[Bldg-sim] EnergyPlus on multi-cpu systems
João Pedro Santos
joao.santos at lmit.pt
Fri Jan 9 10:48:59 PST 2009
Dear Tianzhen,
Do you know if the report you mentioned will be made available on internet (where/when)? Are there any major conclusions that you can provide already, concerning the speeding up of simulations in Energy Plus? I guess that until the whole E+ is rewritten to allow multicore processing, your results could help everyone a lot!
Thanks in advance,
João Pedro Santos
[cid:image001.jpg at 01C9728A.EE3C1CA0]
-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of bldg-sim-request at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: sexta-feira, 9 de Janeiro de 2009 18:21
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Bldg-sim Digest, Vol 14, Issue 7
Send Bldg-sim mailing list submissions to
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bldg-sim-request at lists.onebuilding.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
bldg-sim-owner at lists.onebuilding.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bldg-sim digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Bldg-sim Digest, Vol 14, Issue 6 (Tianzhen Hong)
2. Re: EnergyPlus on multi-cpu systems (Edwin Lee)
3. EnergyPlus on multi-cpu systems, Standard E+ Machiine (JRR)
4. high CWLT chiller performance curves (Martin Belusko)
5. chilled water pump power (xiao dongyi)
6. Re: chilled water pump power (James V. Dirkes II P.E.)
7. Re: chilled water pump power (William Bahnfleth)
8. Is Garage Lighting a Regulated Process Load? (Lam, Linda)
9. Re: chilled water pump power (James V. Dirkes II P.E.)
10. IBPSA-USA Chicago Meeting Announcement (Ellis, Peter)
11. Fwd: Problems in compiling the weather data files of IBPSA
(M F A Ramadan)
12. Re: chilled water pump power (Itzhak Maor)
13. Re: Fwd: Problems in compiling the weather data files of
IBPSA (Crawley, Drury)
14. Re: high CWLT chiller performance curves (Peter Simmonds)
15. Re: chilled water pump power (xiao dongyi)
16. Re: chilled water pump power (Zhuolun Chen)
17. Lab ACH Setback with Packaged Single Zone Systems (Kendra Tupper)
18. New Interfaces and Standard 140-2007 Testing Reports for
EnergyPlus (Crawley, Drury)
19. Re: chilled water pump power (James V. Dirkes II P.E.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:48:18 -0800
From: Tianzhen Hong <thong at lbl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Bldg-sim Digest, Vol 14, Issue 6
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org, alexc at 2rw.com
Message-ID: <496674A2.5060304 at lbl.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Alex,
We did an EnergyPlus run time analysis for CEC based on E+ version 2.2.
CEC is close to publishing the report. The report answers most of your
questions.
Tianzhen
On 1/8/2009 12:01 PM, bldg-sim-request at lists.onebuilding.org wrote:
> Send Bldg-sim mailing list submissions to
> bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> bldg-sim-request at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> bldg-sim-owner at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Bldg-sim digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. [BLDG-SIM] EnergyPlus on multi-cpu systems (Alex Chapin)
> 2. new to eQuest, need help with varying floor shapes
> (Cramer Silkworth)
> 3. Re: new to eQuest, need help with varying floor shapes
> (Aulbach, John)
> 4. chillers system 8 (Elena Verani)
> 5. Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums (P. Hay)
> 6. FW: Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums (P. Hay)
> 7. Re: Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums (James V. Dirkes II P.E.)
> 8. FW: Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums (P. Hay)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:51:44 -0500
> From: Alex Chapin <alexc at 2rw.com>
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] [BLDG-SIM] EnergyPlus on multi-cpu systems
> To: "bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org" <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Message-ID:
> <6AF9AFA739099A43B163308B4B0892A42CA0E050AF at VMBX107.ihostexchange.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Does anyone have recommendations on computer performance specs for reducing the run times? When large models are run, the lengthy run time creates an annoyance when trying to debug issues in the model or perform parametric runs.
>
> My idea was to create a modeling server from a decked out PC. The hope being that I will be able to have other non-modeling programs running on my computer and perform the energy simulation remotely on the modeling server. What combination of processor, RAM, Motherboard, video card, etc. would be ideal in creating a modeling server? Could this modeling server be set up to run more than one eQUEST or EnergyPlus type simulation at a time?
>
> My personal computer currently has a dual core processor, but I saw an email that said programs like EnergyPlus and eQUEST will only use one of the two cores. Is there any program which can use both? If not, would getting a higher performing single core processor be better?
>
> Any advice on this topic would be much appreciated,
>
> Alex Chapin, E.I.T., LEED AP
> Energy Engineer
> 2rw Consultants
> T: 434-296-2116 ext. 101
> F: 434-977-1862
> alexc at 2rw.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090107/56a25eb7/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 23:32:15 +0100
> From: "Cramer Silkworth" <silkworth at transsolar.com>
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] new to eQuest, need help with varying floor shapes
> To: <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Message-ID:
> <FE872D9C4591BF44AAFD986BF73368FF032D0A28 at webmail.transsolar.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm new to eQuest, testing it out to see if we like it for some modeling
> tasks over our current software (Trnsys). I'm trying to model a building
> in which every floor has a different shape. Can someone tell me the best
> way to approach this? Should each floor be a new shell? For that matter,
> what is a 'shell', anyways?
>
> Thanks,
> Cramer
>
>
> J. Cramer Silkworth
>
> Transsolar Climate Engineering
>
> Technical consulting for energy efficiency and environmental quality in
> buildings.
>
> 145 Hudson Street
>
> Suite 402
>
> New York, NY 10013
>
> Office: 212-219-2255
>
> silkworth at transsolar.com
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090107/80686c9a/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:48:08 -0800
> From: "Aulbach, John" <jaulbach at nexant.com>
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] new to eQuest, need help with varying floor
> shapes
> To: "Cramer Silkworth" <silkworth at transsolar.com>,
> <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Message-ID:
> <99A2815FF4D295488E034407278B16A40276D969 at sacexm01.nexant.corp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Cramer:
>
> I have never used TRNSYS, but I always had the impression it was more
> process versus whole building oriented.
>
> You will want to build your differently shaped floors in the Design
> Development (DD) Wizard. The Schematic Wizard only allow on shape. In
> the DD Wizard, you can trace AutoCAD DWG files to develop each floor.
> My drift on the "shell" concept is that it is indeed a floor, where
> there are several zones on the same level. The shell can also be the
> floor of another building, thus the ability not only to to different
> floor plans in the same building, but different buildings in the same
> run.
>
> Hope this gets you started.
>
> John R. Aulbach, PE, CEM
> Project Manager
> Nexant, Inc.
