[Equest-users] Receptacle loads

[David Eldridge]

Compare-it! or other "file diff" programs might be useful to show any differences between the two *.inp files.

Also make sure you are looking at the energy usage results and not demand - the demand profile in the graphical outputs is shown at the coincident peak for the whole building. If other strategies cause the peak demand hour to shift later in the day for the proposed case, the values for receptacles at that time may be different, particularly if the baseline peak hour is during the main occupancy period and the proposed building shifts into the late afternoon or evening.

David


David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
Grumman/Butkus Associates



From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Andersen, Stephanie
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:39 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] Receptacle loads

Hey all,

I've created my proposed model, did a "save as" and created my baseline model, and changed all of the HVAC systems etc. to the required 90.1 standards. I ran the simulations and exported the LEED  report and noticed my receptacle loads aren't the same-the baseline is 12% higher than the proposed. I've compared schedules, equipment loads, and square footages, and they are identical in both the proposed and baseline models. Is there something else I should be looking at?

Thanks for your help!

Stephanie Andersen
Mechanical Designer

[DBR-for Email Signature]

v. 210.546.0200 | www.dbrinc.com<http://www.dbrinc.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130516/ef670768/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3660 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130516/ef670768/attachment-0002.jpg>