[Trace-users] Automatic external shading?
Keith Swartz
kswartz at ecw.org
Wed Oct 15 07:46:47 PDT 2014
Marcus,
Would it be too much of a simplification in your case to model the windows (walls) as facing north to eliminate the direct solar gain?
Keith Swartz, PE, BEMP, LEED AP
Senior Energy Engineer | Energy Center of Wisconsin | Madison.Chicago.Minneapolis
608.210.7123 | www.ecw.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Trace-users [mailto:trace-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of trace-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:32 AM
To: trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Trace-users Digest, Vol 69, Issue 8
Send Trace-users mailing list submissions to
trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/trace-users-onebuilding.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
trace-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
trace-users-owner at lists.onebuilding.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Trace-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Automatic external shading? (Marcus)
2. Re: Load Calcs vs Energy Model for LEED -
FieldNote:00028:ieOVB (Scott Parker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:47:02 +0200
From: Marcus <jones.0bj3 at gmail.com>
To: trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Trace-users] Automatic external shading?
Message-ID:
<CAEzj1z6dWuC6fyV900QdxBQ76cKvPXC+-aGfgF3-B61dLe2pcA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Searched the archive but couldn't find an answer to this one:
What is the best strategy for modeling dynamic external window shading? We have an office building design in Europe with large south window exposure, and dynamic shading is a key part of reducing their cooling loads. In reality we have external horizontal blinds controlled on a solar irradiance value.
So far my best effort is the internal shading with a schedule, where schedule has a reset control based on outdoor DB being higher than cooling set point.
This is not giving realistic results, I think the heat is being dissipated into the interior space from these interior blinds.
Any successful modeling strategies to recommend?
Thanks,
Marcus
--
Marcus Jones, M.Sc., LEED?AP BD+C
*Freelance energy consultant*
*Vienna, Austria*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trace-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141015/a83ab476/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:32:19 +0000
From: Scott Parker <sparker at aeieng.com>
To: "Caballero, Catalina" <ccaballero at jalrw.com>, "'Dahlstrom, Aaron'"
<ADahlstrom at in-posse.com>, 'Craig Gann' <cjg04austin at swbell.net>,
"'Steve Jacobs'" <sjacobseng at gmail.com>,
"'trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org'"
<trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: Re: [Trace-users] Load Calcs vs Energy Model for LEED -
FieldNote:00028:ieOVB
Message-ID: <70cfe47c46d0424b81b157abed9c785e at MSN-EX2.aeieng.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Catalina,
Not sure I fully understand your question. Trace should show the fan sizing equal to the airflow scheduled on the construction document plans. You can see this airflow (CFM) on the Equipment Energy Consumption Report.
Using my previous example that was 31% oversized on airflow versus the block load
15,000 CFM - Air handler schedule
15,000 CFM ? Trace Equipment Energy Consumption Report
11,453 CFM ? Block load calculated by Trace before fan block airflow was oversized
This oversizing will show savings and will be acceptable to the LEED reviewer. In this particular case the supply fan energy use was reduced from:
29,498 kWh/yr to 27,396 kWh/yr (~7% savings on fan power). This is based on using the same kW/CFM for fan power input in each case.
[cid:image007.png at 01CFE859.87166940]
Scott Parker PE
LEED AP BD+C
Mechanical
AEI | AFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC.
1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 305 | Chapel Hill, NC 27517
P: 919.419.9802 | F: 919.419.9803
sparker at aeieng.com<mailto:sparker at aeieng.com> | www.aeieng.com<http://www.aeieng.com/>
From: Caballero, Catalina [mailto:ccaballero at jalrw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 7:23 AM
To: Caballero, Catalina; Scott Parker; 'Dahlstrom, Aaron'; 'Craig Gann'; 'Steve Jacobs'; 'trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org'
Subject: RE: [Trace-users] Load Calcs vs Energy Model for LEED - FieldNote:00028:ieOVB
Alright,
So I have a question. When I input the airflow as explained but the capacity of the equipment comes up to be around 17% above of the original scheduled capacity. Would it raise a flag to the reviewer even though I?m getting 27% of energy savings even though this unit is oversized by 17% and the software is accounting for it?
Thanks.
Catalina Caballero. AIA. Assoc., LEED GA.
Sustainability Coordinator
Johnson, Avedano, Lopez, Rodriguez & Walewski Engineering Group, Inc.
Engineering for High Performance Buildings.
MEPF - BIM - LEED - Cx
2510 NW 97 Ave, Ste 220, Miami, FL 33172.
P: 305.594.0660 Ext: 217 ? F: 305.594.0907 www.jalrw.com<http://www.jalrw.com> | ccaballero at jalrw.com<ccaballero at jalrw.com%20>
[Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/jalrw> [LinkedIn] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/johnson-avedano-lopez-rodriguez-&-walewski-engineering-group-inc./> [Twitter] <https://www.twitter.com/JALRW/> [Google Plus] <https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112470263254966771834/112470263254966771834/posts>
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Caballero, Catalina
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 7:08 PM
To: 'Scott Parker'; Dahlstrom, Aaron; Craig Gann; Steve Jacobs; trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: RE: [Trace-users] Load Calcs vs Energy Model for LEED - FieldNote:00028:ieOVB
Great,
This really worked!
Thanks Scott.
Catalina Caballero. AIA. Assoc., LEED GA.
Sustainability Coordinator
Johnson, Avedano, Lopez, Rodriguez & Walewski Engineering Group, Inc.
Engineering for High Performance Buildings.
MEPF - BIM - LEED - Cx
2510 NW 97 Ave, Ste 220, Miami, FL 33172.
P: 305.594.0660 Ext: 217 ? F: 305.594.0907 www.jalrw.com<http://www.jalrw.com> | ccaballero at jalrw.com<ccaballero at jalrw.com%20>
[Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/jalrw> [LinkedIn] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/johnson-avedano-lopez-rodriguez-&-walewski-engineering-group-inc./> [Twitter] <https://www.twitter.com/JALRW/> [Google Plus] <https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112470263254966771834/112470263254966771834/posts>
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Scott Parker [mailto:sparker at aeieng.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 4:04 PM
To: Dahlstrom, Aaron; Craig Gann; Steve Jacobs; Caballero, Catalina; trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: RE: [Trace-users] Load Calcs vs Energy Model for LEED - FieldNote:00028:ieOVB
All,
On the issue of fan sizing, here is what I have observed:
There are two ways to oversize (or undersize) the air handler to match the installed capacity.
1. Input airflow under block cooling airflow: Create Systems --> Advanced
2. Input coil capacity percentage with Capacity Units of ?% of design capacity by adjusting airflow?
Both of these do indeed make the unit larger, and they do this by increasing the airflow for each room by a proportional amount. This gets the fan the right size, but adds extra capacity on a room basis that does not exist. Then Trace uses this extra capacity in the hourly analysis.
Actual numbers from one air handler on a current project:
No oversizing:
? Block CFM = 11,453 CFM (from Load-Airflow Summary report)
? Sum of Peaks = 11,469 CFM (from Load-Airflow Summary report)
? Fan size = 11,453 CFM (Equipment Energy Consumption Report)
? Peak hourly airflow = 10,570 CFM (from Visualizer)
Manually input block airflow to match scheduled capacity:
? Block CFM = 15,000 CFM (from Load-Airflow Summary report) ? manually input
? Sum of Peaks = 15,000 CFM (from Load-Airflow Summary report)
? Fan size = 15,000 CFM (Equipment Energy Consumption Report)
? Peak hourly airflow = 11,469 CFM (from Visualizer)
When I manually input the block airflow it did increase the fan size, but when looking at the hourly results the actual hourly airflows increased as well since each room was given a proportional increase in CFM capacity to get to the right unit capacity. This extra capacity would be used for periods when the load exceeds the actual capacity for a short duration: cool down or when OA conditions are more extreme than used for the load calculation (design weather <> hourly weather data). Thus you cannot set the unit capacity separate from the room capacity in Trace (as far as I can tell). This partly solves the problem of getting the fan the right size, but the added capacity can have an unintended impact of cooling energy use or on fan power by allowing the room by room airflow to be higher than the actual system.
The overall impact of the consequences of oversizing each room may not be significant, but you can run the model with and without a manual input for fan block airflow and see the impact on cooling, heating and fan power. This does allow you to exactly match the unit CFM in Trace model which should keep the LEED reviewer happy.
See below for screen shots of inputs (for oversized system) and Equipment Energy Consumption Report excerpt for oversized and non-oversized air handler in Trace. It does show the expected fan power savings for the oversized fan.
[cid:image005.png at 01CFE859.87166940]
[cid:image006.png at 01CFE859.87166940]
[cid:image007.png at 01CFE859.87166940]
Scott Parker PE
LEED AP BD+C
Mechanical
AEI | AFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC.
1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 305 | Chapel Hill, NC 27517
P: 919.419.9802 | F: 919.419.9803
sparker at aeieng.com<mailto:sparker at aeieng.com> | www.aeieng.com<http://www.aeieng.com/>
From: Dahlstrom, Aaron [mailto:ADahlstrom at in-posse.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 1:44 PM
To: Craig Gann; Scott Parker; Steve Jacobs; 'Caballero, Catalina'; trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: RE: [Trace-users] Load Calcs vs Energy Model for LEED
Scott/Craig ?
I have two ideas that might help get a workaround ? it may not work on every system type, but it did on a FPVAV system I just experimented with:
1. To address Scott?s issue re: a the difference between block load and sum of peak zone CFMs, Trace offers an option to size the fan (and/or the main cooling coil) based on the sum of the peak airflows, rather than the block airflow. On the ?Create Systems? dialog, ?Advanced?? button there are fields that allow you to modify the parameter used to determine the fan size and the coil size (as below). Changing these from ?block? to ?peak? changed the flow of the ?Tutorialtrc.trc? file from 16160 cfm sum of peaks / 13778 block cfm to 16160 sum of peaks / 16160 block CFM.
[cid:image008.jpg at 01CFE859.87166940]
2. On the Create Systems ? Heating and Cooling Over-rides tab, the main cooling coil can be oversized by a specific percentage ?by adjusting airflow.? I believe this would allow you to maintain the same discharge air temp and modify the system airflow as desired. It may not offer unconstrained combinations of leaving air temp, coil capacity, and system airflow, since Trace is auto calculating entering air conditions, but it may offer you an additional degree of freedom to get close at the system level:
[cid:image009.jpg at 01CFE859.87166940]
There may be unexpected consequences that make these ideas less than the best for your specific situations ? but it seems like I?m able (at least in this case) to get the fan CFM to match the scheduled CFM, even if the load calc block load would show a different total CFM.
Hope this helps,
Aaron Dahlstrom, PE, LEED? AP
In Posse ? A subsidiary of AKF| 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 1414, Philadelphia, PA 19102
d: 215-282-6753| m: 267-507-5470| In Posse: 215-282-6800| AKF: 212-354-5656
e: ADahlstrom at in-posse.com<mailto:ADahlstrom at in-posse.com> | in posse web: www.in-posse.com<http://www.in-posse.com/> | akf web: www.AKFGroup.com
From: Trace-users [mailto:trace-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Craig Gann
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 12:55 PM
To: Scott Parker; Steve Jacobs; 'Caballero, Catalina'; trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: Re: [Trace-users] Load Calcs vs Energy Model for LEED
I communicated with CDS about this a couple of months ago. It's a royal pain in the @#$ to do this! What you have to do is go to the rooms and manually enter the CFM for each room such that it totals up to the desired CFM at the system level. This means you have to first figure out which rooms are assigned to each system then figure out how much to change each room CFM such that it totals to what you want then print out the calculated room CFM values. Not easy if you have hundreds of rooms. I wound up putting it all in Excel so I could figure out a room CFM multiplier that changed each room CFM by the percentage needed. It took me a half day to mess with this and is a major deficiency in the Trace software IMHO.
Regards,
Craig J. Gann, P.E.; LEED AP
On 10/7/2014 11:18 AM, Scott Parker wrote:
I agree that the proposed system model should have the same capacity as the actual equipment. However, the challenge is that when you fix the leaving air temperature of the air handler (which matches typical design) then Trace does not allow any method for fixing the air handler CFM capacity.
For example, below I have just listed some numbers for reference to illustrate the point:
Sum of Peaks = 19,458 CFM
Block load = 18,902 CFM (actual maximum hourly airflow in Trace will typically be even less than this value) AHU size = 20,000 CFM (scheduled on plans)
AHU size in trace = block load (18,902 CFM) ? no way to force it to be 20,000 CFM.
Therefore, when the air handler (in Trace) is at 18,902 CFM it is at peak fan power (i.e. top of fan curve). However, it actually is already part way down the true fan curve since the unit is scheduled for 20,000 CFM. If you use the theoretical fan laws, then the fan power at 18,902 CFM is 84% of the scheduled break horsepower - (18,902/20,000)^3 = 0.84 -- even though the fan is operating at 94.5% of peak fan power.