> 701 West Kimberly Ave., Suite 245
> Placentia, CA 92870-6342 USA
> Phone: 714-524-4402
> Fax: 714-524-4407
> email: jaulbach at nexant.com
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Cramer
> Silkworth
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:32 PM
> To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] new to eQuest, need help with varying floor shapes
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm new to eQuest, testing it out to see if we like it for some modeling
> tasks over our current software (Trnsys). I'm trying to model a building
> in which every floor has a different shape. Can someone tell me the best
> way to approach this? Should each floor be a new shell? For that matter,
> what is a 'shell', anyways?
>
> Thanks,
> Cramer
>
>
> J. Cramer Silkworth
>
> Transsolar Climate Engineering
>
> Technical consulting for energy efficiency and environmental quality in
> buildings.
>
> 145 Hudson Street
>
> Suite 402
>
> New York, NY 10013
>
> Office: 212-219-2255
>
> silkworth at transsolar.com
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090107/ff66e3c8/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:20:35 -0000
> From: "Elena Verani" <everani at hilsonmoran.com>
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] chillers system 8
> To: <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Message-ID:
> <3BBCBF3E24390749A2059774C10007A202C40BFC at HMP107.hilson_moran.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi all,
> I'm modelling an office building with a floor area of more than 240000
> sf.
> The baseline system is system 8 VAV w/PFP boxes and I will need 2
> equally sized centrifugal chillers.
> My question is: how do the 2 chillers interact? Both of them working at
> half load or one working at full load and the second one only working
> when the first one is not enough?
>
>
>
> ELENA VERANI
> Sustainability Consultant - LEED AP
> HILSON MORAN
>
> Members of the Italian, Emirates and U.S. Green Building Councils
>
> London: +44 (0)20 7940 8888
> www.hilsonmoran.com <http://www.hilsonmoran.com/>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> Registered No: 1233447 England. Registered Office: One Discovery Place,
> Columbus Drive, Southwood West, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 0NZ
>
> This message is for the named person(s) use only and may contain
> confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No
> confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by erroneous
> transmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately
> delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies
> of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use,
> disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are
> not the intended recipient. Hilson Moran Partnership Ltd reserves the
> right to monitor all email communications through its networks. Any
> views expressed in this message are those of the sender, except where
> the message specifically states them to be the views of Hilson Moran
> Partnership Ltd. All transmissions are checked for viruses but all
> recipients are advised to undertake their own virus checks as Hilson
> Moran Partnership Ltd will not take responsibility for any damage
> arising from virus infections.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/fac89c67/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:19:24 -0500
> From: "P. Hay" <phay at cwjamaica.com>
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums
> To: "BLDG-SIM" <bldg-sim at onebuilding.org>
> Message-ID: <000e01c971a4$7d098180$771c8480$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I recently came across a Life Cycle Analysis of Suspended Ceilings vs. Open
> Plenums, initiated by CISCA [Ceiling and Interior System Construction
> Association ( www.cisca.org )] which concluded that suspended ceilings are
> more energy efficient because they have:
>
>
>
> a) higher reflectances,
>
> b) better heat-removal from luminaires, and
>
> c) use lower static pressure and fan power.
>
>
>
> I can understand (a) and (c) but (b) leaves me suspicious that the
> return-air plenum was not considered in this study. As I understand it,
> return-air plenums can be defined as separate zones from the usable spaces
> (in this case: an office or a food store) but the suspended ceilings are
> adiabatic. So , other than the savings for lighting and fan, I really don't
> understand how there could be significant savings for the HVAC system if the
> overall height of the rooms (plenum & usable space) is identical, and
> cooling load of plenums are considered.
>
>
>
> Is there something I'm missing?
>
>
>
> Paul Hay
>
> Managing Partner
>
> PAUL HAY Consultants
>
>
>
> Capital Project Planning and Management
>
>
>
> 15a Cassia Park Road
>
> Kingston 10
>
> Jamaica, W.I.
>
>
>
> tel: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
> cel: 1 (876) 324-4274
>
> fax: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
>
>
> web: www.phcjamaica.com
>
> e-mail: paul.hay at phcjamaica.com
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/17244d8d/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:29:42 -0500
> From: "P. Hay" <phay at cwjamaica.com>
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] FW: Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums
> To: "BLDG-SIM" <bldg-sim at onebuilding.org>
> Message-ID: <001c01c971a5$edd28870$c9779950$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The study uses both: ducted return in open plenums and plenum return for
> suspended ceilings.
>
>
>
> Paul Hay
>
> Managing Partner
>
> PAUL HAY Consultants
>
>
>
> Capital Project Planning and Management
>
>
>
> 15a Cassia Park Road
>
> Kingston 10
>
> Jamaica, W.I.
>
>
>
> tel: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
> cel: 1 (876) 324-4274
>
> fax: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
>
>
> web: www.phcjamaica.com
>
> e-mail: paul.hay at phcjamaica.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Steve Tobin [mailto:stobin at smithboucher.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:23 AM
> To: phay at phcjamaica.com
> Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums
>
>
>
> Does your model include ducted return or plenum return? If it is ducted
> return the return air is pulled from the space and the light heat gain is
> less load for the AHU. If you have a plenum return the full lighting load
> should be accounted for.
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve Tobin
>
> PROJECT ENGINEER
>
> 25501 west valley parkway
>
> olathe ks 66061
>
> direct 913 344.0061
>
> fax 913 345.0617
>
>
>
> From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of P. Hay
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:19 AM
> To: BLDG-SIM
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I recently came across a Life Cycle Analysis of Suspended Ceilings vs. Open
> Plenums, initiated by CISCA [Ceiling and Interior System Construction
> Association ( www.cisca.org )] which concluded that suspended ceilings are
> more energy efficient because they have:
>
>
>
> a) higher reflectances,
>
> b) better heat-removal from luminaires, and
>
> c) use lower static pressure and fan power.
>
>
>
> I can understand (a) and (c) but (b) leaves me suspicious that the
> return-air plenum was not considered in this study. As I understand it,
> return-air plenums can be defined as separate zones from the usable spaces
> (in this case: an office or a food store) but the suspended ceilings are
> adiabatic. So , other than the savings for lighting and fan, I really don't
> understand how there could be significant savings for the HVAC system if the
> overall height of the rooms (plenum & usable space) is identical, and
> cooling load of plenums are considered.
>
>
>
> Is there something I'm missing?
>
>
>
> Paul Hay
>
> Managing Partner
>
> PAUL HAY Consultants
>
>
>
> Capital Project Planning and Management
>
>
>
> 15a Cassia Park Road
>
> Kingston 10
>
> Jamaica, W.I.
