[Equest-users] Unmet Hours

[Jacob Faiola]

Would an hourly report with the average hourly zone temp of each zone work for 
this?
Then in Excel, you could set up a column to keep a running total of hours that 
are too cold and a column to sum up hours that are too hot.
You could use any criteria you wanted then, including "worst space", anywhere in 
the building, average, etc.

-Jacob Faiola



________________________________
From: Dan Coutin <CoutinD at erdmananthony.com>
To: Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>; M. Shields <mshields at fstrategies.com>; 
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 11:33:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Unmet Hours


Michael
 
A thorough review of the documentation seems to have been undertaken in 2008. 
You should search the [Bldg-sim] archive 
(http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/) for this 
thread “Spam:Re: LEED NC Submittal Template, Heating/Cooling Hours Loads Not 
Met”.
 
I was very impressed with the thoroughness of Dan Russell’s contribution.
 
I think his analysis of the rules is correct – but I think that ASHRAE would 
have better used the “worst space” as I think Carol Gardner has suggested.
 
eQuest BEPS report  unmet load percentage applies to “fan on” hours (often less 
than 8760). In eQuest I find the system with the highest fan hours in reports 
SS-R, total run hours, by changing the “component” to review each system. Then I 
use the percentage from BEPS with the maximum fan-on-hours to decide whether 
Appendix G criteria is fulfilled. 

 
I would be happy to be corrected, but I think that there is no report in eQuest 
that can identify the building concurrent unmet load hours separated into 
heating and cooling as required for the LEED template.
 
Dan Coutin
Erdman Anthony
Troy, NY
 
From:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:12 PM
To: M. Shields; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Unmet Hours
 
[For continuity, I’m attaching Michael’s most recent response to Dakota’s 
followup… just some convulted copy/pasting to keep the discussion moving in one 
direction]
 
Michael,
 
I’d like to caution you against a fairly common misinterpretation.  90.1 is 
unfortunately not crystal clear, but the general consensus on these lists 
(including reviewer input) is that 90.1 is citing unmet hours as “coincidental” 
unmet hours.  The long and short of it is, you aren’t supposed to literally sum 
up the unmet heating and cooling hours of each zone to come up with total unmet 
hours, even though it may seem intuitive.  If you do, you’re likely 
unnecessarily penalizing one or both models and putting extra work on yourself.  
See the message copied below (scroll to the bottom and read-on-up) for a more 
in-depth explanation/discussion of a “best practice” approach with eQuest – 
there’s more where that came from in the archives also.
 
~Nick
 
 
NICK CATON, E.I.T.
PROJECT ENGINEER
25501 west valley parkway
olathe ks 66061
direct 913 344.0036
fax 913 345.0617
Check out our new web-site @ www.smithboucher.com
 
From:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of M. Shields
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 2:59 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Unmet Hours
 
Nick,
 
My baseline model currently has 0 unmet hours, and my proposed has around 100 
total if I add up all of the unmet hours in all zones.  From my interpretation 
(and I believe you’re confirming it) this does not qualify.  If I read 90.1 
correctly then there is no weighting or averaging, it’s just a total unmet hours 
anywhere in the building (ie zone 1 hours +zone 2 hours +zone 3 hours…. Etc).  
Does anyone else disagree with this interpretation?
 
Thanks,
Michael
 
 
 
From:Dakota Kelley [mailto:dakotak at teliospc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:52 PM
To: Nick Caton; M. Shields; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] Unmet Hours
 
I put one small FYI at the end of Nick’s #3 below, in all caps for the sake of 
the plain text archives…
 
Dakota
 
 
From:Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 2:33 PM
To: M. Shields; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Unmet Hours
 
Michael, 
 
90.1’s passage (G3.1.2.2) regarding unmet hours requirements is something I had 
to re-read many times to get my head fully wrapped around it… Here’s my current 
interpretation:
 
1.       You need to have 300 or fewer hours in each model.
2.       The proposed is not allowed to perform worse than the baseline by more 
than 50 unmet hours.  If it does you have to make the baseline “underperform” so 
they’re within 50 of each other. 

