90.1-2010, Table G3.1.13

11 posts / 0 new
Last post

I have a question about 90.1-2010. Table G3.1.13 states that if the simulation program cannot model a component or system included in the proposed design explicitly, substitute a thermodynamically similar component model that can approximate the expected performance of the component that cannot be modeled explicitly. The Baseline is supposed to be Same as Proposed Design.

For example, for water source VRF systems, one could approximate the performance using a water source heat pump system. Would this mean the Baseline case should also have the water source heat pump work around?

[cid:image003.png at 01D09C46.E75BA0D0]
Christopher Jones, P.Eng.
Senior Engineer

WSP Canada Inc.
2300 Yonge Street, Suite 2300
Toronto, ON M4P 1E4
T +1 416-644-4226
F +1 416-487-9766
C +1 416-697-0056

www.wspgroup.com

Jones, Christopher's picture
Joined: 2015-06-11
Reputation: 0

Hi Christopher,
Short answer ? no. My interpretation of ?Same as Proposed Design? in this case would be to replace the words ?proposed design? with ?baseline building?. If you can?t explicitly model some component of the baseline, then model it in another way that is thermodynamically similar. Section G2.5 gives guidance on exceptional calculation methods for determining savings in the proposed design that the software doesn?t model.
Regards,
~Bill

William Bishop, PE, BEMP, BEAP, CEM, LEED AP | Pathfinder Engineers & Architects LLP
Senior Energy Engineer

[cid:image004.jpg at 01D13C97.29C43DB0] [cid:image006.jpg at 01D13C97.29C43DB0]

134 South Fitzhugh Street Rochester, NY 14608

T: (585) 698-1956 F: (585) 325-6005

bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com www.pathfinder-ea.com

[http://png-5.findicons.com/files/icons/977/rrze/720/globe.png]Carbon Fee and Dividend - simple, effective, and market-based.

Bill Bishop's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-02-25
Reputation: 7

I agree with Bill.

This query had me scratching my head until I looked at the formatting ? I
can now understand where Chris is coming from. Here is a snip:

Put another way, the language on the left applies to Baseline case
components/systems, independent of whatever is happening in the Proposed
case.

The phrase ?Same as Proposed Design? is used for many other items in Table
G3.1 to indicate requirements are the same, so it fits in that context.

~Nick

*NICK CATON, P.E.*
*Owner*

*Caton Energy Consulting*
306 N Ferrel

Olathe, KS 66061

office: 785.410.3317

www.catonenergy.com

*From:* Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf
Of *Bishop, Bill
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 22, 2015 8:00 AM
*To:* Jones, Christopher; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
*Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] 90.1-2010, Table G3.1.13

Hi Christopher,

Short answer ? no. My interpretation of ?Same as Proposed Design? in this
case would be to replace the words ?*proposed design*? with ?*baseline
building*?. If you can?t explicitly model some component of the baseline,
then model it in another way that is thermodynamically similar. Section
G2.5 gives guidance on exceptional calculation methods for determining
savings in the proposed design that the software doesn?t model.

Regards,

~Bill

*William Bishop, PE, BEMP, BEAP, CEM, LEED AP **|** Pathfinder Engineers &
Architects LLP*

*Senior Energy Engineer*

134 South Fitzhugh Street Rochester, NY 14608

*T: (585) 698-1956 * F: (585) 325-6005

bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com
www.pathfinder-ea.com

[image: http://png-5.findicons.com/files/icons/977/rrze/720/globe.png]Carbon
Fee and Dividend - simple, effective, and market-based.

*From:* Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
] *On Behalf Of *Jones, Christopher
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 22, 2015 8:13 AM
*To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
*Subject:* [Bldg-sim] 90.1-2010, Table G3.1.13

I have a question about 90.1-2010. Table G3.1.13 states that if the
simulation program cannot model a component or system included in the
proposed design explicitly, substitute a thermodynamically similar
component model that can approximate the expected performance of the
component that cannot be modeled explicitly. The Baseline is supposed to be
Same as Proposed Design.

For example, for water source VRF systems, one could approximate the
performance using a water source heat pump system. Would this mean the
Baseline case should also have the water source heat pump work around?