>
>
>
> tel: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
> cel: 1 (876) 324-4274
>
> fax: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
>
>
> web: www.phcjamaica.com
>
> e-mail: paul.hay at phcjamaica.com
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/915e3f34/attachment-0001.htm>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 1778 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/915e3f34/attachment-0001.jpeg>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:40:07 -0500
> From: "James V. Dirkes II P.E." <jvd2pe at tds.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums
> To: <phay at phcjamaica.com>, "'BLDG-SIM'" <bldg-sim at onebuilding.org>
> Message-ID: <AB6A3B78D7714E9CB32D4D93427ED85A at BPT>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> In theory, the return plenum is warmer than the occupied space, so the wall
> and, especially, roof loads do not affect the space in the same way. This
> will give a warmer coil entering condition and resulting smaller coil, fan,
> duct, motor, wiring, electrical service, etc.
>
> The ACTUAL difference will be small and may not be worth the additional
> analysis and load calculations. You could argue that a VAV system will
> realize the benefits, since it will "see" the space load only and reduce
> volume to suit.
>
> Another consideration is whether the life cycle energy benefits outweigh the
> differential cost to install and maintain the suspended ceiling.... I
> suspect they do, but am uncertain re: ROI.
>
>
> The Building Performance Team
> James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
> 1631 Acacia Drive NW
> Grand Rapids, MI 49504
> 616 450 8653
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of P. Hay
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:19 AM
> To: BLDG-SIM
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I recently came across a Life Cycle Analysis of Suspended Ceilings vs. Open
> Plenums, initiated by CISCA [Ceiling and Interior System Construction
> Association ( www.cisca.org )] which concluded that suspended ceilings are
> more energy efficient because they have:
>
>
>
> a) higher reflectances,
>
> b) better heat-removal from luminaires, and
>
> c) use lower static pressure and fan power.
>
>
>
> I can understand (a) and (c) but (b) leaves me suspicious that the
> return-air plenum was not considered in this study. As I understand it,
> return-air plenums can be defined as separate zones from the usable spaces
> (in this case: an office or a food store) but the suspended ceilings are
> adiabatic. So , other than the savings for lighting and fan, I really don't
> understand how there could be significant savings for the HVAC system if the
> overall height of the rooms (plenum & usable space) is identical, and
> cooling load of plenums are considered.
>
>
>
> Is there something I'm missing?
>
>
>
> Paul Hay
>
> Managing Partner
>
> PAUL HAY Consultants
>
>
>
> Capital Project Planning and Management
>
>
>
> 15a Cassia Park Road
>
> Kingston 10
>
> Jamaica, W.I.
>
>
>
> tel: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
> cel: 1 (876) 324-4274
>
> fax: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
>
>
> web: www.phcjamaica.com
>
> e-mail: paul.hay at phcjamaica.com
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/e2814e94/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:37:33 -0500
> From: "P. Hay" <phay at cwjamaica.com>
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] FW: Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums
> To: "BLDG-SIM" <bldg-sim at onebuilding.org>
> Message-ID: <003d01c971c0$2baf5460$830dfd20$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thanks James,
>
>
>
> I'm beginning to see how there could be a difference: especially since the
> office modeled does use a VAV system and the food store is a single storey
> building with 100,000 sq. ft roof. It would seem that the roof loads have
> the greater influence because its energy costs savings are 30 - 40% greater
> than the 8-storey office building with 15,000 sq. ft. roof for four
> locations (including Orlando), and 70% higher for Charlotte.
>
>
>
> BTW, it is claimed that the life-cycle payback is between 5 - 11 years for
> the office, and 0.9 - 1.7 years for the food store.
>
>
>
> Paul Hay
>
> Managing Partner
>
> PAUL HAY Consultants
>
>
>
> Capital Project Planning and Management
>
>
>
> 15a Cassia Park Road
>
> Kingston 10
>
> Jamaica, W.I.
>
>
>
> tel: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
> cel: 1 (876) 324-4274
>
> fax: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
>
>
> web: www.phcjamaica.com
>
> e-mail: paul.hay at phcjamaica.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: James V. Dirkes II P.E. [mailto:jvd2pe at tds.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:40 AM
> To: phay at phcjamaica.com; 'BLDG-SIM'
> Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums
>
>
>
> Dear Paul,
>
>
>
> In theory, the return plenum is warmer than the occupied space, so the wall
> and, especially, roof loads do not affect the space in the same way. This
> will give a warmer coil entering condition and resulting smaller coil, fan,
> duct, motor, wiring, electrical service, etc.
>
>
>
> The ACTUAL difference will be small and may not be worth the additional
> analysis and load calculations. You could argue that a VAV system will
> realize the benefits, since it will "see" the space load only and reduce
> volume to suit.
>
>
>
> Another consideration is whether the life cycle energy benefits outweigh the
> differential cost to install and maintain the suspended ceiling.... I
> suspect they do, but am uncertain re: ROI.
>
>
>
> The Building Performance Team
> James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
> 1631 Acacia Drive NW
> Grand Rapids, MI 49504
> 616 450 8653
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of P. Hay
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:19 AM
> To: BLDG-SIM
> Subject: [Bldg-sim] Suspended ceilings vs. open plenums
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I recently came across a Life Cycle Analysis of Suspended Ceilings vs. Open
> Plenums, initiated by CISCA [Ceiling and Interior System Construction
> Association ( www.cisca.org )] which concluded that suspended ceilings are
> more energy efficient because they have:
>
>
>
> a) higher reflectances,
>
> b) better heat-removal from luminaires, and
>
> c) use lower static pressure and fan power.
>
>
>
> I can understand (a) and (c) but (b) leaves me suspicious that the
> return-air plenum was not considered in this study. As I understand it,
> return-air plenums can be defined as separate zones from the usable spaces
> (in this case: an office or a food store) but the suspended ceilings are
> adiabatic. So , other than the savings for lighting and fan, I really don't
> understand how there could be significant savings for the HVAC system if the
> overall height of the rooms (plenum & usable space) is identical, and
> cooling load of plenums are considered.
>
>
>
> Is there something I'm missing?
>
>
>
> Paul Hay
>
> Managing Partner
>
> PAUL HAY Consultants
>
>
>
> Capital Project Planning and Management
>
>
>
> 15a Cassia Park Road
>
> Kingston 10
>
> Jamaica, W.I.
>
>
>
> tel: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
> cel: 1 (876) 324-4274
>
> fax: 1 (876) 756-0631
>
>
>
> web: www.phcjamaica.com
>
> e-mail: paul.hay at phcjamaica.com
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/c295ae45/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bldg-sim mailing list
> Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>
>
> End of Bldg-sim Digest, Vol 14, Issue 6
> ***************************************
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:30:46 -0600
From: "Edwin Lee" <leeed2001 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] EnergyPlus on multi-cpu systems
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Message-ID:
<bce4945b0901081430j36737e8akb5e5547f6fdafde3 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Alex:
Just want to comment on the dual core issue. Multiple E+ runs work nicely
on a dual core machine (and would subsequently work with four on a quad
core). I wrote a testing script that monitors each processor on the machine
while constantly running two different E+ instances. When only one runs, my
machine (Lenovo laptop, 2GHz Intel Core Duo, 3GB RAM, XP Professional)
doesn't notice anything is happening. When both processors fill up, the
machine does lag, but not that bad to where it completely halts. The issue
that most people come across when wanting to improve E+ performance is that
it can't easily be applied to run a single simulation on multiple computers.
In a program like Fluent, for instance, the CFD grid can be split, and each
processor can simulate its part, and only need to communicate at the
interfaces. For a building simulation like E+, there isn't really a logical
way to split the data, since each piece of equipment may need to know
information from all sorts of other parts of the simulation.
Two pieces of advice:
If you can get your parametric study to run two simulations (two instances
of EnergyPlus.exe) concurrently, that should nearly double the performance
on a dual core/dual processor machine.
While you are debugging your model, make sure you only run a single design
day, and not any run periods. If the design days come through without
problems, the run period is **likely** to not have any either. (key is the
**'s)
Edwin Lee
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/2cd20c87/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:56:26 -0500
From: JRR <energy.wwind at cox.net>
Subject: [Bldg-sim] EnergyPlus on multi-cpu systems, Standard E+
Machiine
To: alexc at 2rw.com, Building Simulation
<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID: <4966849A.7090804 at cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi;
One of the simplest ways to speed production runs is to get several
identical computers, install identical
copies of the desired software and perform "saw tooth" runs. In this
strategy the user moves down one
machine about every 5 minutes starting another run. After all of the
machines are running go back to the
first machine and wait for the results.As soon as the first machine is
finished, load it and go again.
Quite a while ago I had a flexy manufacturing class as part of my
master's degree program. The factory
simulation runs took a long time -- this was just as 486s were fading
and Pentium CPUs were taking off.
the runs took ~ 40 minutes so I got 8 machines in the computer lab early
in the morning on a Saturday. I
finished the projects in one morning. My classmates were crushing it all
week.
We are interested in establishing a "standard configuration" PC for
efforts to speed up Energy Plus runs.
We are NOT interested in Equest, or TRACE, at this time. We may have
some interest in Retscreen, Window 5.
The system will be based on an Intel OEM motherboard, Intel CPU, and
something that is not Vista.
Windows XP PRO is available to small OEMs through January 30 in the US.
SuSE Linux looks like a
good alternative. I have looked at the NVIDIA Tesla board that plugs
into a PCIe x16 slot. That's
available retail at $1600 from Tigerdirect.com. I don't want to create
a $10,000 PC however.
What is the feeling on the mailing list concerning speed vs cost ?? Is
a $2,000 PC OK? $2,500 ??
One other feature we are looking at is providing Internet based training
for Energy Plus, and Technical
Support. Establishing a standard machine or say two levels of standard
machine, operating system, tools,
would greatly help the user community.
John R Ross III PE
Westwind Corporation
Vienna, VA 22182-1958
energy.wwind at cox.net
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:44:49 +1030
From: Martin Belusko <Martin.Belusko at unisa.edu.au>
Subject: [Bldg-sim] high CWLT chiller performance curves
To: "'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org'"
<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID:
<175241C47FF8E141A7AC2637D952A66D02CAC97E08 at ITUPC-EX1MBOX.UniNet.unisa.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi
I am looking for some chiller performance curves at elevated evaporator temperatures for chilled ceiling systems in commercial buildings. Manufacturers provide data up to 9 deg. C exit temperatures but not up to 15 deg. C. Ideally COP values at different evaporator, condenser and load would be ideal for a water cooled chiller.
Regards
Dr. Martin Belusko
Research Engineer
Sustainable Energy Centre
University of South Australia
ph: +61 8 8302 3767
fx: +61 8 8302 3380
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090109/a9603792/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:18:08 -0600
From: xiao dongyi <xiaodongyi at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
To: <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID: <BAY136-W559FE78D433F40890040B5C2DC0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Hi,
I have a question regarding the chilled water pump power calculation in ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G:
ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G Paragraph G3.1.3.10 requires that "The baseline building design pump power shall be 22 W/gpm.". If the chilled water pumping system is a primary-secondary system, how does this rule apply? i.e. does the 22 W/gpm apply to the primary pump, secondary pump, or both? Or, do I need to divide it between the primary and secondary pump?
Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Dongyi
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/b5bab6b9/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 19:14:20 -0500
From: "James V. Dirkes II P.E." <jvd2pe at tds.net>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
To: <xiaodongyi at hotmail.com>, <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID: <18F53F2665A14A4CB5628907DCEE9A1D at BPT>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Good question! My guess is that each pump may be 22W / gpm. Since they are
required to use variable speed drives (for >300T), it won't affect energy
adversely.
There may be an ASHRAE clarification on this topic; have you checked with
them?
The Building Performance Team
James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
1631 Acacia Drive NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
616 450 8653
_____
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of xiao dongyi
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:18 PM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
Hi,
I have a question regarding the chilled water pump power calculation in
ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G:
ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G Paragraph G3.1.3.10 requires that "The baseline
building design pump power shall be 22 W/gpm.". If the chilled water pumping
system is a primary-secondary system, how does this rule apply? i.e. does
the 22 W/gpm apply to the primary pump, secondary pump, or both? Or, do I
need to divide it between the primary and secondary pump?
Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Dongyi
_____
Windows LiveT: Keep your life in sync. See how it works.
<http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012
009>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/c1ee3561/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:52:02 -0500
From: William Bahnfleth <wbahnfleth at psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
To: "James V. Dirkes II P.E."
<jvd2pe at tds.net>,<xiaodongyi at hotmail.com>,
<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID: <ENGREMAILF2tPrPrvCW0000031c at engremailf2.engr.psu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/c6ce894a/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:12:29 -0800
From: "Lam, Linda" <linda.lam at wspfk.com>
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Is Garage Lighting a Regulated Process Load?
To: <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID:
<5F662BF0C1928242BF324F3EE6C27D1431544D at exc01sfo1us.FKUSA.ORG>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Bldg-sim
Is the lighting in an uncovered and unconditioned parking garage considered a process load? Where does it say that?
In terms of App G of ASHRAE 90.1 and LEED, does "regulated" refer to terms that are explicitly discussed in the standard? Since the standard states that exterior lighitng for Unconvered Parking Areas is limited 0.15 W/sf in Table 9.4.5, does that mean lighting in a parking lot is "regulated"?
In general I'm looking for documentation of definitions for "Process Loads" and "Regulated" and "Unregulated" according to LEED...
Thank you in advance!
Happy New Year!
