All,
I am working on the design of a project which includes specification of an air barrier in the building envelope and post-construction testing to confirm its performance. I would like to take credit for this in my energy modeling calculations for LEED EAc1. I have seen previous discussions on this mailing list about the lack of a baseline number for air leakage in ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G being an issue. I am also aware of the fact that performing a precise simulation of infiltration for a building would be complex and take into account wind pressures/directions, building pressurization, massing, etc. etc. However, page 36 of the Advanced Energy Modeling for LEED Technical Manual appears to reference a scenario in which credit can be taken for reduced infiltration, and there are CIRs that state that such credit can be taken if proper documentation is supplied. My question is: has anyone received a favorable review of an energy model that claimed savings due to reduced infiltration as part of LEED project documentation? If so, what methodology/baseline data was employed? Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Brian A. Turner P.E., CEM, LEED AP BD+C
You may wish to see the work that was done on this issue in the following report:
"Achieving the 30% Goal: Energy and Cost Savings Analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010" Pacific Northwest National Laboratory May 2011
Mark Campion
Hello Brian.
We ran into a similar case for a project designed to exceed MNECB 1997 (Canadian model energy code).
The answer we got was that, in fact, they had no idea what would be the infiltration rate of a building designed to meet code, basically because usual material testing is done to obtain infiltration rates based on material type, but not on overall assembly and typical construction practices. Thus, they have no way to establish an absolute numeric reference infiltration rate.
Looking at ASHRAE 90.1-2007, I don't see infiltration requirements with better (more specific/detailed) requirements than what we see in MNECB. So I'd expect you'll run into the same limitation.
For information: The energy software used for modeling against MNECN 1997 (EE4/DOE-2) assumes a fixed infiltration rate of 0.05 cfm/ft? of gross outside wall, both for the reference and the proposed building (without being able to assume a different value). OTOH, recent discussions I had with people involved in this field have indicated that the actual typical infiltration rate for commercial buildings is more in the range of 0.25 cfm/ft?.
Regards,
Fr?d?ric Genest,
Pageau Morel et associ?s inc.
ing., M.Sc.A., PA LEED BD+C / Eng., M.A.Sc., LEED AP BD+CASHRAE HBDP
Charg? de projet / Project Manager
Associ? / Associate
fgenest at pageaumorel.com
210, boul. Cr?mazie O., bur. 110
Montr?al (Qu?bec) H2P 1C6
T 514.382.5150 (203)
F 514.384.9872
www.pageaumorel.com
Poser un geste ?colo : un engagement infini! Est-ce vraiment n?cessaire d'imprimer ce courriel?
A green act: a commitment for infinity! Save trees. Print only when necessary.
AVERTISSEMENT CONCERNANT LA CONFIDENTIALIT? / CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
Ce courriel et toute information qui y est jointe sont confidentiels. Si vous avez re?u cette communication par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser imm?diatement et effacer l'original, sans en tirer de copie ni en d?voiler le contenu. / This e-mail and any information enclosed are confidential. If you have received this message by error, please notify us immediately and delete the original without making a copy and without disclosing its content.
-----Message d'origine-----
De?: Brian A. Turner [mailto:bturner at ClarkNexsen.com]
Envoy??: 24 janvier 2012 21:52
??: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Objet?: [Bldg-sim] LEED and infiltration
All,
I am working on the design of a project which includes specification of an air barrier in the building envelope and post-construction testing to confirm its performance. I would like to take credit for this in my energy modeling calculations for LEED EAc1. I have seen previous discussions on this mailing list about the lack of a baseline number for air leakage in ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G being an issue. I am also aware of the fact that performing a precise simulation of infiltration for a building would be complex and take into account wind pressures/directions, building pressurization, massing, etc. etc. However, page 36 of the Advanced Energy Modeling for LEED Technical Manual appears to reference a scenario in which credit can be taken for reduced infiltration, and there are CIRs that state that such credit can be taken if proper documentation is supplied. My question is: has anyone received a favorable review of an energy model that claimed savings due to reduced infiltration as part of LEED project documentation? If so, what methodology/baseline data was employed? Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Brian A. Turner P.E., CEM, LEED AP BD+C
I think using 0.25 cfm/ft2 is a bit excessive for energy modeling purposes, unless, maybe, you are varying infiltration rate to account for wind & stack effects and the 0.25 is a peak value. (The 0.05 was a value picked by the energy code Task group after discussions with NRC staff specializing in infiltration & modeling for the sole purpose of demonstrating compliance with the Code)
For the sample office/retail building in EE4, using 0.05 leakage results in an infiltration load that represents around 18% of the net envelope peak heat loss. Ramping it up to 0.25 put the value up to more than 1/2 the envelope load. I don't believe we are building buildings that poorly in Canada.
Since the value was chosen solely to be used for demonstrating compliance it should not be construed as a design value for load estimation. Note too that in the EE4 compliance model, this rate occurs over all faces of the building which in practice cannot happen, what goes in must come out!
Hope this helps
Les Jones