[image: cid:image003.png at 01D09C46.E75BA0D0]

*Christopher Jones,* P.Eng.
Senior Engineer

*WSP Canada Inc.*

2300 Yonge Street, Suite 2300

Toronto, ON M4P 1E4
T +1 416-644-4226

F +1 416-487-9766

C +1 416-697-0056

www.wspgroup.com

Nicholas Caton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014-12-09
Reputation: 0

So to further clarify, ?same as proposed design? does not mean the baseline systems will be modeled identically as the proposed, it means that it is okay to use a workaround or approximation if one is needed to model a baseline building?s equipment.

This requirement to submit a reasonable workaround applies equally and separately to both proposed or baseline models as necessary.

The most likely scenario is that advanced technology in the proposed case is requires a workaround due to software limitations, while the baseline could be modeled conventionally. There might be some instances where both proposed and baseline require ?matching? workarounds, or a rare case where only the baseline needs a workaround. All of these would be compliant with the wording.

This requirement would push you towards an exceptional calculation method to show efficiency for equipment that couldn?t be reasonably approximated by a workaround in one or the other case.

David

David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus Associates

David Eldridge's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-05-08
Reputation: 1

Hi Christopher,
Short answer ? no. My interpretation of ?Same as Proposed Design? in this case would be to replace the words ?proposed design? with ?baseline building?. If you can?t explicitly model some component of the baseline, then model it in another way that is thermodynamically similar. Section G2.5 gives guidance on exceptional calculation methods for determining savings in the proposed design that the software doesn?t model.
Regards,
~Bill

William Bishop, PE, BEMP, BEAP, CEM, LEED AP | Pathfinder Engineers & Architects LLP
Senior Energy Engineer

[cid:image004.jpg at 01D13C97.29C43DB0] [cid:image006.jpg at 01D13C97.29C43DB0]

134 South Fitzhugh Street Rochester, NY 14608

T: (585) 698-1956 F: (585) 325-6005

bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com www.pathfinder-ea.com

[http://png-5.findicons.com/files/icons/977/rrze/720/globe.png]Carbon Fee and Dividend - simple, effective, and market-based.

Bill Bishop's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-02-25
Reputation: 7

I agree with Bill.

This query had me scratching my head until I looked at the formatting ? I
can now understand where Chris is coming from. Here is a snip:

Put another way, the language on the left applies to Baseline case
components/systems, independent of whatever is happening in the Proposed
case.

The phrase ?Same as Proposed Design? is used for many other items in Table
G3.1 to indicate requirements are the same, so it fits in that context.

~Nick

*NICK CATON, P.E.*
*Owner*

*Caton Energy Consulting*
306 N Ferrel

Olathe, KS 66061

office: 785.410.3317

www.catonenergy.com

*From:* Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf
Of *Bishop, Bill
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 22, 2015 8:00 AM
*To:* Jones, Christopher; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
*Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] 90.1-2010, Table G3.1.13

Hi Christopher,

Short answer ? no. My interpretation of ?Same as Proposed Design? in this
case would be to replace the words ?*proposed design*? with ?*baseline
building*?. If you can?t explicitly model some component of the baseline,
then model it in another way that is thermodynamically similar. Section
G2.5 gives guidance on exceptional calculation methods for determining
savings in the proposed design that the software doesn?t model.

Regards,

~Bill

*William Bishop, PE, BEMP, BEAP, CEM, LEED AP **|** Pathfinder Engineers &
Architects LLP*

*Senior Energy Engineer*

134 South Fitzhugh Street Rochester, NY 14608

*T: (585) 698-1956 * F: (585) 325-6005

bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com
www.pathfinder-ea.com

[image: http://png-5.findicons.com/files/icons/977/rrze/720/globe.png]Carbon
Fee and Dividend - simple, effective, and market-based.

*From:* Bldg-sim [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
] *On Behalf Of *Jones, Christopher
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 22, 2015 8:13 AM
*To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
*Subject:* [Bldg-sim] 90.1-2010, Table G3.1.13

I have a question about 90.1-2010. Table G3.1.13 states that if the
simulation program cannot model a component or system included in the
proposed design explicitly, substitute a thermodynamically similar
component model that can approximate the expected performance of the
component that cannot be modeled explicitly. The Baseline is supposed to be
Same as Proposed Design.

