This isn't exactly an energy modeling question, but this list serve has a lot of intelligent and informed people who may find this interesting and somebody might be able to help me clear up my confusion.
I coworker send me an e-mail containing this:
"Impact of Green Buildings on Cognitive Function: Study by the Harvard School for Public Health (http://thecogfxstudy.naturalleader.com/) Takeaway: CO2 levels, toxin levels, higher ventilation have a measurable effect on human performance. Additional ventilation was calculated to be about $18/year/person for a typical office building. A person's productivity was calculated to improve by $6,500/year when working in a low CO2, low VOC, high ventilation office. They actually rigged up a lab where they had total control over VOC, vent, and CO2 levels and charted people's performance. Really interesting. Well worth reading through it."
I read the report and noticed that the study stated it used 20 cfm per person.
"We selected two outdoor air ventilation rates for this study: 20 cfm/person and 40 cfm/person. LEED(r) specifies that mechanically ventilated spaces must meet ventilation rates under ASHRAE 62.1, or local equivalent, whichever is more stringent (USGBC 2014; ASHRAE 2013). Many local building codes use the previous ASHRAE standard of 20 cfm/person, which corresponds to an indoor CO2 concentration of 945 ppm."
At first I was confused why they referenced ASHRAE 62.1 2013 but used 20 cfm per person until I noticed it stated that they assumed the 20 cfm per person was more stringent. Does anybody know when 62.1 changed from 20 cfm per person to 5 cfm per person and 0.06 cfm per square foot?
My tongue and cheek response to my coworker was:
"I was at a conference where the presenter made a really great point. ASHRAE 62.1 ventilation rates are based on years and years of research and scientific studies and are dependent on the size of the space, number of people and function of the space. Leed arbitrarily says to increase this value by 30%, regardless of.... well anything.
If this makes sense, next time a doctor writes you a prescription feel free to take 30% more for better results.
If this study is accurate I would think it would be the role of ASHRAE to adjust the ventilation values to maximize public health and safery. If anything this study suggests that usgbc should change their arbitrary 30% to an arbitrary 100%."
John,
Your tongue-in-cheek answer is one I've heard, as I recall, from a Joe
Lstiburek article in the ASHRAE Journal and it makes sense to me.
Nonetheless, health and productivity are very real costs which I think have
much stronger leverage than energy.
As I looked through the article (quickly, I admit), it seems the results
are being extrapolated from a study of cognitive function for only 24
people. On the one hand, that's a pretty small sample from a test
environment.
On the other hand, if it can be verified further, it's worth incorporating
into design. I'm pretty sure that ASHRAE's Standard 62 did not consider
cognitive function. Rather, the basis for ventilation, at least in older
versions, was essentially occupant perception of smell / body odor.
Cognitive function would be a new dimension, I think.
I suspect it's pretty hard to nail down definitively for various
occupancies and their associated cognitive challenges, but it will be
interesting to see how it develops.
The speaker at the conference was Joe Lstiburek. I didn't remember his name, but I did remember how good his speech was. The topic was 'The Perfect Wall'. I really like his view points on things.
John, regarding your last statement I?m not sure yet that cognitive ability as assessed in the study is equivalent to health and comfort as addressed by the minimum standard?let?s not make that 30% level any higher until someone shows us some data!
Results presented in the study definitely suggest some additional research is warranted. An Owner?s Project Requirements (OPR) document would be a great place to establish the basis for a project if the owner chooses to go beyond health and comfort minimums set by local code or ASHRAE 62.1 in a design or recommissioning project.
There could be other questions for the researchers on this project about variables that might affect cognitive ability?.most of which are not under control of the building?s chief engineer (and certainly not the facility?s designer!)?the local coffee shop might have an impact greater than a nominal increase in airflow, certainly quantity and quality of sleep would be right up there. I?d need the researchers to fill me in on quite a bit beyond the airflow and temperature impacts, how cognitive ability relates to productivity, etc?as consulting engineers we need evidence from the research to balance against the annual energy costs and first costs of the system and discussion with the owner. How are all of the variables normalized? Can they be?
I don?t see that ASHRAE is necessarily the starting point for this research, but I?d be happy to entertain anyone?s discussion at the TC 7.6 Research Subcommittee meeting on Sunday January 24th, at 1:00 p.m. in the Hilton ?Lake Down A? room!
My main short-term takeaway was that many DCV systems will need to be recommissioned in order to maintain current OPR ventilation levels if the ambient levels increase and the current sequence of operation is based on a fixed offset. Also a reminder that calibration of CO2 sensors is important.
