Jean, others,
It was quite a surprise to read your e-mail and find that the old
F-Factors that I calculated back in 1988 are still being referred to
in Standard 90.1. If you're interested in more details of that
effort, there's an ASHRAE Transaction paper
Huang, Y.J., L.S. Shen,
J.C.
Bull, and L.F. Goldberg 1988. "Whole-house simulation of
foundation
heat-flows using the DOE-2 program",
ASHRAE
Transactions, Vol. 94-2.
and a 1998 User News
article written by Fred Winkelmann on its implementation in
DOE-2 (see attached).
The F-Factors
are per lineal feet of perimeter from Tout to Tin of the space
containing the foundation. There are actually several ways to
implement this model: (1) model a monolithic foundation as an
exterior wall and adjust the R-value of the layer so that U*A
= F*PL (Perimeter length) -- this is the method shown in the
Winkelmann article, (2) decompose the foundation into two
regions - a perimeter strip 1-2 ft wide and a core for the
remainder; model the perimeter as an exterior wall, adjusting
its R-value accordingly, but model the core as an adiabatic
layer. When I was working with DOE-2, there was a practical
problem that layers can't be too thick or the response factor
would fail, so I could only add at most 2.5 ft of soil. I
don't know if EnergyPlus has similar limitations. Ideally,
you would want to model as much soil as possible to get the
thermal dampening effect.
The main
deficiencies with this technique are (1) Tout is the outside
air temperature, (2) the foundation is treated as a single
layer. I know there's a temptation to model the foundation as
a underground layer tied to the soil temperature, but that
would be wrrong since the F-Factors are calculated air-to-air.
In the late
90's (1998-2000), I worked with Fred Winkelmann and Vladimir
Bazjanac for the Calif. Energy Commission to develop what I
think is a much better model that is now the approved method
for Title-24. This model uses a similar approach as before,
except instead of a single F-Factor, there are six Foundation
Conductances for two domains (perimeter and core) and three
heat flow paths ("quick" to the outdoor air temperature the
past 3 weeks, "slow" to the monthly ground temperature, and
"constant" to the deep ground temperature). The model is not
only more accurate, but more flexible for different building
conditions. If anyone's interested in the report, it's
available at
www.whiteboxtechnologies.com/downloads/00_02.YJH.CEC_Fdn_Model.pdf
If I have it
in my power, I would urge everyone to stop using the 1988
model and switch to the 2000 model, but since the F-Factors
seem to have been institutionalized by now, that would be
irresponsible. So, I'll be happy to answer questions about the
use of either model.
Joe
Joe Huang
White Box Technologies, Inc.
346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 108D
Moraga CA 94556
yjhuang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.whiteboxtechnologies.com
(o) (925)388-0265
(c) (510)928-2683
"building energy simulations at your fingertips"
On 4/24/2013 9:34 PM, Jean marais wrote:
Dear Group,
e+ has a documented technique of converting the user
inputs of F-Factor, Area and Perimeter into a Equivalent
U-Value Contruction. It seams however that ASHRAE 90.1 and
HOF has too little information on how the F-Factors in
standard 90.1 were created (for example, which T_in and
T_out were used, how were losses into the soil accounted
for, which air film resistances were used, etc.) for me to
trust this technique as a compliance tool.
I propose the following solution:
Baseline case...
In a nut shell, a curve fit for the "fully insulated" case
of the F-factor table in 90.1...R-insulation is then a
function of F-factor input. Thus an equivalent
construction can be created that satisfies the Standard in
terms of Rated R-insulation covering the entire slab,
concrete thickness and soil conductivity as per the
description in Appx A. As Dr Huang suggested, use a 0.3
(also noted for this thickness at the back of 90.1 appx A)
at the soil conductivity perscribed by 90.1 to catch the
thermal mass effects of the soil.
As a check, a construction defined in this way can be
looked up for its F-factor and should give the right
R-value using interpolation.
Proposed case...
1) look at the actual design
2) deturmin the F-factor from Table A6.3
3) Calculate equivalent slab construction as for Baseline
case using the F-factor from step 2)
It should be said that if your slab does not meet the
criteria for "slab-on-grade" as per 90.1, then the
standard has no requirement of it and it should be
modelled identically to that of the proposed case model
(e.g. Basement slabs are not slab-on-grade)
Your comments please, after reading some of the rest of
these corrispondances.
Kind regards,
Jean
Further reading...