For example, for water source VRF systems, one could approximate the
performance using a water source heat pump system. Would this mean the
Baseline case should also have the water source heat pump work around?

[image: cid:image003.png at 01D09C46.E75BA0D0]

*Christopher Jones,* P.Eng.
Senior Engineer

*WSP Canada Inc.*

2300 Yonge Street, Suite 2300

Toronto, ON M4P 1E4
T +1 416-644-4226

F +1 416-487-9766

C +1 416-697-0056

www.wspgroup.com

Nicholas Caton's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014-12-09
Reputation: 0

So to further clarify, ?same as proposed design? does not mean the baseline systems will be modeled identically as the proposed, it means that it is okay to use a workaround or approximation if one is needed to model a baseline building?s equipment.

This requirement to submit a reasonable workaround applies equally and separately to both proposed or baseline models as necessary.

The most likely scenario is that advanced technology in the proposed case is requires a workaround due to software limitations, while the baseline could be modeled conventionally. There might be some instances where both proposed and baseline require ?matching? workarounds, or a rare case where only the baseline needs a workaround. All of these would be compliant with the wording.

This requirement would push you towards an exceptional calculation method to show efficiency for equipment that couldn?t be reasonably approximated by a workaround in one or the other case.

David

David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus Associates

David Eldridge's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-05-08
Reputation: 1

(Probably nobody will read this mail so close to christmas eve, but I may get an answer next year !)

The 90.1 User?s Manual explained well what to do with the proposed design (see picture A below), but it is not explicit about the baseline design. However, I agree with you all : by ?same as Proposed Design? I understand that the modeling limitation requirement are the same for the proposed and baseline design, not that the two models must be identical. If the annex G?s author had wanted to force the two models to be identical, they would have clearly wrote it the same way that in ECB Method - table 11.3.1 14 c) (see picture B and C below).

Here is Christopher?s question again:
For example, for water source VRF systems, one could approximate the performance using a water source heat pump system. Would this mean the Baseline case should also have the water source heat pump work around?

If everybody agree to say that the answer is no, my question is what should be the baseline in this particular case ?

1) a hot water pump as defined by G3.1.3.5

2) a HVAC system from table G3.1.1B Baseline System Description ? corresponding to the actual project, or

3) anything else ?

Merry Christmas to all!
Julien

Picture A
[cid:image007.jpg at 01D13D9A.E29839A0]

Picture B
[cid:image009.jpg at 01D13D9A.E29839A0]

Picture C
[cid:image013.jpg at 01D13D9A.E29839A0]

[cid:image014.jpg at 01D13D9A.E29839A0]
[cid:image012.png at 01D13D95.B600C420]

____________________________________________________________________

Julien Dutel, ing., CEM, CMVP.
Direction des secteurs r?sidentiel, institutionnel et des affaires
Bureau de l'efficacit? et de l'innovation ?nerg?tiques
Minist?re des Ressources naturelles
5700, 4e Avenue Ouest, B-406
Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1H 6R1
T?l?phone : 418 627-6379, poste 8060
T?l?phone sans frais : 1 877 727-6655
T?l?copieur : 418 643-5828
julien.dutel at mern.gouv.qc.ca
mern.gouv.qc.ca

De : David Eldridge [mailto:DEldridge at grummanbutkus.com]
Envoy? : 22 d?cembre 2015 14:35
? : Nicholas Caton; Bishop, Bill; Jones, Christopher; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Objet : Re: [Bldg-sim] 90.1-2010, Table G3.1.13

So to further clarify, ?same as proposed design? does not mean the baseline systems will be modeled identically as the proposed, it means that it is okay to use a workaround or approximation if one is needed to model a baseline building?s equipment.

This requirement to submit a reasonable workaround applies equally and separately to both proposed or baseline models as necessary.

The most likely scenario is that advanced technology in the proposed case is requires a workaround due to software limitations, while the baseline could be modeled conventionally. There might be some instances where both proposed and baseline require ?matching? workarounds, or a rare case where only the baseline needs a workaround. All of these would be compliant with the wording.

