Hello everyone,

I have a question regarding which areas should be ventilated. In our project, a residential building, we have spaces on the ground floor designated for flexible work areas, such as meeting rooms, lounges, and open offices, which will be available for residents to use. However, these spaces will not be regularly occupied, as their use is voluntary and varies according to individual preferences.

Is it necessary to install a specific ventilation system for these spaces, considering that they will not be continuously or regularly occupied? I would greatly appreciate your guidance and expertise on this matter.

Has ther been a study or comparative analysis of German local regulations or equivalences to LEED criteria.

For example, 

SS - Construction Activity Pollution Prevention - Are there local German equivalents to EPA and CGP?

EA - Fundamental commissioning and verification - Do HOAI construction phases requirements for building services align with Cx Fundamental requirements? The role of the MEP consultant is very detailed and defined in the German construction industry.

Many thanks!

Dear all,

according to the BD-C Guide for version v4.1 "testing requirements have been removed" and "soil test results are no longer required" for the documentation. On the other hand the guide also says that "soil tests are only required for imported soils", which is the case for the project under consideration. Is it now necessary to provide soil testing results for this credit or not?

Thank you for your help.

Best regards,

Katrin

Hi all,

we have an existing building in Germany where the corridors and elevator ante rooms are not ventilated mechanically. In addition there are also no windows for natural ventilation.

Question: In Germany it is not required to mechanically ventilate corridors due to estimation that opening doors to adjacent offices supply enouth airation. The CEN 13779 and 15251, eligible as ACP Europe, also do not have requirements for ventilation of corridors. corridors are not classified as regulary occupied spaces and have no requirements.

How can we prove compliance to the credit?

For a new built office the most suitable rating system seems to be Core and Shell. Besides LEED certification the project should demonstrate ESG compliance. Does ist still make sense to get Core and Shell certification (eg.air quality and recyclable materials will be rated for ESG in the whole building.

Does anyone have experience with this?

Thanks a lot in advance!

Hello,

A german project is going to be buildt on industrial area next to a highway. The exterior noise on the site is already >70 dB(A) (without the buidling), is there a possibility to still achieve this credit although the noise on the site border is higher then 60 dB(A)?

Thank you for your help,

Best greetings,

Kathrin

Dear all,

for our projects in germany its quite controvers to communicate towards the project teams, why electric heat pumps cannot contribute to the credit renwable energy.

According to DIN V 4701-10 the share of EE of a electric heat pump is roughly the provided heating/cooling energy minus the used electric power. The justification for this is that this energy difference is environmental energy and thus renewable energy.

This approach is used for the official energy consumption calculations according to the federal Building Energy Act (BEG).

What do you think about this approach, why is it not appropiate for LEED and do you see a way for the USGBC to accept it?

I am looking forward to your opinion!

Hi community,

we have the opportunity to save 500 kW cooling energy wehn we establisch evaportive cooling in  the AHU. At the location demineralized water is availlable. Its the headquarter of an big chemistry manufacturer and direct beside the plant area.

1.) can we fullfill the prerequisit "no once-through cooling" when we save much electrical power and mechanical cooling demnad?

2.) who is it to be considered in the water consumption credit

thanks for reply

Hello,

the credit language requires: "An alarm must indicate when the outdoor airflow value varies by 15% or more from the outdoor airflow setpoint." In the course of a coordination with the HVAC engineer the question occurred which setpoint should be used. A current one based on the current usage or a minimal setpoint for the project?

Planned is a VAV System with 100% outdoor air, where the airflow is regulated via CO2 sensors in the office/occupied spaces.

Additionally, the HVAC engineer asked if the via CO2 regulated airflow in a 100% outdoor air system isn´t already enough monitoring?

Maybe you can helo me out. Thanks in advance!

Dear all,

we have a change of ownership in our already pre-certified LEED v4 BD+C Core&Shell project.
The new owner will divide the building in three parts that are legally separated. Each of this part will have its own address, its own ventilation etc.
The final objective is to sell each of these parts separately.

Since it could happen that one part of the building is sold before the certification is completed, we are seeking for the best strategy in the project.

My questions are:

- if we attempt a single building certification as we did until now, but in the certification process there is a partial sale or transfer of one part, then we cannot certificate anymore. Right? Our owner will not be anymore the owner of the whole building and project boundary.

- Second scenario: the certification should be finished before any sale. After certifications completion, the building is sold to three different new owners. What happens the to the certification? There will be issues like metering or commissioning that will refer to a unique unit as a building after completion. In this case the legal contracts seem to be quite complicated. Could the LEED certification still be transfer to all the three new owners in case they follow the meter and commissioning requirements even if there is only one certification (one project)?

- we thought about the campus certification and then three separate Core&Shell certifications. In this case, there is the possibility to sell one part without affecting either the campus or the other two C&S or new construction certifications.

In this same case could the new owner of the one sold part of the building benefit of the master site for his own certification?

I think the best strategy is the campus approach even if the work is much more extensive and costly (energy simulations, different commissioning contracts etc.).

I would appreciate your comments and answers to my questions!

Thank you!