[Equest-users] Issue of mis-match in reported building areas - Reviewer's Comment

[Nicholas Caton]

Your response to the comment should concisely state the reason for the
discrepancy in your initial submission, just as you did below.



Skimming the archives, this may be a quick fix to make the outputs meet the
reviewer’s intuitions - enter the building’s gross area (unconditioned +
conditioned) here.



If that doesn’t correct your BEPU results, you could try switching all
non-plenum SPACEs to “conditioned” (leaving zone inputs alone).  Double
check to ensure this results in identical performance.



If the quick fix didn’t work, I’d probably just do my own sums of
conditioned, non-plenum unconditioned, and gross space areas (starting from
the space loads csv export) and cite/upload my work for resubmission.



~Nick



*NICK CATON, P.E.*
*Owner*



*Caton Energy Consulting*
  1150 N. 192nd St., #4-202

  Shoreline, WA 98133
  office:  785.410.3317

www.catonenergy.com



*From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On
Behalf Of *Anura Perera
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2015 3:43 PM
*To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
*Subject:* [Equest-users] Issue of mis-match in reported building areas -
Reviewer's Comment



Dear All,



This is the comment received by the reviewer:



*The BEPU reports for the Proposed and Baseline models appear to indicate
that the total building area reflected in each model is approximately
231,398 square feet (i.e. 49,982,000 MBtu/216 kBtu per square foot
indicated in the BEPU report for the Baseline model), which is inconsistent
with the total building area of 376,892 square feet indicated in Section
1.1A and Section 1.2 of the form. Revise the Proposed and Baseline models,
Section 1.1A, and Section 1.2, as needed, to reflect the total building
area reflected in the actual design, and/or provide a supplemental
narrative explaining the discrepancy. Note the energy consumption
associated with unconditioned spaces (interior lighting, process loads,
etc.) must be included in the Proposed and Baseline models.*



The discrepancy indicated by the reviewer is due to the fact that the
building has conditioned and unconditioned areas. What is highlighted by
the reviewer is that reported by eQUEST output that considers ONLY the
conditioned areas.

Is there any way to make the output file to depict the unconditioned areas
as well so that the reviewer does not see this as a discrepancy?.



Thanks in advance

Anura
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150304/4a9345af/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28250 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150304/4a9345af/attachment.png>