Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
(OP)
I am going to be giving a presentation on "going beyond LEED" for building systems engineers, so to all of you who are familiar with the USGBC/CaGBC LEED program, what would you want to see at a presentation like this? What sort of information would be useful to you as a building engineer who wants to design low energy/low impact buildings systems? I have some ideas of my own, but would like to hear from the group as to what would be valuable for you to get out of a presentation/talk about this subject.
Thanks for the responses.
Thanks for the responses.





RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
If you have some ideas that can be effective, present them. But to prepare, consider any dissenting questions because there will be some in the audience who may outwardly try to sharpshoot you and some might naturally doubt until they're convinced. People tend to get into a 'comfort zone' of designs that seem to work best in certain applications. That said, here are some thoughts:
1. Is the flush-out point worth it? Should we suffer for two weeks with extreme demand (don't think the utility won't notice) and abnormal system operation to achieve an end that will occur naturally anyway?
2. Who's programming the night setback? So many projects specify a BAS that is capable, but setback is never employed because it's not in the ATC scope and the O&M staff is not empowered, doesn't have the time, or doesn't take the engineering initiative.
3. Better tailoring night setback to building use.
4. How many points are too many points? Meeting certain LEED requirements might result in added installation and maintenance costs that operating cost will not offset.
5. Research and data (installation and operating costs) amongst system types would be very useful. Example: modular boilers versus a couple big ones; run-around loop versus enthalpy wheel; DX air handlers vs. chilled water, etc.
6. Here's a good one: Is everything too automated? Is it worth paying the extra $1.2 million for elaborate controls to spare $70K per year for a trained operator? Will simplification come back in style?
Good luck with your presentation, and I'm sorry if this input is too late. -CB
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
It is easy for a client to request or demand compliance with a certain point level. It is another matter entirely for the design team to recover their actual costs for indulging such a client. As a percentage of additional construction cost, which many clients use as one gauge while considering fees for this extra service, the real fee for this paperwork exercise looks ridiculous. So, consultants accept less or move on. Look for me in the passing lane.
"The proof is in the pudding", as they say, and LEED proponents are universally prone to tout successes while ignoring failures, and there are some. One disaster is on my desk awaiting corrective design effort by someone with experience and common sense, qualities apparently not possessed by the original design team. I am aware of several others, and I'm not even looking. It wouldn't be a stretch to call "fixing LEED" a marketing opportunity.
For building owner's and operator's who are truly serious about saving energy and money, look to the U.S. EPA's Energy Star program for real results. This program distinguishes itself from the pretenders (including LEED) by tracking actual performance improvements and energy savings, and then rewarding the most deserving. For the unknowing, this program extends far beyond those labels you see on appliances.
OK ... you LEED advocates ... Pile it on!!!
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
"......and getting HVAC engineers to participate and do design assist on fenestration and building envelope design"
eliminating the need for architects perhaps?
But seriously, in the majority of cases the E&M engineering is appointed way too late, the arch/client have normally bought the concept at consultancy bidding stage. Once it is all cast in stone, the minor permitted amendments, in the case of Leed, are to earn points.
I have a radicial idea, employ the engineer first!
and perhaps clients wouldnt complain about the high running cost for poor concept buildings, bad aspect, and silly glazing systems.
Regarding LEED, BEAM, etc, for the E&M guy they require far more work with potentially lower compensation - and how wants that? The standard fee structure needs to be re-thought.
Comparative computer simulations don't grow on trees either, smart engineers must slave over a hot computer to meet the expected savings.
should read the "Leed is broken" report
my 2 cents...
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
There is alos a political/historical problem in that many architects think they are demi-gods, bending and shaping society, etc, etc, etc. however the fact remains that the total life time cost of a building exceeds the first cost, primarily due to the energy costs.
like the comment regarding "...pet west facing design.." of course the architect sold that idea a long time for the engineer had sight of the drawings. If the engineer want to cause "trouble" and requested a redesign... who would pay the architects redesign fee, would that engineer be employed again for trying to save the client OP and CAPex.
my 3 cents
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
Should the client spend that US$13K on building improvements that would save money, ie better windows or just to get a certificate to say he has a HKBEAM rated building?
In my view a simple system would be more effective.
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
There are two types of architects. First is the "conceptual" architect who has the 'grand vision'. He knows little about constructability, budget and details nor does he care. Then there is the detail architect, knowing building construction details and specifications.
There are very few and far between architects who understand all aspects of the building he designs. This includes setting floor heights, knowing that electrical closets have to be aligned in multi-story buildings, allotting of "proper" mechanical room spaces, ceiling heights, etc. Most architects think they know this but time and time again they are proven wrong.
These so called architects are the same ones who allow high steel heights in retail strip malls (where the're not needed) and try to scrimp and save when it comes to floor to floor heights in hospitals where there is a multude of services required.
Tell me the last time when an architect put in SC and U value in their specs for glass? They don't. I have to constantly remind them.
What's the first thing they cut when the job is over-budget? The mechanical system. What's the first scapegoat when there is a problem with a building ..... the mechanical system. Mechanical systems are viewed as out of sight out of mind, are desired to cost minimally as possible, don't want to be heard, seen, etc.
The architects have done this to us. And that include that masterspec product which is full of all kinds of errors, ommissions and problems. I don't personally use it but AIA and NSPE endorses it.
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
And, CME, I have had the same experience reviewing architectural specifications for the glazing performance- I get a blank look most times when I ask where the detailed performance values are. The architects are mostly concerned about the colour of the glass and after that their eyes just glaze over when you want to know about the thermal and solar performance. Don't even get me going about the thermal bridging goofs that are far too common in the building envelope details the architects produce and copy over from project to project.
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
Now the story is different in an "E" firm. The A doesn't have the convenience to do that. They can't sh** on us. We can charge them for changes.
Houston we have a problem and its been that way as long as I can remember. I think ASHRAE should do something about it instead of being a social club with boring technical articles. This isn't rocket science you know.
We also have a problem with the codes. How long have we been building buildings and the codes change every 3 years? Take a look at ventilation for a church. The church I grew up in had no ventilation and everything was fine. ASHRAE 62 still takes into account a moderate amount of smoking. The only smoking I know of is in bars and that's changing. The problem is the lawyers took over the business and everybody is a crying baby that is sue happy.
We also have a problem with contractors. All the good ones are retired. The ones who knew anything not like the assembler of today. Look at drawings from as far back as the 50's, they didn't have all the details. Things weren't cut-throat as they are today. They low ball the job and look to make it up on change orders. Public jobs are the worst.
Lastly, around here at least there is an age barrier. Very few around 60, then it drops to early 40's and then to high 20's.
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
Eng: you spec'd SC and U value for glazing right?
Arch: duh.....yup
Eng: great, sooooooo what you specify?
Arch: I'll get back to you on that.....
Eng: Oh.....we have to submit a sh*t load of calculations based on these figures to get building department approval
Arch:.......hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering
RE: Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering