ISSUE: Petitioner
seeks a Relief from the provisions of Chapter 13 of the
Mr. Heath Baxa of M-E Engineers, Inc, is designing a
ballpark for the Florida Marlins. The project is described as follows:
The project consists of a 928,000 square foot, 37,000
spectator Major League Baseball complex, enclosed within a three panel operable
roof system which covers the playing field and seating terraces. In the open
ballpark configuration, the operable roof panels park over a plaza adjacent to
the ballpark and the outfield walls are retracted. For the majority of the
year, the ballpark will be open to the sky to allow the natural turf to grow.
For an anticipated 60 ballgames per year, or for less than 5% of the year, the
roof will be closed and the interior will be cooled. Portions of the bottom two
levels of the ballpark, the field level and mezzanine level, are used
year-round by the team and support staff and are considered regularly occupied.
These areas represent less than 200,000 square feet, or approximately 20% of
the total ballpark. The levels above, including the main concourse, suite and
club levels, press and upper concourse levels are only used during events. The
number of anticipated events per year is 83.
The architecture of the ballpark is a kinetic and sculptural expression
with large curvilinear moveable roof panels, and exterior form. The exterior
skin of the ballpark consists of a faceted metal panel system, bands of glass
curtain wall and plaster. [Images provided]
In his amendment dated March 19, 2010, Petitioner makes the
following request:
It is requested that a Declaratory Judgment be issued granting the Ballpark
Special Use status as allowed by Section 13-101.1.5 of the Florida Building Code, and the Code Compliance Requirement for 15%
energy cost savings be adjusted. Adjustments to the Code Compliance Requirement
of 15% energy cost savings would be calculated using a hybrid method for
calculating the Ballpark’s energy usage as follows:
1. Use Method A, the Whole Building Performance Method
to demonstrate the energy cost savings for the regularly occupied spaces of the
ballpark only. These calculations will be completed using the State mandated
EnergyGauge Summit program, and the compliance printout shall be acceptable
compliance documentation (showing compliance with the Code Required 15% energy
cost savings).
2. Use Method A, the Whole Building Performance Method
for the entire Ballpark to calculate the project’s total energy cost savings
using the eQUEST energy simulation program. The project shall demonstrate 12%
or better energy cost savings relative to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 Appendix G
(a 20% reduction in the energy savings goal based on the proposed Special Use
designation). The energy analysis report to be submitted will be consistent
with the format accepted by the USGBC to demonstrate LEED compliance with
credit EAc.1 Optimize Energy Performance.
Using the Special Use designation requested above, the
ballpark shall be considered compliant so long as the following, as used by the
Florida Building Code, is met:
Background:
1.
Section 13-101.1.5 of the code, Limited or special use
buildings, reads as follows: “Buildings determined by the Florida Building
Commission to have a limited energy use potential based on size, configuration
or time occupied, or to have a special use requirement shall be considered
limited or special use buildings and shall comply with the code by Method B of
Subchapter 13-4. Code compliance requirements shall be adjusted by the
Commission to handle such cases when warranted.”
2.
Section 13-400.0.B of the code, Method B, the Building
prescriptive method, reads as
follows: “This is a prescriptive
methodology that is allowed for shell building, renovations change of
occupancy, limited or special use buildings, and building system changeouts.
The building envelope complies with the standard if the proposed building meets
or exceeds the Mandatory Requirements and all relevant criteria on Form 400B or
the Energy Summit Fla/Com 2008 computer printout. Only the prescriptive
envelope measures of Method B are permitted for shell buildings.”
3.