If anyone has a work around for this I would like to hear it. For me I have had to manually change the kW/CFM value to match the actual scheduled fan at the block airflow calculated in Trace.
Scott Parker PE
LEED AP BD+C
Mechanical
AEI | AFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC.
1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 305 | Chapel Hill, NC 27517
P: 919.419.9802 | F: 919.419.9803
sparker at aeieng.com<mailto:sparker at aeieng.com> | www.aeieng.com<http://www.aeieng.com/>
From: Trace-users [mailto:trace-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Steve Jacobs
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 11:13 AM
To: 'Caballero, Catalina'; trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: Re: [Trace-users] Load Calcs vs Energy Model for LEED
Your proposed inputs need to match what is actually being installed in the building. If they are installing oversized equipment, you need to model oversized equipment. The model will account for part load efficiencies.
- Steve
From: Trace-users [mailto:trace-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Caballero, Catalina
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:04 AM
To: trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: [Trace-users] Load Calcs vs Energy Model for LEED
Hello experts,
We recently received comments back from LEED and one of the comments says the following:
It appears the equipment capacities (fan volume, fan power, cooling capacity, etc.) for the HVAC systems in the Proposed model are inconsistent with the equipment capacities in the actual design when comparing the LEED Energy Performance Summary Report to the mechanical schedules provided for PIf4: Schedule and Overview Documents
G3.1.10 in the Proposed building column requires that the Proposed model reflect all HVAC systems at actual equipment capacities and efficiencies. The HVAC equipment capacities cannot be autosized in the Proposed model. Revise the Proposed model to reflect all HVAC systems at actual equipment capacities. In addition, update Table 1.4.7B, and provide a revised LEED Energy Performance Summary Report and the System Enterd Values reports for the Proposed model reflecting the changes. Further, if the equipment capacities and efficiencies are based on updated mechanical schedules and/or HVAC submittal sheets, provide the updated mechanical schedules and/or HVAC submittal sheets.
The only question that I have is why would they require for the airflows, to be exactly the same, to the original load calculations when the load calculations looks for the worst case scenario (using ashrae basic envelope, lighting, values), while the energy model looks for the most energy efficient model (actual installed envelope, occupancy, etc). It make sense that they are looking for something similar but it?s definitely not going to match the capacities and or airflows, (load calcs tend to be oversized).
I would greatly appreciate your opinion.
Thanks.
Catalina Caballero. AIA. Assoc., LEED GA.
Sustainability Coordinator
Johnson, Avedano, Lopez, Rodriguez & Walewski Engineering Group, Inc.
Engineering for High Performance Buildings.
MEPF - BIM - LEED - Cx
2510 NW 97 Ave, Ste 220, Miami, FL 33172.
P: 305.594.0660 Ext: 217 ? F: 305.594.0907 www.jalrw.com<http://www.jalrw.com> | ccaballero at jalrw.com<ccaballero at jalrw.com%20>
[Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/jalrw> [LinkedIn] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/johnson-avedano-lopez-rodriguez-&-walewski-engineering-group-inc./> [Twitter] <https://www.twitter.com/JALRW/> [Google Plus] <https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112470263254966771834/112470263254966771834/posts>
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
_______________________________________________
Trace-users mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/trace-users-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to TRACE-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG<mailto:TRACE-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error. Unintended recipients are prohibited from taking action on the basis of information in this e-mail. E-mail messages may contain computer viruses or other defects, may not be accurately replicated on other systems, or may be intercepted, deleted or interfered without the knowledge of the sender or the intended recipient. If you are not comfortable with the risks associated with e-mail messages, you may decide not to use e-mail to communicate with In Posse.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trace-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141015/1c523c86/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 682 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trace-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141015/1c523c86/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 736 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trace-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141015/1c523c86/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 804 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trace-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141015/1c523c86/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1187 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trace-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141015/1c523c86/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 21501 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trace-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141015/1c523c86/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14692 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trace-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141015/1c523c86/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 39030 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trace-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141015/1c523c86/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20913 bytes
Desc: image008.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trace-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141015/1c523c86/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 29279 bytes
Desc: image009.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trace-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141015/1c523c86/attachment-0001.jpg>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Trace-users mailing list
Trace-users at lists.onebuilding.org
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/trace-users-onebuilding.org
------------------------------
End of Trace-users Digest, Vol 69, Issue 8
******************************************
More information about the Trace-users
mailing list