David
David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus Associates
This isn't exactly an energy modeling question, but this list serve has a lot of intelligent and informed people who may find this interesting and somebody might be able to help me clear up my confusion.
I coworker send me an e-mail containing this:
"Impact of Green Buildings on Cognitive Function: Study by the Harvard School for Public Health (http://thecogfxstudy.naturalleader.com/) Takeaway: CO2 levels, toxin levels, higher ventilation have a measurable effect on human performance. Additional ventilation was calculated to be about $18/year/person for a typical office building. A person's productivity was calculated to improve by $6,500/year when working in a low CO2, low VOC, high ventilation office. They actually rigged up a lab where they had total control over VOC, vent, and CO2 levels and charted people's performance. Really interesting. Well worth reading through it."
I read the report and noticed that the study stated it used 20 cfm per person.
"We selected two outdoor air ventilation rates for this study: 20 cfm/person and 40 cfm/person. LEED(r) specifies that mechanically ventilated spaces must meet ventilation rates under ASHRAE 62.1, or local equivalent, whichever is more stringent (USGBC 2014; ASHRAE 2013). Many local building codes use the previous ASHRAE standard of 20 cfm/person, which corresponds to an indoor CO2 concentration of 945 ppm."
At first I was confused why they referenced ASHRAE 62.1 2013 but used 20 cfm per person until I noticed it stated that they assumed the 20 cfm per person was more stringent. Does anybody know when 62.1 changed from 20 cfm per person to 5 cfm per person and 0.06 cfm per square foot?
My tongue and cheek response to my coworker was:
"I was at a conference where the presenter made a really great point. ASHRAE 62.1 ventilation rates are based on years and years of research and scientific studies and are dependent on the size of the space, number of people and function of the space. Leed arbitrarily says to increase this value by 30%, regardless of.... well anything.
If this makes sense, next time a doctor writes you a prescription feel free to take 30% more for better results.
If this study is accurate I would think it would be the role of ASHRAE to adjust the ventilation values to maximize public health and safery. If anything this study suggests that usgbc should change their arbitrary 30% to an arbitrary 100%."
John,
Your tongue-in-cheek answer is one I've heard, as I recall, from a Joe
Lstiburek article in the ASHRAE Journal and it makes sense to me.
Nonetheless, health and productivity are very real costs which I think have
much stronger leverage than energy.
As I looked through the article (quickly, I admit), it seems the results
are being extrapolated from a study of cognitive function for only 24
people. On the one hand, that's a pretty small sample from a test
environment.
On the other hand, if it can be verified further, it's worth incorporating
into design. I'm pretty sure that ASHRAE's Standard 62 did not consider
cognitive function. Rather, the basis for ventilation, at least in older
versions, was essentially occupant perception of smell / body odor.
Cognitive function would be a new dimension, I think.
I suspect it's pretty hard to nail down definitively for various
occupancies and their associated cognitive challenges, but it will be
interesting to see how it develops.
The speaker at the conference was Joe Lstiburek. I didn't remember his name, but I did remember how good his speech was. The topic was 'The Perfect Wall'. I really like his view points on things.
John, regarding your last statement I?m not sure yet that cognitive ability as assessed in the study is equivalent to health and comfort as addressed by the minimum standard?let?s not make that 30% level any higher until someone shows us some data!
Results presented in the study definitely suggest some additional research is warranted. An Owner?s Project Requirements (OPR) document would be a great place to establish the basis for a project if the owner chooses to go beyond health and comfort minimums set by local code or ASHRAE 62.1 in a design or recommissioning project.
There could be other questions for the researchers on this project about variables that might affect cognitive ability?.most of which are not under control of the building?s chief engineer (and certainly not the facility?s designer!)?the local coffee shop might have an impact greater than a nominal increase in airflow, certainly quantity and quality of sleep would be right up there. I?d need the researchers to fill me in on quite a bit beyond the airflow and temperature impacts, how cognitive ability relates to productivity, etc?as consulting engineers we need evidence from the research to balance against the annual energy costs and first costs of the system and discussion with the owner. How are all of the variables normalized? Can they be?
I don?t see that ASHRAE is necessarily the starting point for this research, but I?d be happy to entertain anyone?s discussion at the TC 7.6 Research Subcommittee meeting on Sunday January 24th, at 1:00 p.m. in the Hilton ?Lake Down A? room!
My main short-term takeaway was that many DCV systems will need to be recommissioned in order to maintain current OPR ventilation levels if the ambient levels increase and the current sequence of operation is based on a fixed offset. Also a reminder that calibration of CO2 sensors is important.
