Big Green: Trane TRACE
Ralph Bicknese
rbicknese at hellmuth-bicknese.com
Thu Mar 20 17:22:23 EDT 2008
Craig:
I do not mean to be overly picky but I never suggested USGBC did analysis or
testing of energy simulation programs (and I would certainly not expect them
to). I recall from shopping for a simulation program a few years ago there
is a standard, that USGBC expects be met, by reference through ASHRAE Std.
90.1. I am checking on what that standard is.
I did find in the LEED-S Reference Manual that Trane Trace 700 is
specifically listed as an acceptable simulation program as are some others.
There is no standard, that all energy simulation programs must meet,
referenced directly. Note, I have no particular interest in Trane Trace. We
use the IES suite of software which includes APACHE as the energy simulation
program.
Cheers,
Ralph Bicknese
-----Original Message-----
From: biggreen-bounces at lists.biggreen.org
[mailto:biggreen-bounces at lists.biggreen.org] On Behalf Of Craig Kneeland
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:58 PM
To: biggreen at lists.biggreen.org
Subject: Big Green: Trane TRACE
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:39:06 -0500
From: "Ralph Bicknese" <rbicknese at hellmuth-bicknese.com>
Subject: RE: Big Green: TRANE/TRACE Oversizing Equipment?
To: "'Russ Weiser \(HKP\)'" <rweiser at hkpa.com>,
<biggreen at lists.biggreen.org>
Message-ID: <00d301c88a09$a8e94de0$fabbe9a0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Russ:
I'll have to give a short answer hear due to time constraints. I believe
Trane Tracer is an acceptable energy simulation program
I have checked with an outside energy modeler. They are comfortable with
the results they get from Trane Tracer.
Secondly, they posed your question to Trane (without using your name).
Trane
defended their program as one would expect but I also have no reason to
doubt this.
Third, a LEED requirement for energy simulations is that ASHRAE 90.1-2004
Appendix G Performance Rating Method stipulates calculations be done "using
an approved simulation program". The approved programs have to undergo
fairly stringent analysis to fall within reasonable accuracy guidelines. As
long as Trane Tracer is an approved system (which I believe it is) then IF
the input is correct, then the results should be within accepted
tolerances.
But as has been said, "Garbage in, garbage out". The inverse is, as long as
the input is good, the results should be good. These programs are quite
complex and it is not uncommon for some big errors to be made on inputs and
for them to be difficult to find.
I understand that Trane offers free (included review) of the results to
those who have purchased the program. An extra set of eyes for review is a
good idea.
Cheers,
Ralph
Ralph Bicknese, AIA, LEED AP
hellmuth + bicknese architects
7211 manchester rd.
st. louis, mo 63143
t: 314.531.9901
f: 314.531.9902
c: 314.265.0517
www.rbicknese at hellmuth-bicknese.com
www.hellmuthbicknese.com
Ralph,
As far as I know, the USGBC has not done any kind of analysis on acceptable
energy modeling programs. CEC does and some group has been determining
acceptable models for EPACT 05. For more information, ARTI funded a study
comparing a variety of modeling programs. It was published in 2002 and has
some very interesting info. The link is
http://www.arti-21cr.org/research/completed/finalreports/30010.30020-final.p
df.
Craig Kneeland, LEED AP
Senior Project Manager
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
17 Columbia Circle
Albany, NY 12203-6399
Phone 518-862-1090 x 3311
Fax: 518-862-1091
www.nyserda.org
Craig Kneeland is a member of the Green Guide for Health Care (GGHC)
Steering Committee. The GGHC is the first and only sustainable design,
construction, and operations toolkit tailored to the health care industry.
For more information, visit www.gghc.org.
_______________________________________________________________
This green building dialogue is provided as a public service
by Drew George, along with Environmental Building News
http://www.buildinggreen.com. For instructions see
http://www.biggreen.org/discussion.html
_______________________________________________________________
More information about the BigGreen
mailing list