[Equest-users] process load categorization in outputs

[Lyle Keck]

Hi Ramana,

One option would be to create separate meters and input the process equipment as direct loads (electric or gas consumption) as you have described.  You could then go to the individual space(s) and under the 'equipment' tab define an internal energy source with the source type set to 'process' (internal energy sources deemed process will not contribute to a utility load).  This will effectively create a heat gain (or loss) within the room and you can assign the appropriate fraction of sensible/latent gain.  This should allow you to define the input power as direct loads on meters, and subsequent internal gains in specific spaces.


LYLE KECK  LEED AP BD+C, EIT
SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS ANALYST




AEI | AFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC.
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400 | Seattle, WA 98101

P: 206.829.7307 | F: 206.256.0423
lkeck at aeieng.com <mailto:lkeck at aeieng.com>  |  www.aeieng.com<http://www.aeieng.com/>





From: Ramana Koti [mailto:ramana.koti at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:22 AM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] process load categorization in outputs

Dear all,

I'm modeling a commercial kitchen under the LEED for Retail rating system.

Per the end use classifications in the LEED template Section 1.6 Table EAp2-4, its seems advisable to have process loads output from eQUEST separately along the lines of Refrigeration, Cooking, commercial kitchen equipment.

I currently have all of them lumped under equipment loads in two different HVAC zones which makes the program output all the consumption under one heading 'miscellaneous equipment'.  This captures the equipment's latent and sensible contribution to heating and cooling loads. (Accurate but no breakdown)

If I created separate meters and input the process equipment as direct loads, I'm unable to assign the heat they emit to any particular HVAC zone which is unacceptable considering their contribution to the heating and cooling loads. Kind of a catch-22. This method also does not allow differentiation between sensible and latent contributions. (Broken down but not accurate)

Is there a workaround?

Thank you,
Ramana.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130926/b96f618e/attachment-0001.htm>