Linda
Linda Lam, LEED?? AP
WSP Flack + Kurtz
405 Howard Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: 415.402.5813
Main Tel: 415.398.3833
Fax: 415.433.5311
website: http://www.wspfk.com
vCard: http://vcards.wspfk.com/vcardloader.php?filename=flackkurtz-linda-lam-wspfk-com-1227040073.vcf
image: <http://vcards.wspfk.com/usercard.php?filename=flackkurtz-linda-lam-wspfk-com-1227040073.png>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/eb8452ad/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:19:32 -0500
From: "James V. Dirkes II P.E." <jvd2pe at tds.net>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
To: "'William Bahnfleth'" <wbahnfleth at psu.edu>,
<xiaodongyi at hotmail.com>, <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID: <F40F00FD588D495DB1E458546BF454A7 at BPT>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Bill,
I don't think I follow your logic. If the total plant head (primary plus
secondary) is ~100 ft., and assuming that water flow is about the same for
both primary and secondary, then your calcs indicate that 22W is a
reasonable number for the pumping system efficiency.
This is essentially the same scenario that I intended to use below. The
primary side would use, say, 30ft of head and the secondary side would use
~70ft. If the total head is greater than that, it (obviously) becomes
tougher to comply with 22W / gpm.
That said, I haven't modeled a System #7 or 8 per Appendix G yet, so I'm
just hypothesizing!
p.s., I think it will be tough to get a combined wire-water efficiency of
85%!
The Building Performance Team
James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
1631 Acacia Drive NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
616 450 8653
_____
From: William Bahnfleth [mailto:wbahnfleth at psu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:52 PM
To: James V. Dirkes II P.E.; xiaodongyi at hotmail.com;
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
I sincerely doubt it.
A fairly typical total pump head for plant and distribution for a
primary/secondary systems might be 100 -120 ft. (Note, I am not saying that
is GOOD practice, but it is typical. One can generally do better.)
Let's say that the overall efficiency of pump, motor, and drive is ~85%.
If we use the common engineering approximation HP = (Q*H)/(3960*eta_t), and
given that 1 HP = 745.7 W, the power associated with 1 gpm and 100 ft wg
head is
W = 745.7*(1*100)/(3960*0.85) = 22.15
I cannot think of a reasonable scenario under which 44 W/gpm could be
construed to represent minimally acceptable practice.
Bill Bahnfleth
At 07:14 PM 1/8/2009, James V. Dirkes II P.E. wrote:
Good question! My guess is that each pump may be 22W / gpm. Since they are
required to use variable speed drives (for >300T), it won't affect energy
adversely.
There may be an ASHRAE clarification on this topic; have you checked with
them?
The Building Performance Team
James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
1631 Acacia Drive NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
616 450 8653<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
_____
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
<mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of xiao dongyi
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:18 PM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
Hi,
I have a question regarding the chilled water pump power calculation in
ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G:
ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G Paragraph G3.1.3.10 requires that "The baseline
building design pump power shall be 22 W/gpm.". If the chilled water pumping
system is a primary-secondary system, how does this rule apply? i.e. does
the 22 W/gpm apply to the primary pump, secondary pump, or both? Or, do I
need to divide it between the primary and secondary pump?
Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Dongyi
_____
Windows LiveT: Keep your life in sync. See
<http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012
009> how it works.
_______________________________________________
Bldg-sim mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
__________
William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, PE, FASHRAE
Professor of Architectural Engineering and Director, Indoor Environment
Center
Penn State / 104 Engineering Unit A / University Park, PA 16802 USA
voice: 814.863.2076 / fax: 814.863.4789 / e-mail: wbahnfleth at psu.edu
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/faculty/bahnfleth/ ,
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec
It is better to know less than to know so much that ain't so. - Josh
Billings
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090108/6b8dbaa1/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:30:30 -0700
From: "Ellis, Peter" <Peter_Ellis at nrel.gov>
Subject: [Bldg-sim] IBPSA-USA Chicago Meeting Announcement
To: <ibpsausa at onebuilding.org>, <bldg-sim at onebuilding.org>,
<tc47-l at onebuilding.org>
Message-ID:
<C468F8F9013C3440B9DCC8273A8FE13F0C59DA7A at mail-1a.nrel.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Please excuse the cross-postings...
Sorry for the later-than-usual announcement. Please note all RSVPs should go to Shanta Tucker at shanta.tucker at atelierten.com this time. Thanks.
IBPSA-USA
International Building Performance Simulation Association
USA Affiliate
IBPSA-USA invites you to join us in Chicago
for our Winter 2008 meeting!
IBPSA-USA MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT
Dinner RSVP requested (see below)
4:00 PM, Saturday, January 24, 2009
Chicago, Illinois
Location: Meeting (4:00-6:00) at:
Palmer House Hilton (Buckingham Room, 1st Floor)
17 East Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois
Social hour, dinner, and talk (6:00-9:00) at:
The Berghoff Restaurant
17 West Adams
Chicago, Illinois
4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Meeting
4:00-4:30 Student Poster Presentations
4:30-5:00 Software Demo Presentations
5:00-6:00 Posters and demos (free format)
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM Social hour with cash bar
7:00 PM Dinner (cost $40)
8:00 PM (approx) After-dinner talk:
Jeff Boyer
Smith-Hill Architecture
Reservations: To make a reservation contact Shanta Tucker
<shanta.tucker at atelierten.com> via email by January 12, 2009, 5 PM
(EST).
Confirmation of reservations will be sent via email (if you do not
receive a confirmation within two business days, please resend your
reservation request).
For the latest information about IBPSA-USA, please visit our web site:
http://www.ibpsa.us <https://owa1.nrel.gov/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.ibpsa.us>
We look forward to seeing you there!
Jeff Haberl Shanta Tucker
President, IBPSA-USA Secretary, IBPSA-USA
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:01:44 +0000
From: M F A Ramadan <M.Fahmy at sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Problems in compiling the weather data files
of IBPSA
To: "bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org" <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID: <1231502504.49673ca80ce40 at webmail.shef.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear all:
I am facing problems in writing the inner data within the weather file.
Finally, It is easy to write the generated or measured data into a text file
then it is also easy to convert it into epw or even wea. But there seem some
errors within the original conversion from the original epw into text (csv)
which i started with to write in. Consequently all the conversions later made
in the opposite direction from csv to epw conclude epw with inner writing
errors.
This appear in the DesignBuilder or even in the ECOTECT.
The issue is what is the correct format with appropriate headers of the
location
long and lat, ....etc. So that the later conversions should read from any
package that uses epw or wea. Can you gide to some one who is expert in such
data files issues?
One of the problems that i found in DB, it doesn't accept any no. of days in
the
year 2002, i tried to delete the extra days once and twice but it didn't work.
A help would be appreciated.
Best regards,
Mohamad.
----- End forwarded message -----
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:55:11 -0500
From: "Itzhak Maor" <imaor at pwienergy.com>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
To: "William Bahnfleth" <wbahnfleth at psu.edu>, "James V. Dirkes II
P.E." <jvd2pe at tds.net>, <xiaodongyi at hotmail.com>,
<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID:
<6E919C3471BAF441B0BADA552D96AAF02B0469 at pwi-sbs.lan.pwienergy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello Bill
You are correct. The 22 W/GPM is combined Primary and Secondary pumping.
