This is the third phase of a large college science facility. This is an addition which includes classrooms, labs, and several small greenhouses. There was no energy model for this phase because there is no head-end equipment or Mechanical room in this section of the facility. That was all built (and modelled) in the previous 2 phases. All new ductwork/piping/etc. is being connected back into now-existing Mechanical rooms located in the previous phase.

So, I am trying to figure out how to earn this PR. I have never dealt with this scenario before. Is the only option to tell them they need to model this phase? Is this a brand new model, or a revision of the previous one (to include this additional square footage)?

Unless I am missing something, I do not think that either of the prescriptive paths is possible. This is the smallest of the phases in terms of size, but it exceeds the 20,000SF limit for Option 2 (and isn't the right project type). Option 3 doesn't apply because this phase contains labs.

Thoughts?

Post a reply

Marcus Sheffer

LEED Fellow

7group / Energy Opportunities

LEEDuser Expert

4454 thumbs up

Mon, 08/20/2018 - 16:30

So are these phases separate LEED projects or are they part of a single LEED project? If they are separate projects, they need separate modeling results.

Roxanne Button

Architect & Sustainable Design Consultant, AIA, MRAIC, LEED AP

Design Synergies Architecture

LEEDuser Basic Member

49 thumbs up

Mon, 08/20/2018 - 16:54

Hi Marcus - These are separate LEED projects. The first phase was registered in 2007, so this project has had a long timeline. The first two phases were certified Gold. We are now on the final phase, which was registered in March 2016. All of the labs and classrooms are connecting back to the equipment installed in the previous phase. Thank you - Roxanne

Marcus Sheffer

LEED Fellow

7group / Energy Opportunities

LEEDuser Expert

4454 thumbs up

Mon, 08/20/2018 - 18:05

So this third phase should not have been included in any of the modeling results for the other phases. Each should be modeled with an independent set of modeling results. Whether this is a new model or not depends on how the project was modeled in the first two phases. You could have modeled the whole project at once and then metered (within the model) the energy end use for each phase. If that was not done it may be possible to go back and do it depending on the software. I am guessing that this phase was not included in the models for the first two phases, if so you will need a separate model that addresses this phase only. It does not matter that there is no primary source mechanical equipment in this phase. This phase will place an additional load on those existing systems and that must be modeled to determine the additional energy use associated with this phase. The prescriptive paths are very rarely used since you must comply with every requirement or you can't meet the prerequisite and the vast majority of projects do not meet them all.

Roxanne Button

Architect & Sustainable Design Consultant, AIA, MRAIC, LEED AP

Design Synergies Architecture

LEEDuser Basic Member

49 thumbs up

Tue, 08/21/2018 - 13:52

To the best of my knowledge, the third phase was not included in previous models. In fact, Phase 3 was doubtful for a while because of cost overruns, so the team didn't include anything for it in the previous models. I have a conference call with the engineering team this week and hope to get more answers. Thank you, Marcus - you have confirmed what I was thinking. This is why LEED consultants should be brought in EARLY! Thanks! Roxanne

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.

You are currently logged in under an enterprise account

FAQs about EAp2 :

EAp2 for a Lab Building

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

Add new comment