I would like to draw your attention to how COMcheck
software handles slab-on-grade F-factors.
http://www.energycodes.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BECP_Technical%20Support%20Document%20for%20Version%20391%20of%20the%20COMcheck%20Software_Sept2012_v00.pdf
Another interesting take is that of DOE2 http://simulationresearch.lbl.gov/dirpubs/un_articles02.pdf
The tabled F-factors here were deturmined by Huang using
2D parametric studies...the tabulated values don't match
those in ASHRAE 90.1. See the onebuilding forum note by
Joe Huang http://www.gard.com/ml/bldg-sim-archive/msg01047.html
Comments, please.
Kind regards,
Jean Marais
On 19 April 2013 16:59, Tianzhen Hong <thong@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jean,
When we developed this feature for EnergyPlus, we did
quite some research on the topic and you also pointed out,
ASHRAE did not have every details on F-factor. A few years
back, I was developing EnvStd, a tool used for ASHRAE 90.1
envelope tradeoff, F-factor was used to calculate the
equivalent heat transfer between the zone and outdoor,
there is no such a term of "heat flow into soil
environment".
Tianzhen
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Jean Marais <jeannieboef@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
HOF 18.31 equation 41 with equation 42 for "at grade
surfaces" can be combined as follows:
q = Pexp*F*delta_t ...unfortuanately delta_t is not
defined here...judging from the previous section for slabs
below grade, I must currently assume delta_t = (T_in -
T_ground), though for perimeter losses delta_t = (T_in -
T_ODA) may be more appropriate.
In context of slabs below grade, I see that the for heat
to travel from T_in to T_ground, it must travers Rfilm_in,
Rcon, Rinsulation (if any) and possibly a R_soil_to_slab
(probably negligable). However, for slabs at grade the
heat travels partly into the ground and partly into the
ODA via the ground. i.e. I could assume that the F-factors
were calculated somewhat as below:
qtot = heat flow into soil environment + heat flow into
outdoor environment through perimeter effects
= [Area *
U_slabconstructionwithinteriorairfilmresistances * (T_in -
T_ground)] + [Pexp * F * (T_in - T_ODA)]
= [Area / (Rfilm_in+Rcon+Rins) * (T_in - T_ground)]
+ [Pexp /
(Rfilm_in+Rcon+Rins+Rsoil_path_to_outdoors+Rvertical_insulation+Rfilm_out)
* (T_in - T_ODA)] ...there is a small overlap here, but
should be negligable.
As you can see, if this is the case,it is very important
to establish what Rsoil_path_to_outdoors was used for the
F-factor ratings in 90.1. Alternatively,
1) soil conductivity used for the F-factor ratings in 90.1
= 1.30 W/m-K as per A6.1
2) soil heat flow path length for the F-factor ratings in
90.1...can be assumed the distance of the corrisponding
F-factor insulation and type. E.g. F-0.90 corrisponds to
R-1.8 and 600 mm vertical insulation, which approximates a
soil travel path of 2x600 mm.
HOF does not mention any air film resistances in chapter
18.31, but 90.1 lists these for rating values in A9.4.1.
Assuming an average for heat flow up and down is probably
a good approximation for the interior air film resistances
as the temperature of the soil cycles over the annual
average for half the year and under the average for the
other half (sinusoidal).
The values in HOF table 24 are in the same range as those
in 90.1 table A6.3. Furthermore, HOF equation 42 defines q
= heat loss through perimeter...this leads me to believe
that the F-factor rating values in 90.1 express only heat
losses of perimeter effects and does not include those to
the soil.
In summary:
INPUT VALUES
F-factor
Pexp
Area
T_ground = anual_mean_ground_temperature used for the
F-factor rating values is assumed at 0.3 m...0.3 from
Winkelmann's slab-on-grade model...we assume the rating
values of 90.1 included variation per climate zone and
that this corrisponds to user input.
T_in = anual_mean_indoor_temperature used for the F-factor
rating values is assumed to have been assumed at 20ºC for
conditioned spaces
T_ODA = annual_mean_outdoor_temperature ...it is assumed
that the F-factor rating values had assumed the
annual_mean_outdoor_temperature for calculation and that
climate zone variation was taken into account. It is
assumed this temperature will closely match the user
input.
GIVEN / ASSUMED VALUES
Rcon = 0.077 m2-K/W ...as in EngRef which co-insides
closely to values in 90.1 Table A3.1B
Rfilm_in = 0.14 m2·K/W ...which is the average of the 0.11
m2·K/W for heat flow up and 0.17 m2·K/W for heat flow down
as per 90.1 A9.4.1...this differs from EngRef!
