Hi all
We have three Warehouse's that use 'turbo ventilators' (wind driven extraction fans) and not a pure mechanical system. The warehouses also do not have enough enough openings to meet the natural ventilation requirements of 5.1 in ASHRAE 62.1.
To meet the requirements of IEQp1 I feel my only option is to motivate that the this is an 'Engineered natural ventilation system' as per the exception to 5.1 in ASHRAE 62.1. In the wording (and confirmed in CIR ID#2539);
'An engineered natural ventilation system when approved by the authority having jurisdiction need not meet the requirements of Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. '
South African building codes don't deal with turbo ventilators directly, and because warehouses do not have a minimum ventilation requirement here the designs/drawings were approved by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ).
The issue is they would definitely be approved by AHJ because there is no minimum requirement.
But this is like simply using a less stringent code, which is not the intent.
How can I show compliance with IEQp1 for these areas?
Gustavo De las Heras Izquierdo
LEED Expert185 thumbs up
October 9, 2015 - 2:04 pm
Does the cut-sheet show estimated cfm under normal conditions? Then, you might be able to complete the calculator and meet the minimum requirement.
Joseph Snider
PrincipalIntegrative Sustainability Solutions
51 thumbs up
October 19, 2015 - 9:18 am
We have used these types of systems in Colombia in similar warehouse applications. The walls also had louvers on them for intake. We provided basically an engineered natural ventilation analysis to show the projected air flow through the spaces, and compare it to the required amount by ASHRAE. Usually these systems, especially if there are openings on the side, bring in more than enough outdoor air.
Jutta Berns
onwer and principalecocentric (pty) ltd.
130 thumbs up
October 27, 2015 - 4:57 am
Thanks for the responses. Sorry I took so long to reply.
Gustavo yes the cut-sheets show estimated cfm. But this is of course at an assumed wind speed over the roof.
Joseph was this approach accepted?
So in summary my approach would be to provide analysis that shows the ASHRAE 62.1 requirements are met rather than approved by AHJ because there is no requirement here.