Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


ASHRAE 90.1-2007

ASHRAE 90.1-2007

ASHRAE 90.1-2007

I had a visit with some building officials in my State today regarding the vestibule requirements for walkdoors.  I contend that it is foolish to vestibule a walkdoor when in the same building space you have large overhead doors that are slow-opening and slow-closing.  The heat-loss with the large door would greatly exceed that which you would have with the opening of a small walkdoor multiple times!  

It appears that ASHRAE completely ignored that fact, or only intended these vestibules in A, B, E, I, or M occupancies.  I completely understand their purpose in an occupancy like that, but dispute it in an F or S occupancy where large doors are major sources of heat-loss when open.

I was told that you need to take the door opening and closing into the envelope design.  I have no idea how to do that?  Any thoughts or suggestions?  I told the official that if the doors were open, it would be impossible to ever get a building to work.  I was told "We're not designers.........that's your issue to deal with."  That sounds snotty, but she was kind when she said it.  

How do I deal with this?  Does anybody have any insight to how ASHRAE thinks about this?  Anybody have any contacts at ASHRAE that I could get in touch with?


RE: ASHRAE 90.1-2007

Door opening and closing is fairly well described in ASHRAE Fundamentals Chap. 16 (2009).  It is treated as an infiltration source, defined by the number of open/close cycles anticipated, and provided as a CFM.

The officials are probably assuming that there will be a large number of open/closes with the walkdoor, and only a few with the overhead.

I did an F occupancy project recently in Indiana, and we would have been surprised to have any code review at all, let alone a visit.  State Fire Marshall did not even care to review plans.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


eBook - Rethink Your PLM
A lot has changed since the 90s. You don't surf the Web using dial-up anymore, so why are you still using a legacy PLM solution that's blocking your ability to innovate? To develop and launch products today, you need a flexible, cloud-based PLM, not a solution that's stuck in the past. Download Now
White Paper - Using Virtualization for IVI and AUTOSAR Consolidation on an ECU
Current approaches used to tackle the complexities of a vehicle’s electrical and electronics (E/E) architecture are both cost prohibitive and lacking in performance. Utilizing virtualization in automotive software architecture provides a better approach. This can be achieved by encapsulating different heterogeneous automotive platforms inside virtual machines running on the same hardware. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close