Rfilm_out = 0.03 ... as per EngRef and 90.1 A9.4.1 for all
exterior facing up or sideways surfaces...NB not for
external floors
k_soil = 1.30 W/m-K ...as per A6.1
LOOKUP VALUES
Insulation_configuration_best_fit_for_F-factor_from_Table_A6.3
(Perimeter_Insulation_is_Vertical, Ins_mm, R-value)
CALCULATED VALUES
Soil_Heat_Flow_Path_Length
Rins
the rest
Someone may shed some more light on how the rating values
were calculated so that we can back calculate the U-value
of the slab construction.
Kind regards,
Jean.
On 19 April 2013 08:50, Jean Marais <jeannieboef@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Thanks Mike, I will check the handbook and see if revers
calculatiosn can bring some light.
Funny thing that definition...the definition is aimed at
slabs that lay exposed above the grade line and are
exposed to the OD environment (that means that their is no
requirement for basement slabs!, i.e. for basement slabs
the baseline is modeled as proposed case), but includes
"or is less than or equal to 600 mmj below the final
elevation of the nearest exterior grade".
If I learn anything more, I'll post it.
Kind regards,
Jean.
On 18 April 2013 17:46, Michael J Witte <mjwitte@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jean:
Just to clarify, for "slab-on-grade" the slab edge is
exposed to the air (directly or through insulation). From
Std. 90.1 Appendix A, section A6.1 "For the purpose of
Section A1.2, the base assembly is a slab floor of 6 in.
concrete poured directly on to the earth, the bottom of
the slab is at grade line, . . ."
It seems there are several issues here.
1. How to convert from F-factor to equivalent U-value.
This is what your users need to know, regardless of how
F-factor has been implemented or documented in
EnergyPlus. There appears to be some guidance here, but I
do not have access to my handbook at the moment to check
this:
http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/2010-March/003573.html
2. The second issue is whether EnergyPlus has implemented
and documented the f-factor model as intended. I don't
have the answer to that at the moment. What I can tell
you is that the source code matches the v8.0
documentation. It creates two material layers (which you
should be able to report in the eio output using
Output:Constructions).
Concrete layer (inside layer):
! Add the 6" heavy concrete for constructions defined
with F or C factor method
IF (TotFfactorConstructs + TotCfactorConstructs >=1 )
THEN
MaterNum = MaterNum + 1
Material(MaterNum)%Group=RegularMaterial
Material(MaterNum)%Name = '~FC_Concrete'
Material(MaterNum)%Thickness = 0.15d0 ! m,
0.15m = 6 inches
Material(MaterNum)%Conductivity = 1.95d0 ! W/mK
Material(MaterNum)%Density = 2240.0d0 !
kg/m3
Material(MaterNum)%SpecHeat = 900.0d0 !
J/kgK
Material(MaterNum)%Roughness = MediumRough
Material(MaterNum)%AbsorpSolar = 0.7d0
Material(MaterNum)%AbsorpThermal = 0.9d0
Material(MaterNum)%AbsorpVisible = 0.7d0
NominalR(MaterNum) = Material(MaterNum)%Thickness /
Material(MaterNum)%Conductivity
Material(MaterNum)%Resistance = NominalR(MaterNum)
Rcon = Material(iFCConcreteLayer)%Resistance
The second layer is the insulation layer (outside layer)
with Rfic:
Reff = Area / (PerimeterExposed * Ffactor) -
Rfilm_in - Rfilm_out
Rfic = Reff - Rcon
! ASHRAE Handbook Fundamental 2005
!Thermal resistance of the inside air film, m2.K/W.
Average of 0.14 (heat flow up) and 0.11 (heat flow down)
REAL(r64),PARAMETER :: Rfilm_in = 0.125d0
!Thermal resistance of the outside air film used in
calculating the Ffactor, m2.K/W. 0.17/5.678
REAL(r64),PARAMETER :: Rfilm_out = 0.03d0
Looking at example file
1ZoneUncontrolled_FCfactor_Slab_UGWall.idf
Construction:FfactorGroundFloor,
slabconst, !- Name
0.12, !- F-Factor {W/m-K}
232.26, !- Area {m2}
61.0; !- PerimeterExposed {m}
! <Material CTF Summary>,Material Name,Thickness
{m},Conductivity {w/m-K},Density {kg/m3},Specific Heat
{J/kg-K},ThermalResistance {m2-K/w}
Material CTF Summary,~FC_Insulation_1, 0.0000,
0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 31.50
Material CTF Summary,~FC_Concrete, 0.1500,
1.950, 2240.000, 900.000, 0.7692E-01
When the Ffactor surface heat balance is done, the inside
convection coefficient is varying as it does for any
surface in EnergyPlus. This seems reasonable.
