Just saying a big "YES!" to Joe's comments. Extra points are: 1) You could pretend there was a blower door test and ASSUME all leaks in the closed possition are equally leaky per linear length. That means measuring out all your modelled exterior facing leaks (example top bottom sides of all modelled doors and windows). This allows you to calculate the "per meter length leakage coefficient at 50 Pa for example that is required for a desired air change for your facility by using the normal power-law equation (Q = C*dP^n). Note that you'll have to sum the total volume of the facility to convert the required ACH to m3/s for the power-law equation. After you have calculated C (assume C is the same at 1 Pa as at 50 Pa), you can place this same input on each exterior leak object as discussed. This is currently my prefered method for using AFN where a lot of assumptions must be made. 2) Data-driven approaches aren't wrong as such. The downside is that you rely heavily on the statistics you put to ground. For example, if you have statistical infiltration data for 100 builings of similar type and hvac to yours in your climate, then this is a viable option for you, if you can live with the granularity of the data. In my opinion this method should be used (normal infiltration objects) for most mechanically ventilated buildings (opening events are usually far less and at times where large temperature swings are unlikely). Where I start getting irritated is using data-driven approaches to only-window-ventilated buildings. The temperature swings and number of venting occurances are huge and seriously affect user comfort, which in turn effects the opening and closing of the windows --> heating of outdoor air and energy consumption. The minute-wise data just isn't there. 3) A third approach is possibly the best. A data-driven approach with stoastic modelling of the main factors which lead to when and for how long a widow stays open (Anderson)...these factors would be inputs into a formula which would open or close the window on a probability threshold coupled to a randomness effect. Inputs which would increase or decrease this probability are the usual: Temperature zone Temperature of outdoor air Time of year Solar Stuffiness of air possibly using CO2 as an indicator Number of people in the zone Number of people having entered the zone to stay in the zone from the last timestep Room air velocity or windvelocity Etc. 4) I've tried a bit of an advanced version of 1) (AFN + EMS control algorithm for x2 widow groups, based on monitoring comfort criteria) approach based mainly on PPD threshholds of comfort criteria including CO2. The only thing I kept constant were that the persons in my facility were evenly distributed (no human traffic modelling), but the densities were indeed scheduled. It worked quite well to identify problems with the design and possible solutions and demonstrated typical expected CO2 concentrations for my design. It also showed the problem that windows don't linearly modulate (even when split into two independant groups per zone)...this means that occupants close windows too quickly after the opening event in winter due to "cold draughts" or intense temperature swings in the space. My model required 1 minute timesteps to catch this effect. It also showed up the common problem of controlling a heating system which is based on an air temperature thermostat. I like this approach best, but would idealy prefer the PPM threshholds still to be affected by an element of randomness and to include the human traffic element (the most significant ones being the venting upon the entry of a new person who is likely to stay AND the venting of unoccupied rooms). My other significant assumption was imposing a limit on the opening event frequency (not closing). I found no data to base this assumption on. Hopefully there was some food for thought in my rambles. Mit freundlichen Grü�en- Sent from my iPhone (excuse the brevity) i. A. Jean Marais b.i.g. bechtold Tel. +49 30 6706662-23
__._,_.___ 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.
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ |