
White Box Technologies, Inc.
346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 108D
Moraga CA 94556
yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com
www.whiteboxtechnologies.com
(o) (925)388-0265
(c) (510)928-2683
"building energy simulations at your fingertips"


On 9/9/2011 3:16 PM, Eurek, John S NWO wrote:
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
> I did not mean to sound negative towards CERL, I have their web site
> bookmarked.  They are a great asset for information.
>
> I'm assuming we both made energy models.  We likely just used
different
> inputs (schedules, plug-loads and 1000 other variable)  I'm very open
to the
> idea my model/assumptions are off.
>
> My goal is to find what is most efficient, not to prove somebody
wrong.  I
> did talk to the guy for awhile, he gave me so much useful information
that we
> didn't dwell on the insulation topic too much.
>
>
> One thing I learned from him was about the ASHRAE Datacom series.  All
our
> computer rooms are required to be 72 degrees.  I have seen studies
showing
> that a computer room temperature can be higher without endangering the
> equipment, the manufactures even state this.  I think having ASHRAE
also
> saying it may help convince owners to allow the computer room
temperatures to
> be set a little higher to save a lot of energy.
>
> http://www.ashrae.org/publications/page/1900
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfe, Brian [mailto:bwolfe at hksinc.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:49 PM
> To: Eurek, John S NWO; Nick Caton; David Eldridge;
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: RE: [Equest-users] Adding
Insulationtoexistingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> The intent of energy modeling is to understand how to optimize a
building's
> efficiency and this clearly shows this is not efficient.  Where's the
> efficiency in installing enough insulation that it drives up the loads
of a
> system.  This would negate true optimization and efficiency.  Plus,
there's a
> waste of material and cost by adding something that is not needed.  I
agree
> that if you are able to optimize the outside air, that would help, but
this
> sounds like a misunderstanding of true energy efficiency.  To play off
your
> scenarios of examples:  2(heating and cooling loads) - 1(heating) =
> 1(cooling) x 3(increased cooling) = 3(the amount of load caused by
super
> insulating)  this just isn't efficient.
>
> I'm on your side that super insulating is not an efficient strategy.
> Increased load, excess materials and extra cost, it doesn't make
sense.  I'm
> interested in their reasoning for this strategy being a beneficial
one.
> Good luck.
>
> Brian Wolfe, CDT, LEED AP BD+C
> Sustainable Design Coordinator
> HKS  |  Enhancing the Human Experience
> If you are sending large files, please use my Thru dropbox.
> vCard
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of
Eurek, John
> S NWO
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 2:29 PM
> To: Nick Caton; David Eldridge; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Adding Insulation
> toexistingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> Today I received an e-mail with recommendations from the Construction
> Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) and in the recommendations was
an R-50
> roof (super insulation).
>
> The recommendations were from the building I ran energy models for and
my
> results showed that too much insulation increases energy use.  I hit
'reply
> all' to the e-mail and told everyone that I disagree with their
research and
> explained what my models showed.  I received a call from a person from
CERL,
> he was a little defensive.  We agreed with everything but the super
> insulation.
>
> I know this will come up in a future meeting and before I go
toe-to-toe with
> him and tell the guy he is wrong, I want to make sure I am right.
>
> One of his quotes was "We want the insulation so good that you can
heat the
> room with a single match."  I repeatedly told him that it isn't the
heating,
> it is the cooling.  He responded with, "the building shouldn't depend
on the
> skin to remove heat". I agreed using the skin for cooling isn't the
best
> method, but it is what happens.
>
> I would agree with him that super insulation would be great IF the
system has
> the ability to bring in a lot of outside air.  The outside air will be
'free
> cooling' minus the fan energy.  The large amount of outside air in
essence
> allows you to artificially make the R value zero (just like opening
the
> windows)  (*snicker to myself - it is fan assisted natural
ventilation*)
>
> Will the ability to draw in outside air solve the problem of increased
> cooling load for a super insulated building?
>
>
>
>
>
> Also, to those who are still reading - A part of the energy modeler's
job is
> to understand what is happening then explaining it to others. (Even
> architects)
> The analogies below all involve this building with massive internal
loads.
> The architect insisted that you can reduce energy use by optimizing
the
> orientation.  I ran the model, it only made a 0.05% difference.
>
> -I told him "It is like trying to get better gas mileage by turning
down the
> radio in your car.  The skin load is tiny compared to the servers,
lights and
> computer loads."
> -Later I told somebody "It is like trying to make a bull-doze
aerodynamic,
> this building is a work horse.  If it were an empty house I would
agree
> rotation matters more."
> -And "With this much insulation, the orientation doesn't matter as
much. If
> you on the beach in a speedo it matters. If you are in a parka covered
head
> to toe, not so much."
