Hello,
I am very new to the eQuest/ EPAct 179D experience. I am currently trying to figure out how to approach building takeoffs. Should I:
*Use the accurate room areas from a zone plan. These are net room areas.
*Use averaged room areas. This is a gross takeoff including the exterior face of perimeter rooms and centerline of walls for core areas.
The factors in play are:
*if I enter the actual dimensions from the zone plan, then the exterior footprint in equest will have to shrink toward the inner walls. This effects the surface area of the envelope.
*if I enter averaged areas, then the zonal volumes are innacurate.
I am doing the lighting portion of this in a second program, so this volume correction will not effect the mounting heights/ sf of the power density compliance.
Any help is greatly appreciated. I am a bit overwhelmed.
thanks,
This is a conundrum that nearly everyone encounters as they start modeling. From another email for the same question (thank you Nick Caton):
[Here is] a discussion from some time back outlining my general
practice for "where to draw the line" when it comes to envelope/wall
boundaries. This may be generally useful and seems to answer at least
part of your inquiry.
When I'm doing electrical and/or HVAC design alongside the model, my
area takeoffs for each inevitably will match up, because I hate doing
the same work twice.
I use the outermost surfaces when defining my building footprint and
midpoints for all internal partitions for all calcs. Space-by-space LPD
calcs in a strict reading do not require the space areas to be measured
to the outermost surface of an exterior wall (they do say to use the
midpoint of interior partitions, as of 90.1-2007). I'd feel comfortable
saying the extra square-footage "handicap" I'm imposing on myself as a
lighting designer is an insignificant fraction in 99.9% of cases when
determining baseline LPD...
Inevitably, areas summed for all spaces in a building between
architects, HVAC, and lighting designers will not match - that's a fact
of life and in my book that's okay, so long as nobody is way off. Model
reviewers will inevitably/reliably gripe when the numbers don't match
exactly, and it's usually an easy thing to either fix or explain after
the fact. If you to try to make everyone use the same numbers from the
DD/CD design phases, you've chosen a losing battle. For my part in the
role of the project's energy modeler, I'm satisfied to allow my fellow
designers do their own calcs, and just ensure nobody is way off along
the way... quibbles over small differences in the final tallies, if they
come up, are easy to reconcile.