[Equest-users] Advanced Level Equest Classes

[Pasha Korber-Gonzalez]

Hi Chris,
For a freeware CAD program I use DraftSight by Dassult Systems.  (google
it)  Only CAD files of type .dwg or .dxf can be read with the eQuest
viewers.  You an also input your building points in the (x,y,z) coordinates
and its not too difficult, just tedious.

As far as my Atrium modeling experience goes, I've always used the Wizard
inputs to best define it in my models.  I'll share what my experience
has been in using it and verifying its correct representation.

I have used the wizard level atrium options several times and like them
quite well.  although I can't really tell you what I like about them...In
the basic sense, when I click the check box in the wizard to say
"multi-level space" or "open to below" it makes me feel like eQuest is smart
and I really am 'successfully' representing an atrium in my model.  This is
all 'feel' good stuff in which I appreciate the wizard for offering those
feelings of comfort in my building my models.

Now in reality, DOE-2 cannot properly represent thermal characteristics of
atrium spaces and exchange of airflows.  It does represent a good static
time-shot of load conditions in the atrium spaces for example.  There can be
no exchange of airflows between multi levels of spaces (i.e. stack effect)
when using the "open to below" definition of spaces.--Thus, this has been my
experience with the wizard and DOE-2 atrium options:

   - I have used different shells above and below with differnt zoning and
   size of the atrium levels.  Yes, it is possible to tell an atrium zone of
   odd size "open to below" in the wizard, but in DOE-2 nothing really happens
   or changes, except that there is no internal-floor construction that is
   applied between these spaces.
   - Be mindful in the wizard inputs that when you indicate a space is a
   "multi-level" space it will ask you for the height of that space, and it
   takes that zone to a different height from the original floor-to-floor
   height that you input for your shell. The atrium should be specified at the
   bottom floor zone and then input the full height of the atrium (which should
   not exceed the height of the shell.)  The internal load inputs for all of
   your atria space(s) are specified in the wizard screen also including
   occupants, lights, and plug loads.  It will allow you to represent how much
   of the loads (%) are in the occupied/conditioned area of the atrium vs. the
   upper levels.
   - Now, you can also place another shell above the shell with the atrium
   in it and indicate "open to below" for the 2nd shell above the atrium
   space.  this function treats the upper zone (2nd shell) as a separate zone,
   but still 'open-to-below' for the atrium space.  If using this approach, be
   mindful of the internal load inputs you have in the upper zones.  You don't
   want to simulate occupants "floating" above the rest and 'falsly' loading
   your building model when they shouldn't be there.
   - From this point, when you switch to the DDedit mode from your wizard
   inputs you will see that your atrium is created as a single space/zone that
   is a part of your Groundfloor shell, and the "core" zone is not duplicated
   on the upper floors of the building shell.
   - Considering the thermal perspective of this representation, it is
   closer to accurate for a static modeling tool.  At least the airflow within
   the individual zone (atrium as a whole) is represented within itself, but
   airflow exchange between adjacent zones cannot be represented in DOE-2.
   This is more for dynamic simulation programs or even CFD modeling levels.
   This discussion could take us on another tangent.
   - If you are stacking more shells together and using the Multi-space
   option on the bottom shell and then the "open to below on the other shells"
   just be mindful of your internal loads for each zone.  I think if you tell
   the multi-level space that your atrium is the full height (extending its
   height beyond its own shell) you might be able to get away with this
   approach too, but you will probably have to delete the 'duplicate' spaces
   that will be created in the upper shells.  But I haven't verified this
   because I don't know what other implications might come into play.  The
   DOE-2 info defines the atrium spaces as only being able to be the height of
   the shell (not higher), so I wouldn't push my luck trying the last strategy.

 Hopefully that will be a bit helpful to you, I had to learn it all by trial
and error and testing of my inputs and outputs.  It's good to create a dummy
model and just try different things in the file to see how it can best
represent your project design.  Always get someone else to review your
results as well to make sure they are logical.