David
David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus Associates
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
This isn't exactly an energy modeling question, but this list serve has a lot of intelligent and informed people who may find this interesting and somebody might be able to help me clear up my confusion.
I coworker send me an e-mail containing this:
"Impact of Green Buildings on Cognitive Function: Study by the Harvard School for Public Health (http://thecogfxstudy.naturalleader.com/) Takeaway: CO2 levels, toxin levels, higher ventilation have a measurable effect on human performance. Additional ventilation was calculated to be about $18/year/person for a typical office building. A person's productivity was calculated to improve by $6,500/year when working in a low CO2, low VOC, high ventilation office. They actually rigged up a lab where they had total control over VOC, vent, and CO2 levels and charted people's performance. Really interesting. Well worth reading through it."
I read the report and noticed that the study stated it used 20 cfm per person.
"We selected two outdoor air ventilation rates for this study: 20 cfm/person and 40 cfm/person. LEED(r) specifies that mechanically ventilated spaces must meet ventilation rates under ASHRAE 62.1, or local equivalent, whichever is more stringent (USGBC 2014; ASHRAE 2013). Many local building codes use the previous ASHRAE standard of 20 cfm/person, which corresponds to an indoor CO2 concentration of 945 ppm."
At first I was confused why they referenced ASHRAE 62.1 2013 but used 20 cfm per person until I noticed it stated that they assumed the 20 cfm per person was more stringent. Does anybody know when 62.1 changed from 20 cfm per person to 5 cfm per person and 0.06 cfm per square foot?
My tongue and cheek response to my coworker was:
"I was at a conference where the presenter made a really great point. ASHRAE 62.1 ventilation rates are based on years and years of research and scientific studies and are dependent on the size of the space, number of people and function of the space. Leed arbitrarily says to increase this value by 30%, regardless of.... well anything.
If this makes sense, next time a doctor writes you a prescription feel free to take 30% more for better results.
If this study is accurate I would think it would be the role of ASHRAE to adjust the ventilation values to maximize public health and safery. If anything this study suggests that usgbc should change their arbitrary 30% to an arbitrary 100%."
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
John,
Your tongue-in-cheek answer is one I've heard, as I recall, from a Joe
Lstiburek article in the ASHRAE Journal and it makes sense to me.
Nonetheless, health and productivity are very real costs which I think have
much stronger leverage than energy.
As I looked through the article (quickly, I admit), it seems the results
are being extrapolated from a study of cognitive function for only 24
people. On the one hand, that's a pretty small sample from a test
environment.
On the other hand, if it can be verified further, it's worth incorporating
into design. I'm pretty sure that ASHRAE's Standard 62 did not consider
cognitive function. Rather, the basis for ventilation, at least in older
versions, was essentially occupant perception of smell / body odor.
Cognitive function would be a new dimension, I think.
I suspect it's pretty hard to nail down definitively for various
occupancies and their associated cognitive challenges, but it will be
interesting to see how it develops.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
The speaker at the conference was Joe Lstiburek. I didn't remember his name, but I did remember how good his speech was. The topic was 'The Perfect Wall'. I really like his view points on things.
John, regarding your last statement I?m not sure yet that cognitive ability as assessed in the study is equivalent to health and comfort as addressed by the minimum standard?let?s not make that 30% level any higher until someone shows us some data!
Results presented in the study definitely suggest some additional research is warranted. An Owner?s Project Requirements (OPR) document would be a great place to establish the basis for a project if the owner chooses to go beyond health and comfort minimums set by local code or ASHRAE 62.1 in a design or recommissioning project.
There could be other questions for the researchers on this project about variables that might affect cognitive ability?.most of which are not under control of the building?s chief engineer (and certainly not the facility?s designer!)?the local coffee shop might have an impact greater than a nominal increase in airflow, certainly quantity and quality of sleep would be right up there. I?d need the researchers to fill me in on quite a bit beyond the airflow and temperature impacts, how cognitive ability relates to productivity, etc?as consulting engineers we need evidence from the research to balance against the annual energy costs and first costs of the system and discussion with the owner. How are all of the variables normalized? Can they be?
I don?t see that ASHRAE is necessarily the starting point for this research, but I?d be happy to entertain anyone?s discussion at the TC 7.6 Research Subcommittee meeting on Sunday January 24th, at 1:00 p.m. in the Hilton ?Lake Down A? room!
My main short-term takeaway was that many DCV systems will need to be recommissioned in order to maintain current OPR ventilation levels if the ambient levels increase and the current sequence of operation is based on a fixed offset. Also a reminder that calibration of CO2 sensors is important.