The assumption that used to derive this number is total head of 75'.
Thanks
Itzhak
Itzhak Maor Ph.D., P.E., C.E.M
Manager, Energy Efficiency Services
Global Workplace Solutions
Building Efficiency | Energy Services
Johnson Controls, Inc.
1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 1140 | Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel.: (215) 241-9111 ext. 14 | Fax: (215) 241-0113
Cell: (215) 767-4582
Itzhak.Maor at jci.com <mailto:Colleen.T.Sarfino at jci.com> |
www.JohnsonControls.com <http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/>
cid:971061017 at 30102008-281C<outbind://15-000000004E71BADBD6E622488B444AB
CBE1B51C307006E919C3471BAF441B0BADA552D96AAF000000000940C0000FD24401A791
0EF4D91981847834ED2F700000BF30E570000/cid:image001.gif at 01C93A94.0603E860
>
Please note my new email address, effective November 1st (and useable in
the interim).
________________________________
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of William
Bahnfleth
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:52 PM
To: James V. Dirkes II P.E.; xiaodongyi at hotmail.com;
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
I sincerely doubt it.
A fairly typical total pump head for plant and distribution for a
primary/secondary systems might be 100 -120 ft. (Note, I am not saying
that is GOOD practice, but it is typical. One can generally do better.)
Let's say that the overall efficiency of pump, motor, and drive is ~85%.
If we use the common engineering approximation HP = (Q*H)/(3960*eta_t),
and given that 1 HP = 745.7 W, the power associated with 1 gpm and 100
ft wg head is
W = 745.7*(1*100)/(3960*0.85) = 22.15
I cannot think of a reasonable scenario under which 44 W/gpm could be
construed to represent minimally acceptable practice.
Bill Bahnfleth
At 07:14 PM 1/8/2009, James V. Dirkes II P.E. wrote:
Good question! My guess is that each pump may be 22W / gpm.
Since they are required to use variable speed drives (for >300T), it
won't affect energy adversely.
There may be an ASHRAE clarification on this topic; have you
checked with them?
The Building Performance Team
James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
1631 Acacia Drive NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
616 450 8653<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
________________________________
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
<mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> ] On Behalf Of xiao
dongyi
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:18 PM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
Hi,
I have a question regarding the chilled water pump power
calculation in ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G:
ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G Paragraph G3.1.3.10 requires that "The
baseline building design pump power shall be 22 W/gpm.". If the chilled
water pumping system is a primary-secondary system, how does this rule
apply? i.e. does the 22 W/gpm apply to the primary pump, secondary pump,
or both? Or, do I need to divide it between the primary and secondary
pump?
Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Dongyi
________________________________
Windows Live(tm): Keep your life in sync. See how it works.
<http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks
_012009>
_______________________________________________
Bldg-sim mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
__________
William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, PE, FASHRAE
Professor of Architectural Engineering and Director, Indoor Environment
Center
Penn State / 104 Engineering Unit A / University Park, PA 16802 USA
voice: 814.863.2076 / fax: 814.863.4789 / e-mail: wbahnfleth at psu.edu
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/faculty/bahnfleth/ ,
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec
It is better to know less than to know so much that ain't so. - Josh
Billings
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090109/79b3c9da/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:01:43 -0500
From: "Crawley, Drury" <Drury.Crawley at ee.doe.gov>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Problems in compiling the weather data
files of IBPSA
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Message-ID:
<4B55C0CF3DB1354A9524C7D455EE6D4901618203 at HQGTNEVS-04.doe.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
The format for the weather data and what each variable means within the
EPW file is given in the EnergyPlus Auxiliary Programs document
(available from the EnergyPlus web site). This includes the ranges
expected for each variable. The CSV created by the EnergyPlus Weather
Converter has column headings for the hourly data where the EPW does
not.
-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of M F A
Ramadan
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 7:02 AM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Fwd: Problems in compiling the weather data files of
IBPSA
Dear all:
I am facing problems in writing the inner data within the weather file.
Finally, It is easy to write the generated or measured data into a text
file then it is also easy to convert it into epw or even wea. But there
seem some errors within the original conversion from the original epw
into text (csv) which i started with to write in. Consequently all the
conversions later made in the opposite direction from csv to epw
conclude epw with inner writing errors.
This appear in the DesignBuilder or even in the ECOTECT.
The issue is what is the correct format with appropriate headers of the
location long and lat, ....etc. So that the later conversions should
read from any package that uses epw or wea. Can you gide to some one
who is expert in such data files issues?
One of the problems that i found in DB, it doesn't accept any no. of
days in the year 2002, i tried to delete the extra days once and twice
but it didn't work.
A help would be appreciated.
Best regards,
Mohamad.
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
Bldg-sim mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:28:10 -0800
From: "Peter Simmonds" <peter.simmonds at ibece.net>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] high CWLT chiller performance curves
To: "Martin Belusko" <Martin.Belusko at unisa.edu.au>,
<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID:
<B9A3AA6F98276B4EB15DECA51DB7F8510140C605 at smain07.IBECE07.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Martin, let me try and understand your question a little better.
For different evaporator leaving temperatures you could simply contact
the manufacturers or as many have simply map the chiller as a
traditional Carnot cycle and deduce the efficiency from the
calculations.
I wrote a paper in 93 which is published in ASHRAE transactions dealing
with chilled beams and chiller efficiencies associated with running
chillers at say 13C-15C.
The only problem in the real world is that we often require at least 6C
for air handling units and to have a dedicated chiller for chilled
ceilings is a little extravagant. We usually run the chillers at 6C, but
at variable speed with of course variable evaporator flow. Bungane
Melamakulu and I wrote a paper on chiller efficiency for the IBPSA
conference in Colorado.
I do not wish this reply to seem as many replies that we have done this
before, but does this answer you question?
Peter Simmonds Ph.D.
Senior Associate, Advanced Technology Group
IBE Consulting Engineers
14130 Riverside Drive Suite 201
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
p: (818) 377-8220 ext. 246
f: (818) 377-8230
m: (818) 219-1284
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
________________________________
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Martin
Belusko
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 3:15 PM
To: 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org'
Subject: [Bldg-sim] high CWLT chiller performance curves
Hi
I am looking for some chiller performance curves at elevated evaporator
temperatures for chilled ceiling systems in commercial buildings.
Manufacturers provide data up to 9 deg. C exit temperatures but not up
to 15 deg. C. Ideally COP values at different evaporator, condenser and
load would be ideal for a water cooled chiller.