However, the outside surface temperature is set directly
to the current value of
Site:GroundTemperature:FCfactorMethod, so there is no
outside film coefficient resistance during the
simulation. This makes me question whether Rfilm_out
should be dropped from this equation:
Reff = Area / (PerimeterExposed * Ffactor) -
Rfilm_in - Rfilm_out
And as you ask, where did the values for Rfilm_in and
Rfilm_out come from? Do they match the ASHRAE f-factor
calculations.
3. Finally, is the DesignBuilder team planning to
implement the F and C-factor option?
Mike
On 4/18/2013 1:08 AM, Jean Marais wrote:
Hi Linda,
Mr. Hong is not responding...
Sorry. This issue is not going away. As stated, yes, the
documentation has changed in v8, but still refers to air
on the outside of the slab and no soil is mentioned, i.e.
"Q = Area * Ueff * (Tair,out – Tair,in) = (Tair,out –
Tair,in) * (Pexp * F-factor)", "Tair,out is the outside
air temperature in °C", "The outside air film resistance
Rfilm, out = 0.03 m2·K/W.", etc.
If a slab is "on-grade" then I fail to see how air_outside
can factor into the equation. Mr. Hong has insinuated that
these issues have been corrected "The air film (either
inside or outside) is not included in the calculation of
effective U-factor. The soil layer is modeled as part of
the 6" concrete and an insulation layer to come up with
the equivalent U-factor.", but the documentation of the
last v8 release does not reflect it. As I am supporting
DesignBuilder, and DesignBuilder does not currently
support the F-factor objects for e+, it is important for
me to explain to clients how to calculate the Ueff to
properly reflect the f-factors in 90.1. No one has been
able to explain this to me. I need to know what R-soil
ASHRAE was using for these f-factors AND which film
factors (if any) are included in the f-ractor rating
values.
This information would help many users who have been
ignoring this issue for many years. I'm always supprised
how long people have been "conforming" to ASHRAE 90.1 for
simulations.
Kind regards,
Jean
On 17 April 2013 14:51, Linda Lawrie <linda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I presume he meant the current V8 release. But I'm not
sure.
At 11:21 PM 4/16/2013, jeannieboef@xxxxxxxxx
wrote:
May I ask for your source of information? Do you mean the
next release, as the v8 documentation includes the film
resistances?
Kind regards,
Jean
Sent from my iPhone
On 16.04.2013, at 22:36, Tianzhen Hong <thong@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jean,
We clarified the documentation in the coming E+ 8.0
release.
The air film (either inside or outside) is not included in
the calculation of effective U-factor. The soil layer is
modeled as part of the 6" concrete and an insulation layer
to come up with the equivalent U-factor.
Tianzhen
To: linda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EnergyPlus !7333]: F-factor method
engineeringreference documentation error?
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:39:30 +0000
Jean Marais updated #7333
-------------------------
F-factor method engineeringreference documentation error?
---------------------------------------------------------
Ticket ID: 7333
URL: http://energyplus.helpserve.com/staff/Tickets/Ticket/View/7333
Full Name: Jean Marais
Email: jeannieboef@xxxxxxxxx
Creator: User
Department: General
Staff (Owner): -- Unassigned --
Type: Issue
Status: Open
Priority: Medium
Template Group: Default
Created: 10 April 2013 09:39 AM
Updated: 10 April 2013 09:39 AM
Due: 11 April 2013 09:39 AM (1d 0h 0m)
Resolution Due: 12 April 2013 09:39 AM (2d 0h 0m)
Dear Team,
How can there be an air-resistance-film on the underside
of the slab? I am comparing to DOE-2E
http://www-esl.tamu.edu/docs/terp/2012/ESL-TR-12-02-01.pdf
Surely a soil layer should be assumed here. And then which
soil layer was used for the F-factors listed in ASHRAE
90.1?
Please advise.
Kind regards,
Jean.
__._,_.___
Primary EnergyPlus support is found at:
http://energyplus.helpserve.com or send a message to energyplus-support@xxxxxxxx
The primary EnergyPlus web site is found at:
http://www.energyplus.gov
The group web site is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EnergyPlus_Support/
Attachments are currently allowed but be mindful that not everyone has a high speed connection. Limit attachments to small files.
EnergyPlus Documentation is searchable. Open EPlusMainMenu.pdf under the Documentation link and press the "search" button.
__,_._,___
|