LEED Review Comments Rectification
LEED Review Comments Rectification
Specialist USGBC review comments rectification. We have answered the recurring comment families across years of submissions, from U value and frame inclusion to baseline fan power corrections to cooling end use justifications. We rectify the model. You get the credit.
Who calls us at this moment.
What We Do
- We read the submission. The MEPC, the energy simulation report, the preliminary review comments, the DesignBuilder or IES VE or eQuest model file.
- We diagnose the gap. What the reviewer flagged, what the model actually shows, what the right response looks like.
- We rectify the model. Within the technical limits of the existing scope and timeline.
- We re-document. Updated report, updated MEPC, response narratives written in the language USGBC reviewers expect.
- We support re submission until the comments are cleared.
The recurring questions. We have answered each.
Has the U value of the building glazing been taken correctly? Does the glazing U value include the frame thickness and the U value of the frames? Has the U value been calculated using the LBNL software or has the effect of the frames been captured through the software? Provide an indication for the same.
There is no description of the material used for the wall in the MEPC. Please provide a description and a break up of the material layers for the wall material as well as the layer thickness.
Has the space by space method been used for modelling the baseline lighting power density? It appears that the ASHRAE 90.1 lighting power densities for the different spaces have not been modelled correctly for all the spaces.
Have lighting controls been included as per Section 9.4 in the baseline energy model? The number of EFLH, Equivalent Full Load Hours, appears to be greater than 4000 hours which is unexpected.
The baseline fan power appears to have been modelled higher than the allowed fan power as per the details provided in the MEPC. Kindly revise the baseline fan power in line with ASHRAE 90.1.
It appears that no details have been provided regarding the building’s HVAC, the mechanical schedule, heating and cooling efficiencies, supply airflow, fan power. Kindly include these details and revise the model accordingly.
It appears that the proposed case outdoor airflow is lower than the base case airflow. Kindly update the model to reflect the baseline outdoor airflow rates in line with ASHRAE 62.1 and also revise the proposed case AHU airflow in line with the project design.
The highest end use contributor to energy savings appears to be cooling which is unexpected and appears to be unsubstantiated. The baseline HVAC system is System 8 and uses a water cooled chiller. The proposed case system uses a VRF system with a COP of 4. Justify the energy savings and revise and update the model if necessary.
The heating energy savings is around 70 percent which is unexpected. Please justify.
The model proposed case fan power is higher than the base case fan power. However, the proposed case fan energy consumption is 20 percent lower than the base case fan energy consumption which is unexpected.
There are some spaces in the building which appear to have a very different equipment power load and hence the baseline should be modelled with a secondary HVAC system. Revise the model and update the results accordingly.
It appears that the baseline pump power has been modelled higher than the ASHRAE 90.1 pump power of 22 W per GPM. Kindly revise the baseline pump power and update the simulation results.
