Forum discussion
NC-2009 EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance
I’m modeling a school that is located in Italy, longitude 46°N. In a comment of the preliminary review the reviewers wrote that the equivalent hours of full load of the internal lights seem too few. Could I find a document that specifies, from a statistical point of view, the hours in which internal lights are on for different locations and different uses?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium forTo post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.
A portion of our building envelope is historic. Can we exclude it from our model?
For an existing building, do I need to rotate the model?
Our process load is higher than 25%. Do we have to justify that?
Our local code references ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Should I use that for my documentation, or 90.1-2007?
Can mezzanines open to floors below be excluded from the energy model?
How do I provide a zip code for an international location?
For a project outside the U.S., how do I determine the climate zone?
For a project outside the U.S., how do I determine the Target Finder score?
Do hotel rooms need automatic light shut-off control?
How commonly are the 90.1 mandatory compliance forms submitted as part of EAp2/EAc1?
The Section 9 space-by-space method does not include residential space types. What should I use?
Can the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) be used to energy model for LEED?
Which baseline HVAC system do I use if my building has no heating or air conditioning?
Our project has a diesel backup generator. Should we include it in our energy model?
Can SHGC be higher in the proposed than in the baseline model?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
November 6, 2014 - 4:57 pm
I do not know of a document but this should not be very hard to explain. How many hours/year is the facility open with the lights on? Sounds like the reviewer is indicating that the hours of run time for the lighting is lower than they would expect given the typical operating hours of such a facility. If there is an explanation for why the run hours are low then provide that, if you don't have an explanation then it sounds like you should check the lighting schedules to make sure you are accurately reflecting the operation of the facility.
Jean Marais
b.i.g. Bechtold DesignBuilder Expert832 thumbs up
November 7, 2014 - 1:22 am
A pro, pro...the most important thing is that the schedules are the same for both baseline and proposed models...but since I'm getting into mimicking of user behavour through simulation, a statistic of how much users switch lights on and off would be interesting. Some simulation programs (EQUA's IDA ICE) can incorporate Lightswitch-2002 (Reinhart, 2004), which models this probalistic nature. I know you use energyplus. You can achieve similar user based control if you consicer some of the options in the lighting controls, but you need to implement daylighting controls to mimick this and consider the probability of changing state events ontop of regular glare and light level control. Alternatively, you could implement EMS or eplus now also has Functional Mock-Up Interface (FMI) interface, which allows it to bind in external programs (also check out PyFMI is based on FMI Library, see http://www.jmodelica.org/FMILibrary).
As far as I'm aware e+ will be developing more sophisticated user mimicking in the future, starting with window ventilation and lighting.
*http://archive.iea-shc.org/publications/downloads/task31-Lightswitch-200...
IMO as long as the control settings are the same for both baseline and proposed models, this kind of lighting should be more than acceptable.
Francesco Passerini
engineer90 thumbs up
November 7, 2014 - 5:00 am
Thank you very much for the very detailed comments! I'm printing the Reinhart's paper. Perhaps I'll develop very detailed schedules on the basis of the exterior illuminance [lux].
Best Regards
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5867 thumbs up
November 7, 2014 - 9:37 am
Just keep in mind that savings cannot be claimed for manual controls. As long as the schedules are the same it should be fine.