I've recieved comments on a past project that said all square footages must be consistent throughout the project - so the SF documented in MPR 2 must be the same as EAp2 and WEp1.
I'm working on another project - TI - where the entire building is our LEED boundary, however the MEP engineer had limited scope of work. (They did not design air conditioning for the stairwells, for example).
What's the best solution here? Will a narrative justifying a smaller SF be accepted, or should we adjust our SF - thereby lowering our lighting power reduction?
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5907 thumbs up
May 6, 2014 - 9:23 am
Provide a narrative.
Pamela Mendez
WSPLEEDuser Expert
6 thumbs up
April 14, 2015 - 2:13 pm
Hi Marcus, I have a similar case where the LEED Project Boundary includes areas where some of the spaces where lighting is not being upgraded as part of the project scope and the existing lighting fixtures will remain.
Regarding the ligthing power density calculations do we:
1) Can we exclude these spaces from the LPD calculation and explain the different in the SF compared to PIF2
2) If we have to include these spaces in the LPD calculation? If the fixture information is unknown can we use the baseline values for the space.
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
5907 thumbs up
April 14, 2015 - 3:20 pm
1. No. You must model all energy use within the project boundary. For existing lighting you should model it identically in both models. Creating a separate meter for this load in the model would be a good idea.
2. No. If the fixtures exist you can find out the wattage. Ask the guy who changes the bulbs.