You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium forForum discussion
Schools-2009 EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance
See LEEDuser’s guidance on Schools-2009 EAp2 »
Existing buidling assembly
Add new comment
To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.
See all forum discussions about Schools-2009 EAp2
Subscribe to new posts about Schools-2009 EAp2
Post a new question about Schools-2009 EAp2
See LEEDuser’s guidance on Schools-2009 EAp2 »
FAQs about EAp2:
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
5911 thumbs up
June 20, 2017 - 9:44 am
Maybe.
For windows you can use the values in 90.1-2007 Table A8.2.
For walls, roofs, etc. you can estimate the U-values based on what you know about the construction assemblies. This is generally not difficult to do.
Using the 90.1 minimum may be acceptable if you demonstrate that modeling those values would produce a conservative level of savings (i.e. less savings than if you modeled the existing assemblies as is).