3.       The baseline is permitted to perform worse than the proposed (by any 
degree) as long as it’s still 300 or fewer unmet hours. THIS IS MY 
INTERPRETATION AS WELL, BUT IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THAT MORE THAN ONE LEED 
REVIEWER HAS INDICATED THE OPPOSITE.  FOR EXAMPLE, I WAS TOLD I WAS OUT OF 
COMPLIANCE WHEN THE BASELINE HAD 65 UNMET COOLING HOURS AND THE PROPOSED HAD 5 
UNMET COOLING HOURS.  DO YOU ARGUE, OR JUST REDUCE THE BASELINE HOURS?  IT 
PENALIZES THE BASELINE TO REDUCE THOSE HOURS, SO I WENT AHEAD AND DID WHAT I WAS 
TOLD.    
 
You haven’t said whether you’re talking about your baseline or proposed model, 
but the above points should guide you as to whether you need to make an 
adjustment.  Refer to G3.1.2.2 for review and further info.
 
~Nick
 
 
NICK CATON, E.I.T.
PROJECT ENGINEER
25501 west valley parkway
olathe ks 66061
direct 913 344.0036
fax 913 345.0617
Check out our new web-site @ www.smithboucher.com
 
From:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of M. Shields
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:19 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] Unmet Hours
 
Hi All,
 
I am working on filing out the LEED paperwork for submittal and for unmet hours 
I am wondering does the reviewer want the total unmet load hours for the 
building, or an average per zone?  My building has about 100 zones, most of 
which have 0 unmet hours, but I have one zone which has significant (more than 
50) unmet hours.  Does this mean my model exceeds the requirement that the 
difference between the baseline and the proposed be less than 50 hours?
 
Thanks for any advice.
 
Michael Shields
Phone: 803-493-4507
Fax: 803-548-2511
Email: mshields at fstrategies.com
 
 
***
 
From:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 1:53 PM
To: Andrew T McMurray; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] (no subject)
 
There’s much discussion on this in the archives, but basically the difference is 
that BEPS/BEPU is reporting % of coincidental unmet hours (when multiplied by 
the annual hours fans on in report SS-E), as we intuitively think of it, whereas 
the SS-R reports are reporting unmet hours for each zone without regard to 
coincidental unmet hours.  Summing the SS-R reports may be the more intuitive 
approach, but you’ll end up with a conceptually different figure that can often 
be higher than the figure found through BEPS/SS-R.
 
Note there’s a degree of rounding involved when you only get a percentage to so 
many decimal places.
 
As an example, if you had an imaginary model with only two zones which were 
unmet all year long, BEPS would report 100% hours outside throttling range, 
whereas adding up the SS-R report hours might lead you to believe there are as 
many as 8,760*2 = 17,520 hours per year.
 
Therein lies the answer to why the numbers don’t sync up after adding up the 
SS-R figures.  For now, multiplying the BEPS figure by the annual hours fans on 
is the best approach imho for documenting compliance with the baseline/proposed 
unmet hours requirements.
 
It’s been said the next released version of eQuest will present this information 
more clearly in the BEPS/BEPU reports.
 
~Nick
 
 
NICK CATON, E.I.T.
PROJECT ENGINEER
25501 west valley parkway
olathe ks 66061
direct 913 344.0036
fax 913 345.0617
Check out our new web-site @ www.smithboucher.com
 
From:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Andrew T 
McMurray
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 1:17 PM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] (no subject)
 
Hello Everyone,
 
I am trying to finalize a building model for a LEED submission but am having 
difficulty getting the BEPS report "percent of hours any system zone outside of 
throttling range" to match the SS-R reports "zone under heated" and "zone under 
cooled" hours.  This was a complaint from the LEED reviewer.
 
The building has three systems and all spaces are conditioned.  The BEPS report 
lists hours outside of throttling range at 2% (175hrs), but the SS-R report 
lists under heated and cooled hours of 280 (3.2%).  

 
I consider myself fairly familiar with equest but am unable to get these two 
numbers to match.  Has anyone run into this problem in the past or have any 
ideas of where I should be focusing my attention?
 
Many Thanks,
 
 
Andrew McMurray, EIT
P. A. Collins PE Consulting Engineers
15 West 26th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
 
tel: 212.696.5294
fax: 212.696.5295
www.pacollinspe.com


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100728/b345bb3c/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100728/b345bb3c/attachment-0001.jpeg>