David
David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus Associates
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
This isn't exactly an energy modeling question, but this list serve has a lot of intelligent and informed people who may find this interesting and somebody might be able to help me clear up my confusion.
I coworker send me an e-mail containing this:
"Impact of Green Buildings on Cognitive Function: Study by the Harvard School for Public Health (http://thecogfxstudy.naturalleader.com/) Takeaway: CO2 levels, toxin levels, higher ventilation have a measurable effect on human performance. Additional ventilation was calculated to be about $18/year/person for a typical office building. A person's productivity was calculated to improve by $6,500/year when working in a low CO2, low VOC, high ventilation office. They actually rigged up a lab where they had total control over VOC, vent, and CO2 levels and charted people's performance. Really interesting. Well worth reading through it."
I read the report and noticed that the study stated it used 20 cfm per person.
"We selected two outdoor air ventilation rates for this study: 20 cfm/person and 40 cfm/person. LEED(r) specifies that mechanically ventilated spaces must meet ventilation rates under ASHRAE 62.1, or local equivalent, whichever is more stringent (USGBC 2014; ASHRAE 2013). Many local building codes use the previous ASHRAE standard of 20 cfm/person, which corresponds to an indoor CO2 concentration of 945 ppm."
At first I was confused why they referenced ASHRAE 62.1 2013 but used 20 cfm per person until I noticed it stated that they assumed the 20 cfm per person was more stringent. Does anybody know when 62.1 changed from 20 cfm per person to 5 cfm per person and 0.06 cfm per square foot?
My tongue and cheek response to my coworker was:
"I was at a conference where the presenter made a really great point. ASHRAE 62.1 ventilation rates are based on years and years of research and scientific studies and are dependent on the size of the space, number of people and function of the space. Leed arbitrarily says to increase this value by 30%, regardless of.... well anything.
If this makes sense, next time a doctor writes you a prescription feel free to take 30% more for better results.
If this study is accurate I would think it would be the role of ASHRAE to adjust the ventilation values to maximize public health and safery. If anything this study suggests that usgbc should change their arbitrary 30% to an arbitrary 100%."
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
John,
Your tongue-in-cheek answer is one I've heard, as I recall, from a Joe
Lstiburek article in the ASHRAE Journal and it makes sense to me.
Nonetheless, health and productivity are very real costs which I think have
much stronger leverage than energy.
As I looked through the article (quickly, I admit), it seems the results
are being extrapolated from a study of cognitive function for only 24
people. On the one hand, that's a pretty small sample from a test
environment.
On the other hand, if it can be verified further, it's worth incorporating
into design. I'm pretty sure that ASHRAE's Standard 62 did not consider
cognitive function. Rather, the basis for ventilation, at least in older
versions, was essentially occupant perception of smell / body odor.
Cognitive function would be a new dimension, I think.
I suspect it's pretty hard to nail down definitively for various
occupancies and their associated cognitive challenges, but it will be
interesting to see how it develops.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
The speaker at the conference was Joe Lstiburek. I didn't remember his name, but I did remember how good his speech was. The topic was 'The Perfect Wall'. I really like his view points on things.
John, regarding your last statement I?m not sure yet that cognitive ability as assessed in the study is equivalent to health and comfort as addressed by the minimum standard?let?s not make that 30% level any higher until someone shows us some data!
Results presented in the study definitely suggest some additional research is warranted. An Owner?s Project Requirements (OPR) document would be a great place to establish the basis for a project if the owner chooses to go beyond health and comfort minimums set by local code or ASHRAE 62.1 in a design or recommissioning project.
There could be other questions for the researchers on this project about variables that might affect cognitive ability?.most of which are not under control of the building?s chief engineer (and certainly not the facility?s designer!)?the local coffee shop might have an impact greater than a nominal increase in airflow, certainly quantity and quality of sleep would be right up there. I?d need the researchers to fill me in on quite a bit beyond the airflow and temperature impacts, how cognitive ability relates to productivity, etc?as consulting engineers we need evidence from the research to balance against the annual energy costs and first costs of the system and discussion with the owner. How are all of the variables normalized? Can they be?
I don?t see that ASHRAE is necessarily the starting point for this research, but I?d be happy to entertain anyone?s discussion at the TC 7.6 Research Subcommittee meeting on Sunday January 24th, at 1:00 p.m. in the Hilton ?Lake Down A? room!
My main short-term takeaway was that many DCV systems will need to be recommissioned in order to maintain current OPR ventilation levels if the ambient levels increase and the current sequence of operation is based on a fixed offset. Also a reminder that calibration of CO2 sensors is important.
David
David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus Associates