This requirement would push you towards an exceptional calculation method to show efficiency for equipment that couldn?t be reasonably approximated by a workaround in one or the other case.

David

David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus Associates

Julien.Dutel at mern.gouv.qc.ca's picture
Joined: 2015-06-05
Reputation: 0

(Probably nobody will read this mail so close to christmas eve, but I may get an answer next year !)

The 90.1 User?s Manual explained well what to do with the proposed design (see picture A below), but it is not explicit about the baseline design. However, I agree with you all : by ?same as Proposed Design? I understand that the modeling limitation requirement are the same for the proposed and baseline design, not that the two models must be identical. If the annex G?s author had wanted to force the two models to be identical, they would have clearly wrote it the same way that in ECB Method - table 11.3.1 14 c) (see picture B and C below).

Here is Christopher?s question again:
For example, for water source VRF systems, one could approximate the performance using a water source heat pump system. Would this mean the Baseline case should also have the water source heat pump work around?

If everybody agree to say that the answer is no, my question is what should be the baseline in this particular case ?

1) a hot water pump as defined by G3.1.3.5

2) a HVAC system from table G3.1.1B Baseline System Description ? corresponding to the actual project, or

3) anything else ?

Merry Christmas to all!
Julien

Picture A
[cid:image007.jpg at 01D13D9A.E29839A0]

Picture B
[cid:image009.jpg at 01D13D9A.E29839A0]

Picture C
[cid:image013.jpg at 01D13D9A.E29839A0]

[cid:image014.jpg at 01D13D9A.E29839A0]
[cid:image012.png at 01D13D95.B600C420]

____________________________________________________________________

Julien Dutel, ing., CEM, CMVP.
Direction des secteurs r?sidentiel, institutionnel et des affaires
Bureau de l'efficacit? et de l'innovation ?nerg?tiques
Minist?re des Ressources naturelles
5700, 4e Avenue Ouest, B-406
Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1H 6R1
T?l?phone : 418 627-6379, poste 8060
T?l?phone sans frais : 1 877 727-6655
T?l?copieur : 418 643-5828
julien.dutel at mern.gouv.qc.ca
mern.gouv.qc.ca

De : David Eldridge [mailto:DEldridge at grummanbutkus.com]
Envoy? : 22 d?cembre 2015 14:35
? : Nicholas Caton; Bishop, Bill; Jones, Christopher; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Objet : Re: [Bldg-sim] 90.1-2010, Table G3.1.13

So to further clarify, ?same as proposed design? does not mean the baseline systems will be modeled identically as the proposed, it means that it is okay to use a workaround or approximation if one is needed to model a baseline building?s equipment.

This requirement to submit a reasonable workaround applies equally and separately to both proposed or baseline models as necessary.

The most likely scenario is that advanced technology in the proposed case is requires a workaround due to software limitations, while the baseline could be modeled conventionally. There might be some instances where both proposed and baseline require ?matching? workarounds, or a rare case where only the baseline needs a workaround. All of these would be compliant with the wording.

This requirement would push you towards an exceptional calculation method to show efficiency for equipment that couldn?t be reasonably approximated by a workaround in one or the other case.

David

David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus Associates

Julien.Dutel at mern.gouv.qc.ca's picture
Joined: 2015-06-05
Reputation: 0

These are two separate sections - the Appendix G chapter is designed to provide a relative improvement of the proposed system over the baseline system. Quantifying all the differences are very important to continue moving the result towards higher and higher savings.

The Energy Cost Budget Chapter 11 is different - the result of the ECB process is a pass/fail result. So in that case, holding variables neutral in each case may not be as much of a penalty as long as the model still passes.

Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays!

David

David Eldridge's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-05-08
Reputation: 1

These are two separate sections - the Appendix G chapter is designed to provide a relative improvement of the proposed system over the baseline system. Quantifying all the differences are very important to continue moving the result towards higher and higher savings.

The Energy Cost Budget Chapter 11 is different - the result of the ECB process is a pass/fail result. So in that case, holding variables neutral in each case may not be as much of a penalty as long as the model still passes.

Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays!

David

David Eldridge's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-05-08
Reputation: 1