Petitioner described 8 limitations to the EnergyGauge Summit Fla/Com computer program
used to calculate compliance with Method A, the Whole Building Performance
Method, that would prevent it from adequately modeling this building.
a. The ballpark has a retractable roof, with the large
bowl volume cooled as a single zone. This zone is approximately 400,000 square
feet floor area and 250 feet high. It consists of a very complex geometry with
numerous bands of windows, curved walls, and a complex roof. The EnergyGauge
Summit program limits zone area to 100,000 square feet and zone height to 50
feet. It would not be practical or realistic to break up the volume into the
required 20 zones.
b. The ballpark bowl has 1250 kW of sports lighting for
the zone. The program does not allow input of more than 199 kW per zone.
c. The locker room air handling units located in the
year-round occupied field level utilize enthalpy recovery wheels, which are a
key energy saving strategy for the project. The program does not allow input of
an enthalpy wheel.
d. The program does not appear to allow modeling of the
retractable nature of the roof. Most of the time the roof is open and the bowl
is unconditioned. During some games, the roof is closed and the bowl is
conditioned. When the roof is opened, the walls separating the interior
sub-volumes from the bowl are exterior, but it does not appear that the program
is able to take this into account.
e. The geometry of the building is very complex. The
program does not have a graphical type of input, so it is impossible to see how
the program is constructing the model. The building contains very large walls
with bands of windows.
f. The program does not allow control of the exact
placement of windows within each wall, so shading effects of building overhangs
are not accurately modeled.
g. The whole building simulation method allows for
energy savings by self-shading. Due to the geometry of the project,
self-shading and orientation provide energy savings. The EnergyGauge Summit
program takes self-shading into account.
h. The project schedule of occupancy is much different
than a typical office building schedule. The majority of the building is not in
use through much of the year. The EnergyGauge Summit program assumes a typical
year-round schedule for the whole building, which produces inaccurate energy
savings results when considering that the proposed design focuses energy
savings on the regularly occupied spaces and not the event use spaces..
4.
The EnergyGauge
support office volunteered to perform the work needed to expand the zones
required to model this building. Proponent has said that such an effort would
not adequately model the building and would unduly delay the permitting
process. EnergyGauge support staff did concur that the program could not model
all facets of this building.
5.
Petitioner is
correct that the building is unusual and as described has a limited/special
energy use potential. Petitioner estimates that the dome will only be closed
about 83 times a year.
6.
Section 13-400.0.A, the
7.
Conceptually, a
building designed to be compliant with Method A of the code using the
EnergyGauge Summit computer program could be used as a baseline building by
another computer program to establish an energy cost budget. If energy costs
for the actual building being evaluated can be determined to come in under the
energy cost budget established for the baseline building, equivalence to a
compliant building could be determined.
Staff Recommendations: Based on the
above facts and circumstances, staff provides the following recommendations as
answers to proponent’s request:
To the petitioner’s request, that the Florida Marlins
Ballpark in Miami, Florida, be granted Special Use status as allowed by Section
13-101.1.5 of the Florida Building Code, Building, and that an adjustment of
the code’s 15% energy code savings be calculated using a hybrid method for
calculating the Ballpark’s energy usage [as shown below], the answer is
Option 1: that the Commission allow determination of code compliance by
Petitioner’s proposed methodology.
Option 2: that the Commission allow determination of code compliance by
Petitioner’s proposed methodology if the Annual Whole Building Energy Cost
Savings is changed to 15 percent and Chapter 11 of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 is utilized
instead of Appendix G.
Petitioner’s Proposed
Methodology:
1. Use Method A, the Whole Building Performance Method
to demonstrate the energy cost savings for the regularly occupied spaces of the
ballpark only. These calculations will be completed using the State mandated
EnergyGauge Summit program, and the compliance printout shall be acceptable
compliance documentation (showing compliance with the Code Required 15% energy
cost savings).
2. Use Method A, the Whole Building Performance Method
for the entire Ballpark to calculate the project’s total energy cost savings
using the eQUEST energy simulation program. The project shall demonstrate 12%
or better energy cost savings relative to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 Appendix G
(a 20% reduction in the energy savings goal based on the proposed Special Use
designation). The energy analysis report to be submitted will be consistent
with the format accepted by the USGBC to demonstrate LEED compliance with
credit EAc.1 Optimize Energy Performance.
Using the Special Use designation requested above, the
ballpark shall be considered compliant so long as the following, as used by the
Florida Building Code, is met: