Hi, Bill - I had this situation once, and I rotated the baseline and submitted it. I got the following comment:
Table 1.8.1 and Table 1.8.1(b) of the template include the simulation results for the 90-degree, 180-degree, and 270-degree Baseline model rotations; however, since this project is an addition to an existing project, the Baseline model must not be simulated for the different rotations. Revise Table 1.8.1 and Table 1.8.1(b) by excluding the results for the 90-degree, 180-degree, and 270-degree Baseline model rotations.
The project doesn't seem to meet the definition/intent of "addition". It has independent MEP systems and it doesn't share any structural elements with the two other dorms that it is connected to. It just has doors in the stairwells that allow access to the central corridors of the adjacent two dorms.
Nevertheless, I will skip the baseline rotations and let the LEED Reviewer tell me otherwise.
Just to toss a slightly different experience into the hat:
I recently had a grouping of 3 LEED projects (new building footprint was minimal) sharing the following identical comment language:
"Note that only projects that are greater than 50% new construction are required to simulate all four rotations. Please revise the energy model as required and report only the zero degree rotation in Table EAp2-4."
I think this is a LEED-specific line in the sand, but my takeaway is that buildings which are largely new construction (by >50%) are expected to be rotated for the baseline.
For these recent models, this direction had negligible effect on the documented performance, but I was able to save some fraction of time/effort for the second round of documentation.
Having experienced this, it was a pretty painless fix - I wish all LEED review commentary were this easy! If I were at all unsure on this issue at the first submittal, prior to review commentary, I might just plan on doing the rotations anyway as it's a pretty easy thing to untick the parametric runs and assemble less documentation if it comes up (under eQuest/DOE2).
If you have some weeks prior to your submission deadline, I've heard that contacting GBCI's technical staff directly by email has worked well for others: http://www.gbci.org/contactcertification.aspx This isn't the same thing as a formal CIR (it's free), and I understand they'll tell you plainly if your clarification needs to be submitted as a formal CIR for the project. If you should pursue this option, let us know how it turns out!
Like Nick said, this was probably one of the easiest ever revisions to a model as a result of reviewer comments. For a little more background on the project for which I got the review comment below, it was a LEED NC project, and the LEED project boundary included only new construction. The new building was constructed up against an existing building and there was a door between the two buildings for access. The new building had independent MEP systems and structure. One entire face of my building had adiabatic "exterior" walls (those that were shared with the existing building). Therefore, rotating the building was kind of a silly exercise because those adiabatic walls could never have been on any other orientation of the building in real life... not that Appendix G doesn't make us model unrealistic things all the time, but I figure that was the reviewer's rationale.
I have had success getting questions answered by reviewers through the "contact us" feature on LEED Online. I haven't used that option until the final review stage, though, when a disagreement would have resulted in an appeal.
I vote "No" (with a good narrative to explain the importance / necessity of their connection.
James V Dirkes II, PE, BEMP, LEED AP
Hi, Bill - I had this situation once, and I rotated the baseline and submitted it. I got the following comment:
Table 1.8.1 and Table 1.8.1(b) of the template include the simulation results for the 90-degree, 180-degree, and 270-degree Baseline model rotations; however, since this project is an addition to an existing project, the Baseline model must not be simulated for the different rotations. Revise Table 1.8.1 and Table 1.8.1(b) by excluding the results for the 90-degree, 180-degree, and 270-degree Baseline model rotations.
[cid:image001.png at 01CE0924.38506AB0]
Stormy L. Shanks, PE
Thanks Jim, Stormy.
The project doesn't seem to meet the definition/intent of "addition". It has independent MEP systems and it doesn't share any structural elements with the two other dorms that it is connected to. It just has doors in the stairwells that allow access to the central corridors of the adjacent two dorms.
Nevertheless, I will skip the baseline rotations and let the LEED Reviewer tell me otherwise.
~Bill
Just to toss a slightly different experience into the hat:
I recently had a grouping of 3 LEED projects (new building footprint was minimal) sharing the following identical comment language:
"Note that only projects that are greater than 50% new construction are required to simulate all four rotations. Please revise the energy model as required and report only the zero degree rotation in Table EAp2-4."
I think this is a LEED-specific line in the sand, but my takeaway is that buildings which are largely new construction (by >50%) are expected to be rotated for the baseline.
For these recent models, this direction had negligible effect on the documented performance, but I was able to save some fraction of time/effort for the second round of documentation.
Having experienced this, it was a pretty painless fix - I wish all LEED review commentary were this easy! If I were at all unsure on this issue at the first submittal, prior to review commentary, I might just plan on doing the rotations anyway as it's a pretty easy thing to untick the parametric runs and assemble less documentation if it comes up (under eQuest/DOE2).
If you have some weeks prior to your submission deadline, I've heard that contacting GBCI's technical staff directly by email has worked well for others: http://www.gbci.org/contactcertification.aspx This isn't the same thing as a formal CIR (it's free), and I understand they'll tell you plainly if your clarification needs to be submitted as a formal CIR for the project. If you should pursue this option, let us know how it turns out!
Regards,
NICK CATON, P.E.
Like Nick said, this was probably one of the easiest ever revisions to a model as a result of reviewer comments. For a little more background on the project for which I got the review comment below, it was a LEED NC project, and the LEED project boundary included only new construction. The new building was constructed up against an existing building and there was a door between the two buildings for access. The new building had independent MEP systems and structure. One entire face of my building had adiabatic "exterior" walls (those that were shared with the existing building). Therefore, rotating the building was kind of a silly exercise because those adiabatic walls could never have been on any other orientation of the building in real life... not that Appendix G doesn't make us model unrealistic things all the time, but I figure that was the reviewer's rationale.
I have had success getting questions answered by reviewers through the "contact us" feature on LEED Online. I haven't used that option until the final review stage, though, when a disagreement would have resulted in an appeal.
[cid:image001.png at 01CE0924.38506AB0]
Stormy L. Shanks, PE