Ok I am new to LEED but my architect is telling me that most of the LEED submission take place after the construction documents are done. That seems to smack in the face of what LEED is all about.
If I design HVAC and P and E systems already then what is the purpose of modeling and submissions if I don't get my credit points. I can't and do not intend to design twice so how is it that I go for a system concept that may not fly. It would seem I am not getting any benefit of LEED processes early on to aid my design.
Can someone straigten me out on this?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
March 21, 2013 - 1:19 pm
The final documentation for LEED is very different than the work that goes into the research and analysis necessary to evaluate credit attainment during design. LEED does not tell you how to get there, it just evaluates where you end up. In this way it establishes targets for you to design toward. As it relates to this prerequisite your architect is correct that LEED does not force you to do design phase modeling to help guide design decisions. The next version of LEED will require some design phase modeling however.
It is important to understand that LEED is really just a simple tool. How you use that tool is far more important than the tool itself. To do a model at the end of design solely to determine how many LEED points is practically a waste of time. The real purpose of modeling is not to predict the future but to make relative comparisons between options as a part of evaluating overall energy performance.
Robert Sutton
P.E., C.E.M, President/OwnerSutton Engineered Systems, Inc.
March 21, 2013 - 1:47 pm
Marcus
Thanks for the reply. I sort of understand, but it seems that you are saying two things that differ at the same time. One - do the modelng later, Two- should do the modeling during design.
I don't get how LEED is helping the design except to get you thinking in a direction to meet a credit but not designing necessarily.
Take for example - a low budget project (relatively speaking-maybe tight would be a better word). I know where we need to be to meet the client's goals and budget and it ditates a simple design - nohing elaborate or expensive we can't afford to do. So where is the innovation, the options for other sytems maybe. They want LEED but don't want to spend too much. I move forward with my design and never look back wondering if I could have done it better. Don't get a chance to.
Where was LEED in all this? Not there until the end? Interesting.
Robert Sutton
P.E., C.E.M, President/OwnerSutton Engineered Systems, Inc.
March 21, 2013 - 1:50 pm
To add - I have been desiging to code and the energy code for years and telling the client what was needed for R values and energy savings. Nothing new there. Call it LEED I suppose or not. MAny engneers have the same reaction - "hey this in nothing new to us" For the rest of the team maybe some of it is new and at least LEED gets them on our page.
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
March 21, 2013 - 2:58 pm
LEED is there during design if the project is required to deliver it to the owner. You just do not have to prove what you have done until you are finished.
What I am saying is that you are required to do the modeling later but you should be doing the modeling during design. To do it right requires both. To do the minimum required is just after.
LEED does not dictate your design so if you are expecting it to tell you what to do you are missing the point. You need to bring the innovation and options to the table to meet the goals LEED helps you establish.
Keep in mind that "designing to code" is not energy efficient, it is the worst building allowed by law!
Everyone has their individual starting points.
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
March 21, 2013 - 3:04 pm
Also wanted to point out that you do not have to do your design twice to evaluate two HVAC system options. We do design phase modeling all the time without have any HVAC design.
Let's suppose that the project performance goal for LEED is a 40% savings compared to the 90.1 Baseline. Wouldn't that influence your design?
Robert Sutton
P.E., C.E.M, President/OwnerSutton Engineered Systems, Inc.
March 21, 2013 - 3:20 pm
Obviously I am a skeptic. No surprise I am sure. I certainly understand the code and it limitations, but I also understand construction and its llimitations especially related to costs.
Why would I suggest using a 40% energy savings design on a project. Unless the owner wants it and can afford it - then it makes no sense to do that. And inputting data for alternative systems requires a large amount of effort for fan energy, layout considerations, system constructiblity, impactst to the building design, and many more relative attributes. Where do I get those answers - not thin air, but from calculations and design engineering effort. Please don't minimalize that effort.
I realize all you say about LEED at the end and I think it is a waste of time too. LEED may not dictate but the credit system does no matter what you say. I can't evaluate 40% savings in a vacuum.
I suppose my architect wants the most for the least - go figure. So does the client. Doing the minimal is exactly want our charge is on this project. Certified is all we are attempting. Any other projects in the future will have to have the budget to do LEED and BUILD LEED. Without the money this is all a waste of time and energy.
Sorry for the candid responses but I get my heat up when asked about LEED. It was invented on the shoulders of us who started it - engineers who have been making energy efficiency primary in our designs many many years ago. and today. What about the 1000's of buildings that aren't LEED. They are and can be energy efficient too - Just not GBCI Certified.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
March 21, 2013 - 3:37 pm
Robert, it seems like the obvious question is, why is the project bothering with LEED? It's clearly seen as an added burden, not an added value. If it's not worth it to you—don't do it.For anyone who might be interested, here's an article I just posted on using energy modeling during conceptual design without necessariy going through all the effort you describe of specifying systems.
