[Equest-users] One more fan power EIR and DCV question

[Srinivas j]

Hai,

 

We are exploring MEP Training aimed to High Rise Towers for our internal
teams.  Just wondering any members can share information on MEP training
requirements for high rise towers.

 

 

Regards,

 


cid:image001.jpg at 01CC3048.5836D9B0

 

Srinivas J | Head - Automation | Lanco Hills Technology Park Pvt. Ltd.

Sy. No. 201, Manikonda | Puppalguda (SO), | Hyderabad-  500089 | AP 

Phone : + 91 40 44799210 | Mobile : +91 9908391601 | www.lancogroup.com

Go Green | The future will thank you

 

 

DISCLAIMER
---------------
"All Disclaimer Clauses as applicable to electronic communications, under
all the relevant Acts, are applicable to the contents of this email and its
attachments"

 

 

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Robby
Oylear
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 12:52 AM
To: Laura Howe, RCE
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] One more fan power EIR and DCV question

 

Hi Laura,

 

This sounds a lot like what we typically do for garage ventilation CO
control.  What you're describing would fall under an Exceptional Calculation
Method per ASHRAE 90.1-2007 G2.5.  

 

I would agree that this is a valid energy savings strategy, but it should
not be presented as part of your base savings.  You should model it as an
ECM under the appropriate section of the submittal template.  Show the
savings of this ECM and provide supporting documentation that shows that you
have modeled the system appropriately to how it will actually be operated
(i.e. justify your hourly DCV schedule).  In this manner, if the reviewer
chooses not to accept your modeling methodology, they will award you only
the base level of savings and you will not have further review comments
holding up your project.

 

Robby Oylear, P.E., LEED AP

Mechanical Engineer

Senior Energy Analyst

 

D 206-788-4571

 <http://www.rushingco.com/> www.rushingco.com

 

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Laura Howe, RCE
<laurahowe.rce at qwestoffice.net> wrote:

HI Again all-

 

Thanks for everyone for their assistance earlier this week, it really helped
me progress with this model adjustment.  I am currently at another dilemma.
This is DCV not for typical occupancy, but for ventilating infrequent diesel
fumes.

 

I have two systems modeled as one, a constant volume packaged unit along
with an exhaust system (no heating/cooling).  The exhaust system will
operate separate from the packaged unit and the proposed case includes a
fraction in the operation schedule to reflect DCV operation.  That schedule
doesn't affect the package unit except it will have less heating/cooling
load due to the DCV.  I don't see the DCV affecting the fan sizing or
operation of the baseline packaged unit.  The packaged unit is constant
volume.  So, the LEED comments refer to identically modeling the base and
proposed systems, for fan volume and fan power, on this exhaust system.
I've worked out matching the exhaust system well enough, but now I'm
wondering if I need to match the supply also.  The simplistic answer would
be "yes", even if the comments refer only to the exhaust system I am
concerned a cursory review may still not be happy with the supply fan
volume/power not matching.  I think not matching is valid and it is
definitely more favorable, so that's what I'd rather do.

 

The baseline system has a larger supply fan, and will have a greater
heating/cooling load (no DCV).  The proposed system will have a smaller
supply fan and a smaller heating/cooling load.  I think the base case fan
sizing is more accurate since it is based on the actual loads of the
baseline building.  If I use the fan sizing/power from proposed, the project
will take a big hit.  Basically I think this means in theory that not
matching the supply fans, even though they are tied to the exhaust DCV, is
an accurate estimation of savings from baseline to proposed.

 

Right now I'm inclined to leave the supply not matching, and provide an
explanation.  However since there has already been one review, I don't like
the potential that they will just come back with a response of eliminating a
certain number of points.  If they don't think my response is adequate, I
don't think they will give me another chance, correct?

 

For those that requested their actual response, I finally got my hands on a
document I could copy text:

 

1.      "The Baseline fan power calculations and the SV-A reports for the
Baseline model indicate that the exhaust fan systems (SF-1 and SF-2, as
indicated in the mechanical schedules provided for PI Form 4: Schedule and
Overview Documents) have not been modeled identically in the Proposed and
Baseline cases. All independent fan systems of the HVAC systems in the
actual design must be modeled identically between the Proposed and Baseline
models at actual equipment capacities (fan volume and fan power) as required
by Table G3.1.10 in the Proposed building column, since the fan design air
flow rates and fan power per Sections G3.1.2.8 and G3.1.2.9, respectively,
only applies to system types 1 through 8 in Table G3.1.1A. Revise the
Proposed and Baseline model so all independent fan systems of the HVAC
systems are modeled identically between the Proposed and Baseline model. In
addition, provide revised SV-A reports for the Proposed and Baseline model
reflecting the changes. 

 

Thoughts?  Must I go simplistic and make supply match?  Am I offbase
thinking not matching is a valid energy consumption model comparison?

 

Thanks

Laura


_______________________________________________
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

 


This message (including any attachments) is intended only for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is non-public, proprietary,
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and
(i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message
immediately if this is an electronic communication.

Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20120618/ac3b7fc4/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2574 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20120618/ac3b7fc4/attachment-0002.jpeg>