Good luck,
Pasha

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com> wrote:

>  Arpan,
>
>
>
> I just checked myself as I haven’t tried the wizard atria options recently
> – it appears I was wrong and you can “multi-level” + “open to below” options
> for single-level shells representing floors above the ground level, provided
> you use the “immediately above” option to locate those levels.  The
> conditioned height defined for the first level of the atrium determines the
> final space height, but also the height of the associated roof surfaces –
> kinda wonky end-results if those are in the middle of the building (roof
> would be shaded for the most part)…
>
>
>
> It also appears a changing atrium shape doesn’t prevent surface
> intersections/overlap from occurring… Partitions are not created for spaces
> adjacent to an ‘open to below’ space, with an end-result being the only
> “thermal tie” between the atrium and the other zones would be at the first
> level.
>
>
>
> End-results seem inconsistent depending on what options I choose, and I’m
> unsure whether the overlapping/intersecting surfaces generated may have
> stability implications down the road for a complex model, so I’m hesitant to
> recommend this route without others’ approval… does anyone else have recent
> experience with the wizard-level atrium options have thoughts to share?
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, E.I.T.***
>
> PROJECT ENGINEER
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers
>
> 25501 west valley parkway
>
> olathe ks 66061
>
> direct 913 344.0036
>
> fax 913 345.0617
>
> www.smithboucher.com* *
>
>
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Nick Caton
> *Sent:* Friday, January 14, 2011 3:40 PM
> *To:* Arpan Bakshi
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Advanced Level Equest Classes
>
>
>
> What you’re referring to is something I brought up in my first bullet –
> these these wizard-level atrium options, useful as they may be, are limited
> in application to multi-story shells.  If you need to define unique zone
> maps (or ‘floor plates’) for each level, then you’re stuck defining unique
> shells for each level, which means you can’t pursue those automated atrium
> options.
>
>
>
> If the simplification could be justified (the same zone map / “floor plate”
> could be applied to each level) by the project’s geometries, then I’d
> happily scrap the process below in favor of using the wizard features to
> define a multi-story atrium – it’d be much less work, though the system-side
> coordination/analysis would still be necessary.
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, E.I.T.***
>
> PROJECT ENGINEER
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers
>
> 25501 west valley parkway
>
> olathe ks 66061
>
> direct 913 344.0036
>
> fax 913 345.0617
>
> www.smithboucher.com* *
>
>
>
> *From:* Arpan Bakshi [mailto:arpanbakshi at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 14, 2011 3:23 PM
> *To:* Nick Caton
> *Cc:* Chris Jones; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Advanced Level Equest Classes
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> Great input. I am curious how deletion of atria zones in ddedit compares to
> the multi-level space zone characteristic option while you are creating
> geometry. There is an allowance for gain assignment to only zone-lower
> portion.
>
>
>
> Arpan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> Some running thoughts you might consider – all this in concert might get
> the job done, in any case it’s what I’d try first:
>
> -          Varying “floorplates”/zoning for each floor means you need
> unique shells per floor, which means you can’t use any of the
> “open-to-above/below” approaches to making an atrium with the wizards.  That
> simplifies the discussion somewhat: you’ll need to define this atrium
> somehow “manually.”
>
> -          I would draw out the “catwalk corridors” (assuming they’re
> covered and separately conditioned) on their respective shell-floors.  If
> they’re open to the atrium I’d ignore them entirely.
>
> -          I would finish everything up in the wizards, and upon entering
> detailed mode delete every created space/zone that’s part of the “atrium,”
> excepting the top level’s, which should include any roof/skylight surfaces
> and be retained.  Delete any child surfaces associated with these atrium
> zones excepting any interior partitions to the perimeter zones – if those
> exist, move the interior partitions to be a child component of the
> appropriate perimeter zone first before deleting the atrium zone.  You might
> be above to avoid this scenario in the wizards by defining the atrium zones
> LAST at the custom zone definition dialogs for each shell… not sure but
> worth a shot.
>
> -          I would modify the space geometries (volume) and its internal