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5909 thumbs up
March 21, 2013 - 4:19 pm
The article talks about one of our projects that reduced energy use by over 40% and that effort reduced first cost. We have seen countless projects that have done so. From your perspective I understand that if you believe that it will cost far more money you would not suggest such a target. In my experience it is eminently attainable and we have done so dozens of times within the project's budget.
If you are using Trace or HAP and feel it necessary to do a full set of load calculations first, yes it takes too much time. But this is not necessary to do comparative analysis. Not minimizing that effort at all but you are assuming that you have to do so and that is just not accurate. There is a rather large space between your vacuum and full design. The models will auto-size the HVAC for example based on the other input parameters which influence the loads.
No one is minimizing the efforts behind other buildings pursuing energy efficiency. No doubt that LEED is not necessary to produce energy efficiency. LEED was created to define green buildings and transform the market in many areas, not just energy. The fact that we are even having this conversation is testament to its success.
Sounds like you are being dragged, kicking and screaming, through something in which you do not believe. So you can embrace it and try to learn from it or you can thrash about and fight it, your choice I suppose but I don't have the energy to try and convince you if you choose the latter. If you have specific questions beyond "I don't get it", I would be happy to help.
Robert Sutton
P.E., C.E.M, President/OwnerSutton Engineered Systems, Inc.
March 21, 2013 - 4:27 pm
I appreciate al you say and thanks for the link and information thus far. I will get it done and learn from it. May the next one be more comfortable for me. Thanks.
Robert Sutton
P.E., C.E.M, President/OwnerSutton Engineered Systems, Inc.
March 21, 2013 - 5:33 pm
This building is fixed in stone with location, glazing, r values. Attaches to an existing building. Not much left for me except lights and high eff systems. I too think LEED on this is a waste of time.
If I ever get a chance to do "games" on a project as I have done in the past with other energy conservation measures for NECPA and other organizations, then that would be welcome. For now this project is as you say - "makes no sense". Thanks for the article and I see it can be done with the tools and proper design goals and LEED goals.
Ivy Chen
ManagerBanyan Tree Hotels & Resorts
March 21, 2013 - 10:37 pm
it will not be a waste of time. At least you will know where your building will be in terms of enegry efficiency with current arch and mep system design. And you will probably know which area to be improved for next building.
Robert Sutton
P.E., C.E.M, President/OwnerSutton Engineered Systems, Inc.
March 21, 2013 - 10:50 pm
I suppose you are correct. It just feels like LEED is not being used correctly. Thanks.
Rob Watson
CEOECON Group
170 thumbs up
March 22, 2013 - 11:27 am
LEED is a defined set of performance requirements that produces results if taken; it also defines "green" for a broader audience.
A piano is a defined set of keys that produce musical notes when played.
The product coming out of LEED, just like the music coming out of a piano, is solely the responsibility of the person using it.
Over 2 billion square feet of certified space have come out of the system--not all of it painlessly--but, so far, it seems to be doing the job.
Robert Sutton
P.E., C.E.M, President/OwnerSutton Engineered Systems, Inc.
March 22, 2013 - 11:37 am
Hey look, I was around in the 70's and we had this concept of Whole Building Design and Site and Envelope adaptive scenarios even back then. It only got important when GBCI created it. Yes it is the norm now, but it took some time for the gang to all get on board. Years in fact. I am happy that everyone is now working as a team on this. It used to be the only one concerned with energy use was the engineer who had to tell the team what they needed for lighting, hvac, and envelope. Now many more attributes contribute to the process and all of those stakeholders have a say. It is a big business now. GBCI got what they wished for and in the end the world is a better place no doubt. Not all buildings are suited for it or can afford to build this way but at least they can strive for it. LEED levels is what that is all about. Painlessly or not, it is a big job, big business, and there is no turning back. I am personally happy to see that accountability had now been included to correct the errors of models not meeting expectations. We have a long way to go yet.
Jean Marais
b.i.g. Bechtold DesignBuilder Expert832 thumbs up
March 22, 2013 - 12:02 pm
I have made the point before that I think the EAp2 credit should be split into envelope performance via a baseline (with 40% glazing) and the rest. This would "inspire" architects to involve energy modelers earlier and stop using so much glass. The USGBC wants to drive the industry...this is what they should do. Put the credit weighting on the first part! It is easier to test and will have far larger impact.
Ivy Chen
ManagerBanyan Tree Hotels & Resorts
March 24, 2013 - 9:51 pm
In Singapore, Building and Construction Authority does define the max permissible Envelope Thermal Transfer Value for buildings. However, it is HVAC Engineer's duty to carry out the calculation and advise Architect how to improve after that.