[Equest-users] Crack method of infiltration not set up correctly?
Ng, Lisa
lisa.ng at nist.gov
Fri Dec 17 07:06:15 PST 2010
James,
Out of curiosity, how did you output the "pressure difference due to wind & stack effect"?
The Crack method doesn't include an explicit temperature correction term, ΔT, but it does account for the stack effect (which is the pressure difference caused by air density/temperature gradient). But I couldn't find how this stack effect is calculated in the documentation, unless it uses the same equations as for the S-G (Sherman-Grimsrud) or ASHRAE-ENHANCED methods.
Table 32 in the documentation reports that for the Crack method, wind-speed correction depends also on the following SITE-PARAMETER keywords: TERRAIN-PAR1, TERRAIN-PAR2, WS-TERRAIN-PAR1, WS-TERRAIN-PAR2 and WS-HEIGHT. The method that references these parameters is the S-G infiltration method (see http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirpubs/10852_ShermanGrimsrud.pdf). Perhaps your site parameters are specified such that wind is not affecting the infiltration rate.
Nevertheless, if cfm = INF-COEF * dP0.8 * Area for a wall (help file under Envelope Components > Exterior wall), then for your case cfm = 7.5*.109004 (inches of water)^.8*(45*8) = 458 cfm, not 703.896 as calculated by eQuest below.
Maybe someone with more knowledge of the documentation can shed light on the calculations done by eQuest for infiltration. It would be interest to me as well. I am reviewing infiltration calculations/assumptions in several energy software.
Lisa
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 3:16 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] Crack method of infiltration not set up correctly?
I have another question about whether people have gotten wind speed to have an effect on crack infiltration.
Below is an hourly report for a few hours of January 1st. I have a building set up with each space's infiltration based on the crack method, with an infiltration schedule of all 1.0s. Exterior walls are set up with crack coefficients pretty high (leaky building) - the coefficient is about 7.5, which corresponds to a 0.6" crack around the entire perimeter of the wall (it's a leaky corrugated metal wall construction).
This report is for a typical west (270) facing wall, about 45 feet by 8 ft tall. 70 feet below the neutral level. As expected, there is CFM infiltration, which is great. The CFM values decrease as you go up the building (12-story), which is perfect. Means the whole crack method vs neutral height is working. However, there appears to be NO impact of the infiltration based on wind speed. The CFM for this given wall is entirely dependent on the OA DB temp, and does not change at all with wind speed. See below. Highlighted areas show similar temp hours but with varying wind speed. CFM for this 1st floor exterior wall doesn't change at all with differing wind speeds.
I thought that the crack method was supposed to alter CFM based on wind speed, but NOT alter based on difference in indoor and outdoor temp.
What am I doing wrong here? For a leaky building, wind speed SHOULD have a greater impact on CFM than stack effect.
Var 4
Var 17
Var 19
Var 3
Var 4
Var 7
OA DB
Wind Spd
Wind direction
Outside air film U-value
Pressure diff due to wind velocity & stack effect
Crack method air flow for wall (cfm)
19
6
270
1.81016
0.109004
703.896
19
6
270
1.80501
0.109004
703.896
19
8
270
2.10433
0.109004
703.896
19
4
270
1.50129
0.109004
703.896
18
5
315
1.66397
0.111218
711.009
16
3
248
1.37812
0.115674
725.112
12
0
0
1.13297
0.1247
752.869
9
4
248
1.53612
0.13157
773.33
9
0
0
1.10755
0.13157
773.33
12
0
0
1.10909
0.1247
752.869
18
3
180
1.35996
0.111218
711.009
21
10
180
2.40378
0.104603
689.541
21
3
180
1.34907
0.104603
689.541
GHT Limited
James Hansen, PE, LEED AP
Senior Associate
1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22201-4749
703-338-5754 (Cell)
703-243-1200 (Office)
703-276-1376 (Fax)
www.ghtltd.com<http://www.ghtltd.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20101217/680c1852/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list