> loads (# of people should account for the catwalks if they’re open) to match
> the full volume of the atrium
>
> -          Assign a SUM system as a placeholder to the atrium – goal being
> to have all its loads handled by the systems serving the perimeter spaces
>
> -          I would use the 2D view of each shell to modify all internal
> walls “open” to the atrium  in the actual design to be of type “AIR,” and to
> simultaneously ensure their parent space is associated to the large, common
> atrium space.  I *think* this will correctly tie the atrium’s internal
> loads to the others thermally… this is why we took care to keep those and
> not delete them along with the wizard-generated atrium spaces.
>
> -          I would use the “DIRECT” option for the HVAC systems’ return
> air path, rather than the plenum/duct options – I *think* this will
> indirectly ensure the heat gains/losses of any atrium skylights/roofs and
> the collective internal heat gains in the atrium find their way into the
> return air stream
>
>
>
> I can’t say 100% whether this is all you’d need to do, but it’s a game plan
> I would start with.  To make a comment regarding accuracy:  It’s probably
> fair to say eQuest, which doesn’t model complex CFD on an hourly basis, may
> not be as accurate in any end-case as some more costly software options may
> be for a large atrium as you’re describing.  This approach should be
> sufficient however for getting into the right ballpark, provided those “*
> think*” items above hold true (you might want to hold off for others’
> input).
>
>
>
>
>
> Best of luck – sounds like an interesting project to say the least =)!
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> PS:  I’ve never been compensated for my advice on these lists, and I’m not
> about to start asking, but neither have I taken on any liability or promise
> of availability as a formal instructor...  That said, I wouldn’t go home and
> cry myself to sleep if someone found anything valuable enough to compensate
> ^_^.
>
>
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*
>
> PROJECT ENGINEER
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers
>
> 25501 west valley parkway
>
> olathe ks 66061
>
> direct 913 344.0036
>
> fax 913 345.0617
>
> www.smithboucher.com* *
>
>
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Jones
> *Sent:* Friday, January 14, 2011 1:21 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Advanced Level Equest Classes
>
>
>
> The topic I consider advanced is modelling different floor plate shapes on
> each floor - with a multi-storey atrium in the middle.  The atrium has
> corridor catwalks for crossing from one side of the building to another.
> Supply air is transferred into the atrium from the surrounding spaces - the
> atrium is a return air plenum for multiple air handlers.
>
>
> I would gladly pay for a step by step tutorial on setting up the geometry
> for such a building.
>
>
>  I’ve been in discussions with those who make a business of eQuest/DOE2
> instruction regarding this issue… I think a major reason we don’t see many
> ‘advanced’ classes is: it would be very hard to develop a rubric/syllabus
> for an ‘advanced’ group of learners as it would seem there aren’t many
> ‘advanced’ topics that aren’t extremely system/project-specific (therefore
> seemingly of little interest to a group of learners at large).
>
> One exception that comes to mind that would probably be of common interest
> might be the evaluation and creation of chiller & heatpump performance
> curves – that skillset is frankly tough to self-learn (it took me a long
> while and multiple projects)…
>
> As an aside:  I might also cite a real-world experience where a local rep
> for Carrier hosted an event that included discussion/instruction for a
> single, narrow ‘advanced’ eQuest topic: geothermal well-field design using
> eQuest/DOE2.  The room was *packed**!  I hope more equipment reps in time
> will recognize the value and potential draw when advanced eQuest topic
> instruction is offered, even if only for a very narrow sort of system/topic.
>
> If you really would like formal, ‘advanced’ instruction, you might be
> best-advised to come up with a list of topics you want instruction/guidance
> on (make your own personal rubric), and share that list either publicly on
> the lists or directly with those who offer training services – you may be
> able to then filter out who is able and is willing to teach you some or all
> of your desired instruction individually, and at what cost.
>
> ~Nick
>
> * I would be remiss to not mention Anthony Hardman (frequent contributor to
> these lists) provided that instruction, and it was excellent.
>
>
>
> Chris Jones
> 14 Oneida Avenue
> Toronto, ON M5J 2E3.
> Tel.  416-203-7465
> Fax. 416-946-1005
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110117/b568a212/attachment-0002.htm>