Going Beyond LEED- Building Systems Engineering

[GMcD]

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.

 

[ChasBean1]

GMcD,

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

 

[GMcD]

Thanks for the input. The intent is to go beyond LEED, touch on zero-energy buildings design, and getting HVAC engineers to participate and do design assist on fenestration and building envelope design. My design background is thermal mass, radiant systems, and designing low energy hydronic systems, so the intent is to go beyond "conventional" HVAC system approaches and understand the intent of LEED and go beyond that type of building design approach.

 

[AEBuck]

Before going beyond LEED, count me among the dissenters for getting to this point in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I consider myself a steward of every BTU my designs consume, and for that reason - I do not need a phony point system and plaque as a pat on the back. For starters ...

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!!!

 

[GMcD]

It's too easy to dump on the LEED building system ;^) That's why I am participating in the presentation. I believe the building systems engineer HAS to become more involved in the building envelope and fenestration design. The lowest life cycle cost mechanical and electrical (lighting) element in a building is the right glass/window and solar control. HVAC engineers have to learn to control the loads first, then design suitable low energy human comfort systems. Note that moving warm and cold air around a room is only addressing half of the human comfort equation. Do some google searches on "human comfort". Don't react to thermal loads, DO proactively assist to reduce them first. And don't gimme any crap about "well the Architect has already designed the curtain wall..." Your job is to go back and show the difference in first costs and operating costs using his curtainwall versus your choice in curtainwall design. THAT'S ENGINEERING.

 

[jherbert]

"......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...

 

[GMcD]

Exactly- the current building design system is broken and the LEED movement is highlighting how badly broken it really is. I am living in a city where floor to ceiling west facing glass is the architects' pet design (it's all about the view, Geoff) and we HVAC designers are to solve this with high efficiency mech systems...! I'm not advocating replacing architects with engineers, but if architects keep abrogating their design responsibility, somebody has to be the curmudgeon at the design table. Absolutely right- engineers have to be at the design table at the same time as the architect starts making squiggly lines on tracing paper. And yes, the fees have to be overhauled- do more work to get a lower cost, more efficient mech system, that's all part of my mantra.

 

[jherbert]

I was talking to an engineer, taking an architectural course and he confessed his horror about the method for teaching architect - to cut a long story short compared to any engineering course - little is actually taught.

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

 

[jherbert]

Just to add one more point...here the local system is called HKBEAM (equal to LEED) it costs the client about US$13K for an assessment, and that excludes the extra design, modelling, etc.

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.

 

[cme]

The problem with excessive energy consumption is the architects in practice today. By that I mean that they are out there to build a monument to themselves. They have an inflated ego.

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.

 

[GMcD]

So CME, what is the solution? From my point of view as a North America based Mech Eng, I find that there are virtually no university level courses about "building physics" aka "building science" in the engineering faculties. Architects get "some" exposure to courses like those, but the big issue currently (flavour of the month) is moisture control in building envelopes. The technical schools/colleges have some courses on building thermal performance, but I find that it is a big gap in the education of North American Building Services engineers. I am trying to drum up interest in my area for more formal building physics training for both architects and building services engineers. It's tough, as an example- we have recently completed a new engineering building at the local University campus and while it represents a leading edge building system, the occupant's biggest issue is that the north facing perimeter offices don't have blinds, while everyone else does. The relative importance of low energy/high performance buildings is lost on the folks who we have trying to teach the newbies. Remember- "buildings" in North America represent close to 40% of all the air pollution, greenhouse gas generation, and resource consumption on the planet, yet there are few Universities in North America that even have any kind of course on designing lower impact buildings. But hey, we devote mega $$ to developing faster computer chips, fancy consumer goods and diposable knick knacks.

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.

 

[cme]

In an A/E environment, the problem lies in the fact that the architect is the also PM on the project. They "control" or think they are in control. This leads to them having the authority to keep changing the floor plan until the very last minute and then say "we're done" trying to make themselves look good. You know the GAME. They suck up all the hours on the job and get away with it. Or at least they try it on me. I get my allotted fee and put hours on architectural for changes.

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.

 

[jherbert]

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

 

[AEBuck]

Sorry GMcD, but I don't need you to tell me how to do my job, what extra work I need to do, or where to search for definitions of human comfort. I learn on my own time and routinely talk with user groups, facility engineers and contractors in search of problems and solutions. I am talking about real, everyday situations - not theoretical BS that should be investigated by graduate students and newbies. Previous posts, however, did uncover several of the real problems - prominent being incompetent architects. The average mechanical engineer in the building industry probably spends less than 1 day a week practicing true engineering, and at least 3-4 days cramming their systems into unsuitable spaces or reworking completed designs to accomodate the latest architectural whim. LEED is not going to identify or correct this problem. LEED is not going to change human expectations for their indoor environment. LEED is not going to fund vanquished maintenance budgets. At some point, consider building energy consumption to be water confined in a balloon. Squeeze one side and the other bulges. We're a lot closer to that point than when I started, and there's a lot more energy to be saved by simply following through on what we already know. Renewable and recycled materials. Go for it! Experimental systems ... try them in the lab, not on my clients.

 

[lilliput1]

Building Owners should be weary of fly by night LEED promoters who put on a razzle dassle show of possible energy conserving measures. They would entice the Owner to hold a presentation wherin they would promote: roof planter, daylighting, photovoltaic, increased roof insulation, underfloor air distribution or diffusion air distribution, heat recovery, rain water collection, geothermal, on site waste treatment, atriums, natural ventilation etc. But it would not be in there scope to carry out the computer simulations, LEED applications & actual design. Their fee is only for the razzle dassle show. It is up the the actual design engineers to go through and find out most of the recommendations are not feasible for the real particular building. They did not consider: a tall building is planned to be build adjacent that would block solar, inadequate space for geothermal wells, insulation on the roof actually increased energy use because the building interior needed cooling year round and the proposed added roof insulation increased OA economizer & humidification load; site waste treatment can pose danger to kids & people that uses the facility, cost of rainwater collection is prohibitive since tap water is cheap, atriums require smoke evacuation, natural ventilation require large shafts and openings that would be fire hazard, underfloor air distribution could house rodents. Ducts underfloor will still be required because large plenums wpuld have severe leakage. The building existing ceiling need to remain as return air plenum space.

 

[GMcD]

AEBuck: I'm not sure how I managed to convey the impression that I'm trying to tell anyone how to do their job (other than architects...). In my years of experience, I have also dealt with the users, occupants, and maintenance staff at many buildings and what I am seeing is fundamantal basic building design issues that are NOT being dealt with properly. I am not a promoter of LEED by any means. The one benefit LEED does have is to create awareness and get more people thinking about sustainable solutions. I have had the same experience as outlined by Lilliput there, about the "smoke'n'mirrors" shows with little practical "here's how you do it, and make healthy buildings". My original post was meant to elicit comments from other folks out there in the building services design industry as to what aspects of building design SHOULD I talk about to a room full of bright shining faces who desire to design more sustainably, and go beyond the LEED basics. I am not intending to promote experimental systems or grad student research projects, I wanted to know what other engineers out there would think would be good topics of interest to get more people designing sustainably. My own plan was to talk about the basics of building design and human comfort, and remind the bright shining faces that we building services engineers are supposed to be designing systems for human comfort rather than "heating and cooling buildings".