To bring up a topic from a year ago (below) I have a question about
using the Space by Space approach with a multi-family building. There is
a BAM Category for Multi-Family, but not a Space by Space category for
multi-family (except for dormitories).
Is there a work-around for space by space with multi-family?
I apologize if this has been covered before.
On a working Saturday.
--
Robert Wichert P.Eng. LEED AP BD&C
/Wed May 23 17:57:42 PDT 2012/
* Previous message: [Equest-users] Building area method ASHRAE 90.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David's summary looks pretty good to me!
I want to emphasis a great point that came up along the way: Space by
space can result in more LEED points by 'padding the baseline,' sure...
But "real" savings result from closely reviewing the proposed design,
which in turn generates opportunities to identify specific means of
design improvement.
I'll share a related strategy. Consider: Engaging the lighting designer
and improving design doesn't require tallying the space-by-space totals.
If I recognize significant improvements can be made with revised
layouts, fixture reselection, and/or tweaked control schemes, I have
found it VERY productive to simply share with the lighting designer (and
design team leaders, if necessary) posed scenarios: "If you can reduce
your installed watts by just 10%, the LEED models will earn 2 more LEED
points." "If you define your astronomical timeswitch to shut off
non-critical lighting after 2AM, the project earns a LEED point." Such
'carrot on a stick' proposals normally get the intended results with
minimal friction, engage the designers in a positive way ("Hey, I just
earned the easiest LEED point ever!") and performing the exploratory
simulations to compose these proposals can be a lot less effort on the
modeler relative to a standard-focused space-by-space analysis (I'm
thinking of big buildings).
>/From another perspective: Some of us lighting designers are sensitive
creatures =D... We may have a tough exterior, but deep inside it hurts
my poor fragile feelings if someone claims "Standard XYZ states
bla-bla-bla and therefore you suck at your job." This advice applies to
designers of any discipline, of course. If you want to pursue improving
design with a standards-centric base, be mindful of this possibility.
Making everyone happy to be working with an energy modeler can be quite
a challenge, but the results are rewarding. / Hope that was
illuminating! ~Nick
[cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB
CATON, P.E. SENIOR ENGINEER