Regards
Dr. Martin Belusko
Research Engineer
Sustainable Energy Centre
University of South Australia
ph: +61 8 8302 3767
fx: +61 8 8302 3380
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090109/a5003bd8/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:36:11 -0600
From: xiao dongyi <xiaodongyi at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
To: <imaor at pwienergy.com>, <wbahnfleth at psu.edu>, <jvd2pe at tds.net>,
<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID: <BAY136-W4307E4E008A5767262164CC2DD0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Hi Itzhak,
If that is the assumption used to derive the 22 W/gpm, then how should I divide it between the primary and secondary pump?Thanks,
Dongyi
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump powerDate: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:55:11 -0500From: imaor at pwienergy.comTo: wbahnfleth at psu.edu; jvd2pe at tds.net; xiaodongyi at hotmail.com; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Hello Bill
You are correct. The 22 W/GPM is combined Primary and Secondary pumping. The assumption that used to derive this number is total head of 75'.
Thanks
Itzhak
Itzhak Maor Ph.D., P.E., C.E.M Manager, Energy Efficiency Services
Global Workplace Solutions Building Efficiency | Energy Services
Johnson Controls, Inc. 1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 1140 | Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel.: (215) 241-9111 ext. 14 | Fax: (215) 241-0113
Cell: (215) 767-4582
Itzhak.Maor at jci.com | www.JohnsonControls.com
Please note my new email address, effective November 1st (and useable in the interim).
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of William BahnflethSent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:52 PMTo: James V. Dirkes II P.E.; xiaodongyi at hotmail.com; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.orgSubject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
I sincerely doubt it.A fairly typical total pump head for plant and distribution for a primary/secondary systems might be 100 -120 ft. (Note, I am not saying that is GOOD practice, but it is typical. One can generally do better.)Let's say that the overall efficiency of pump, motor, and drive is ~85%.If we use the common engineering approximation HP = (Q*H)/(3960*eta_t), and given that 1 HP = 745.7 W, the power associated with 1 gpm and 100 ft wg head isW = 745.7*(1*100)/(3960*0.85) = 22.15I cannot think of a reasonable scenario under which 44 W/gpm could be construed to represent minimally acceptable practice.Bill BahnflethAt 07:14 PM 1/8/2009, James V. Dirkes II P.E. wrote:
Good question! My guess is that each pump may be 22W / gpm. Since they are required to use variable speed drives (for >300T), it won't affect energy adversely. There may be an ASHRAE clarification on this topic; have you checked with them?
The Building Performance TeamJames V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP1631 Acacia Drive NWGrand Rapids, MI 49504616 450 8653<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [ mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of xiao dongyiSent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:18 PMTo: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.orgSubject: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump powerHi, I have a question regarding the chilled water pump power calculation in ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G: ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G Paragraph G3.1.3.10 requires that "The baseline building design pump power shall be 22 W/gpm.". If the chilled water pumping system is a primary-secondary system, how does this rule apply? i.e. does the 22 W/gpm apply to the primary pump, secondary pump, or both? Or, do I need to divide it between the primary and secondary pump? Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Dongyi
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. See how it works. _______________________________________________Bldg-sim mailing listhttp://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.orgTo unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
__________
William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, PE, FASHRAE
Professor of Architectural Engineering and Director, Indoor Environment Center
Penn State / 104 Engineering Unit A / University Park, PA 16802 USA
voice: 814.863.2076 / fax: 814.863.4789 / e-mail: wbahnfleth at psu.edu
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/faculty/bahnfleth/ , http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iecIt is better to know less than to know so much that ain?t so. - Josh Billings
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090109/12ab6f4f/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:34:44 -0700
From: "Zhuolun Chen" <chenzhuolun at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
To: "Itzhak Maor" <imaor at pwienergy.com>, "William Bahnfleth"
<wbahnfleth at psu.edu>, "James V. Dirkes II P.E." <jvd2pe at tds.net>,
<xiaodongyi at hotmail.com>, <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID: <BLU133-DS75A5BD1B91202438EEF23B0DD0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi, Itzhak
I want to know that if the 22 w/gpm is the total of primary and secondary pumping, how can I divide this total value into the two system? Is there a factor or something I can use?
ZL Chen
From: Itzhak Maor
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 7:55 AM
To: William Bahnfleth ; James V. Dirkes II P.E. ; xiaodongyi at hotmail.com ; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
Hello Bill
You are correct. The 22 W/GPM is combined Primary and Secondary pumping. The assumption that used to derive this number is total head of 75'.
Thanks
Itzhak
Itzhak Maor Ph.D., P.E., C.E.M
Manager, Energy Efficiency Services
Global Workplace Solutions
Building Efficiency | Energy Services
Johnson Controls, Inc.
1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 1140 | Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel.: (215) 241-9111 ext. 14 | Fax: (215) 241-0113
Cell: (215) 767-4582
Itzhak.Maor at jci.com | www.JohnsonControls.com
Please note my new email address, effective November 1st (and useable in the interim).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of William Bahnfleth
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:52 PM
To: James V. Dirkes II P.E.; xiaodongyi at hotmail.com; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
I sincerely doubt it.
A fairly typical total pump head for plant and distribution for a primary/secondary systems might be 100 -120 ft. (Note, I am not saying that is GOOD practice, but it is typical. One can generally do better.)
Let's say that the overall efficiency of pump, motor, and drive is ~85%.
If we use the common engineering approximation HP = (Q*H)/(3960*eta_t), and given that 1 HP = 745.7 W, the power associated with 1 gpm and 100 ft wg head is
W = 745.7*(1*100)/(3960*0.85) = 22.15
I cannot think of a reasonable scenario under which 44 W/gpm could be construed to represent minimally acceptable practice.
Bill Bahnfleth
At 07:14 PM 1/8/2009, James V. Dirkes II P.E. wrote:
Good question! My guess is that each pump may be 22W / gpm. Since they are required to use variable speed drives (for >300T), it won't affect energy adversely.
There may be an ASHRAE clarification on this topic; have you checked with them?
The Building Performance Team
James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
1631 Acacia Drive NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
616 450 8653<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [ mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of xiao dongyi
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:18 PM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
Hi,
I have a question regarding the chilled water pump power calculation in ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G:
ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G Paragraph G3.1.3.10 requires that "The baseline building design pump power shall be 22 W/gpm.". If the chilled water pumping system is a primary-secondary system, how does this rule apply? i.e. does the 22 W/gpm apply to the primary pump, secondary pump, or both? Or, do I need to divide it between the primary and secondary pump?
Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Dongyi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. See how it works.
_______________________________________________
Bldg-sim mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
__________
William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, PE, FASHRAE
Professor of Architectural Engineering and Director, Indoor Environment Center
Penn State / 104 Engineering Unit A / University Park, PA 16802 USA
voice: 814.863.2076 / fax: 814.863.4789 / e-mail: wbahnfleth at psu.edu
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/faculty/bahnfleth/ , http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec
It is better to know less than to know so much that ain?t so. - Josh Billings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bldg-sim mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090109/abb74b2b/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:13:37 -0700
From: Kendra Tupper <ktupper at rmi.org>
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Lab ACH Setback with Packaged Single Zone Systems
To: <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>,
<bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org.>
Message-ID: <C58CD3D1.4BC1%ktupper at rmi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I am modeling a lab spaces for LEED, and the 90.1-2004 Baseline system is a
Packaged Single Zone. The lab spaces have 12 ACH during occupied periods,
and 6 ACH during unoccupied periods.
