Has anyone come into issues with Reviewers rejecting a model because of the
area of the spaces in the eQuest model are not what the areas that the
Architect places on the design documents, due to the fact that the modeler
traces the space without accounting for wall thickness? Can this be avoided
by explaining gross square footage versus net square footage?
--
Rob Hudson
We've run into that situation, but not to the extent the credit was denied. It was usually in the reviewers comments about the differences. The issue is usually solved in a narrative describing why the differences in the stated square footage. For some reason that is something they always seem to comment on during the review process.
BRIAN J. WOLFE, CDT, LEED AP BD+ C
I had come across the same situation once. From the next submission I started mentioning the reason for the variance between the areas in the credit narrative and went smooth.
The reviewer has to give some comment on the submission. I think they give this as their favourite template comment.
Sometimes narratively describing the real-world of energy modeling seems
too much effort...
In the past I've resorted to just fluffing "refining" the appropriate
space/surface figures to make the totals match exactly wherever they're
being scrutinized - usually they're darn close, but the energy model is
well under way before the Architect gets around to the "final" area
inputs.
Maybe in the future I'll try to set my reviewers straight on that
issue, but it always seems to come down to choosing my battles...
~Nick
NICK CATON, E.I.T.