>
>
> John Eurek PE, LEED AP
> Mechanical Engineer,
> US Army Corps of Engineers
> Omaha District CENWO-ED-DA
> 1616 Capitol Avenue
> Omaha, NE 68102
> Phone: (402) 995-2134
> email: john.s.eurek at usace.army.mil
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick
Caton
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 2:52 PM
> To: David Eldridge; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Adding Insulation
> toexistingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> David,
>
> Remind me never to ask you how a thermos works ^_^.
>
> John,
>
> I wrote most of this yesterday and David beat me to the punch... I'm
echoing
> much of the same from his response but maybe it'll help as well??
>
> ...
>
> Economizers work just as you describe, and are great energy savers
when the
> OA temps are conducive to comfort... (moving air generally takes less
energy
> than moving heat + air)
>
> But sometimes it's 110F+ at your RTU in the dead heat of the summer...
> In our local climate and I'm sure many others, the brunt of the
cooling
> season has OA temps well above what we want to supply to achieve
comfort
> inside.  Economizer function isn't terribly helpful in this situation.
> With too much insulation, you still run into the same fundamental
problem of
> "too much heat inside," with no options but to reject the heat using
your
> cooling equipment outside, even if you do have an economizer.
>
> Your assertion holds true, that super-insulation can be a non-issue
when you
> have an economizer, but only for specific times in the year when the
outside
> conditions are cooperating.  Where having an economizer (or not) may
have a
> dampening effect on the relative impact/problem of "super-insulating"
on an
> annual basis, it could only remove the issue for the brunt of the
cooling
> season in a specific sort of cool, temperate climate.
>
> Even in such a climate, blasting tons of extra air into the building
to "get
> around" someone's decision to over-insulate the envelope doesn't seem
> ideal... every building should have an envelope construction where
"enough is
> enough."
>
> There is an easy answer to your office's water query: "it depends."
> (haha, I'll be here all night!)
>
> There unfortunately isn't a blanket rule here because the answer does
depends
> on efficiency of the pumps (or fans), which itself is dependent on the
piping
> (or duct) static being overcome (variability of that comes into play
for some
> systems), and the efficiency of the cooling equipment as well - be it
a
> chiller plant or rooftop DX refrigeration...
> everything balances out and playing with different supply temps/flow
rates
> will return a unique answer for every project if you take the time to
play
> with it.
>
> ...
>
> As David concludes, this is indeed why modelers are ultimately such
popular
> characters =)!
>
> ~Nick
>
> NICK CATON, P.E.
> SENIOR ENGINEER
>
> Smith&  Boucher Engineers
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
> olathe, ks 66061
> direct 913.344.0036
> fax 913.345.0617
> www.smithboucher.com
>
>
>
> NICK CATON, P.E.
> SENIOR ENGINEER
>
> Smith&  Boucher Engineers
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
> olathe, ks 66061
> direct 913.344.0036
> fax 913.345.0617
> www.smithboucher.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of David
> Eldridge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:50 PM
> To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Adding Insulation to
> existingbuilding(UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> Nick, my analogy when I talk about coffee thermoses is a metal
building with
> internal loads and varying insulation levels.
>
> Anyway - back to the original poster, this phenomenon could more often
be
> true where generally it is cooler outside than inside for much of the
year.
>
> To reply to John E.'s subsequent post -- there likely will still be
some
> hours where it is cooler outside than inside (and the insulation is
now a
> detriment) even if there is an  economizer.  Even while the air system
is
> providing cooling (whether compressor-based or economizer) the walls
may
> still be conducting energy -- they don't stop based on the HVAC system
> status.
>
> Certainly the availability of an economizer can mitigate this problem,
but
> might not make it go away completely.
>
> But that's why we have energy models -- insulation that looks great at
both
> design days will still have some hours in the middle where it might
make
> energy use higher -- run a model and find out what the net is.
> (Unless the building is on Mercury...then always add as much as
> possible.)
>
> David
>
>
>
> David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus
> Associates
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick
Caton
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:00 PM
> To: Eurek, John S NWO; mikef at facilitymgt.com;
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Adding Insulation to existing
> building(UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> Agreeing with John per usual...
>
> Any building with internal loads will have some break-point where
adding more
> insulation to the envelope will be detrimental to annual energy
consumption.
> It's a bigger deal whenever your internals are relatively high.  The
behavior
> you're describing is fundamentally sound.
>
> A good thermos keeps my coffee hot longer (great in the wintertime),
but it's
> not the ideal container when my coffee is scalding-hot and I want the
> contents to cool down.
>
> I've yet to settle on a favorite analogy myself... this just comes to
mind
> because I need to make a new pot here at work...
>
> NICK CATON, P.E.
> SENIOR ENGINEER
>
> Smith&  Boucher Engineers
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
> olathe, ks 66061
> direct 913.344.0036
> fax 913.345.0617
> www.smithboucher.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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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