Using eQUEST, I cannot seem to get the supply airflow to vary between 12 and
6 ACH. I have fume hood exhaust schedules which control the OA flow rates,
and these are both varying between occupied and unoccupied hours. I have
specified my Min Flow Ratio to 0.5 at the system level, set my Min ACH to 6
at the zone level, and assigned a Min Flow Schedule to the zone level
airflow that matches that of the fume hood exhaust schedule.
I have been outputting hourly variable to check how the system is
performing and right now my supply air is constant at 12 ACH, while the OA
and EA varies between 6 and 12. Is there anyway to get the supply airflow
to vary on a PSZ?
I was able to get this to work in another model with a Reheat Fan System
that was serving multiple zones, but it doesn?t seem right to change the
system type.
Thank you,
--
Kendra Tupper
Senior Consultant
Rocky Mountain Institute
Built Environment Team
www.rmi.org
1820 Folsom Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Direct: 303-567-8641
Main: 303-245-1003
Fax: 303-245-7213
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090109/df0ebf0c/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:58:59 -0500
From: "Crawley, Drury" <Drury.Crawley at ee.doe.gov>
Subject: [Bldg-sim] New Interfaces and Standard 140-2007 Testing
Reports for EnergyPlus
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Message-ID:
<4B55C0CF3DB1354A9524C7D455EE6D490161824A at HQGTNEVS-04.doe.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Links to two new interfaces for EnergyPlus are now posted on the
EnergyPlus web site:
* Easy EnergyPlus (Chinese language interface)
* EnergyPlugged (AutoCAD plug-in to create and edit EnergyPlus
input files).
Information on these and the other interfaces and tools is available
here:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/interfaces_tools.cfm
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/ep_input_creation.cfm
The reports documenting the testing of EnergyPlus have been updated to
EnergyPlus Version 3.0 and are now available here:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/testing.cfm
These include ASHRAE Standard 140-2007 (envelope, HVAC CE100-200,
CE300-545, and HE100-230), ASHRAE research project 1052, and two other
test suites developed by the EnergyPlus team for HVAC components and
global energy balance.
EnergyPlus Team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090109/255770cc/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:23:18 -0500
From: "James V. Dirkes II P.E." <jvd2pe at tds.net>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
To: <xiaodongyi at hotmail.com>, <imaor at pwienergy.com>,
<wbahnfleth at psu.edu>, <bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org>
Message-ID: <F2D64C423BDE47BAAE73EACBBF338F16 at BPT>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Dongyi,
I assign the actual flow (gpm or m3/s) and an equivalent head that results
in the ASHRAE pump power limit. I've attached a spreadsheet which helps do
that for you more easily.
Note that I use EPlus and it assigns a fixed pump efficiency. You'll have
to figure that out for your software.....
The Building Performance Team
James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
1631 Acacia Drive NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
616 450 8653
_____
From: xiao dongyi [mailto:xiaodongyi at hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 10:36 AM
To: imaor at pwienergy.com; wbahnfleth at psu.edu; jvd2pe at tds.net;
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
Hi Itzhak,
If that is the assumption used to derive the 22 W/gpm, then how should I
divide it between the primary and secondary pump?
Thanks,
Dongyi
_____
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:55:11 -0500
From: imaor at pwienergy.com
To: wbahnfleth at psu.edu; jvd2pe at tds.net; xiaodongyi at hotmail.com;
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Hello Bill
You are correct. The 22 W/GPM is combined Primary and Secondary pumping. The
assumption that used to derive this number is total head of 75'.
Thanks
Itzhak
Itzhak Maor Ph.D., P.E., C.E.M
Manager, Energy Efficiency Services
Global Workplace Solutions
Building Efficiency | Energy Services
Johnson Controls, Inc.
1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 1140 | Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel.: (215) 241-9111 ext. 14 | Fax: (215) 241-0113
Cell: (215) 767-4582
Itzhak.Maor at jci.com | www.JohnsonControls.com
cid:971061017 at 30102008-281C
<http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/ltr/i_safe.gif>
Please note my new email address, effective November 1st (and useable in the
interim).
_____
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of William
Bahnfleth
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:52 PM
To: James V. Dirkes II P.E.; xiaodongyi at hotmail.com;
bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
I sincerely doubt it.
A fairly typical total pump head for plant and distribution for a
primary/secondary systems might be 100 -120 ft. (Note, I am not saying that
is GOOD practice, but it is typical. One can generally do better.)
Let's say that the overall efficiency of pump, motor, and drive is ~85%.
If we use the common engineering approximation HP = (Q*H)/(3960*eta_t), and
given that 1 HP = 745.7 W, the power associated with 1 gpm and 100 ft wg
head is
W = 745.7*(1*100)/(3960*0.85) = 22.15
I cannot think of a reasonable scenario under which 44 W/gpm could be
construed to represent minimally acceptable practice.
Bill Bahnfleth
At 07:14 PM 1/8/2009, James V. Dirkes II P.E. wrote:
Good question! My guess is that each pump may be 22W / gpm. Since they are
required to use variable speed drives (for >300T), it won't affect energy
adversely.
There may be an ASHRAE clarification on this topic; have you checked with
them?
The Building Performance Team
James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP
1631 Acacia Drive NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
616 450 8653<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
_____
From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of xiao dongyi
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:18 PM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] chilled water pump power
Hi,
I have a question regarding the chilled water pump power calculation in
ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G:
ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G Paragraph G3.1.3.10 requires that "The baseline
building design pump power shall be 22 W/gpm.". If the chilled water pumping
system is a primary-secondary system, how does this rule apply? i.e. does
the 22 W/gpm apply to the primary pump, secondary pump, or both? Or, do I
need to divide it between the primary and secondary pump?
Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Dongyi
_____
Windows LiveT: Keep your life in sync. See how it works.
_______________________________________________
Bldg-sim mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
__________
William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, PE, FASHRAE
Professor of Architectural Engineering and Director, Indoor Environment
Center
Penn State / 104 Engineering Unit A / University Park, PA 16802 USA
voice: 814.863.2076 / fax: 814.863.4789 / e-mail: wbahnfleth at psu.edu
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/faculty/bahnfleth/ ,
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec
It is better to know less than to know so much that ain't so. - Josh
Billings
_____
Windows LiveT: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.
<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090109/c81789a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PumpPower for 90_1.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 19456 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090109/c81789a9/attachment.xls>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bldg-sim mailing list
Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
End of Bldg-sim Digest, Vol 14, Issue 7
***************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090109/7c4f0459/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5903 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090109/7c4f0459/attachment-0002.jpg>
More information about the Bldg-sim
mailing list