Antony Kim1
Member since Dec 13, 2011
Recent Comments
Re: “Sun Block”
The CCHP was approved before the 15% better than T-24 requirement set forth by the CSU. The T-24 documents show the dormitory I studied meeting 10.3% better than standard. Which is also interesting because during my initial assessment of the their baseline, they left out the shading inputs for the northern structure; so it's reasonable to assume they didn't even meet the 10% requirement the CSU set forth. The following is the link to my study if anyone is interested:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6WYvSSP7mMgMjYxYzllMDktYjJlZC00MmNlLThlNTUtZmRhZDM1MmY5ZWU3
My study actually concentrates on the windows being more symbolic of the problems of sustainability; we give it not enough context to environment and the process. The funny thing is: multi-family projects have great opportunities energy-efficiency, generally speaking. The CCHP decided to ignore the concept of studying the shape of the building for energy efficiency projects, i.e, surface area of a squarer shape vs. two long rectangular shapes.
The funny thing is...if the shape of the building was optimized a litter better, and all other things being equal. I think the dormitory I studied could have used 100 yr. old Victorian windows (i.e. wood frame, single pane clear glass) that is everywhere to be seen in Arcata; and it would have performed a little better or just as well as the low SHGC windows they installed.
The following is a link to a general parametric energy analysis of window types for Arcata (even though it's for single-family, some trends can be established from it):
http://www.efficientwindows.org/city_all.cfm?new=N&prodtype=WN&id=57
Re: “Those Windows”
Technically speaking, the dormitories at College Creek only met 10.3% better than T-24. The 15% reference describes the commercial space associated with the project, i.e., student activity center and locker rooms. Scott is right when he says, "it’s really not difficult to beat it by 40 percent or more."