[Equest-users] eQUEST unconditioned spaces

[Carol Gardner]

I agree with Nick on all points in this email. I would add the old saw  "in
order to ask a question you already know the answer", and it's corollary,
"you don't know what you don't know". WRT to the first old saw, if we
remember it when in the process of posing a question to the group we might
just find that we can answer our own question. WRT the second old saw, this
is the one that scares me as I have shared before, because I know there are
mistakes being made even by experienced modelers and no one, even the LEED
reviewers, I suspect, knows they are there either. A person working at the
level of finding and sharing these errors and their solutions would be the
person who needed to be paid.

Any ideas?

Carol

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>wrote:

>  Carol – wow!  Your verbosity makes me so proud…  I managed to learn
> something darn useful to boot, thanks!
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> I fully agree that there’s a fluid line of professionalism and expertise in
> this body of respondents, and I suppose that’s likely inherent to any
> resource without a paid staff.  In some ways, it’s a real benefit as you can
> get feedback from so many perspectives.  Many of us are “self-taught” in the
> sense that we’ve had to come up with our own way of getting various things
> done – and it’s always a benefit to the group when we compare notes… Just as
> the seasoned veterans will share “tried and true” means and methods, so do
> the less-experienced discover/stumble-into innovative ways to approach a
> problem that may save those veterans time and frustration.
>
>
>
> As someone on this list once advised me, sometimes the best way to ask a
> question is to deliberately give a wrong (!) answer.  I haven’t exercised
> any intentional mis-information, but I do respond with partial answers as I
> can, and make clear what I don’t know.  This approach often elicits
> responses from otherwise apprehensive individuals containing their own
> experiences and insights. People are more prone to provide a partial
> response once the ball is rolling, so to speak.
>
>
>
> The “quality of queries” on the lists ebbs and flows over time with regard
> to the degree of sophistication and effort on the part of the poster.  Every
> once in a while, new subscribers need to be reminded of the implications
> this voluntary list entails…  In order to get the best response, they must
> recognize a degree of courtesy, professionalism, and background knowledge as
> prerequisite to others being inclined to volunteer their time to help out a
> total stranger.  People sometimes don’t realize this is an international
> body of subscribers, and an email spell-check/proofread can be very helpful
> when asking a complicated question – sometimes attaching a representative
> cutsheet or your project files is the fastest way to begin discussing a
> topic… stuff like that.
>
>
>
> The “quality of responses” on the other hand is something that is terribly
> easy to take for granted.  Any response to a query on this list is
> ultimately one individual lending their time and experience to help
> another.  Personally, I choose to contribute partial answers where I don’t
> have the time to address an otherwise broader question.  Sometimes it’s
> impossible for the asker to know that a question is actually very broad, and
> it’s most helpful in the short term to point this out so they may “narrow”
> their question.  Other times, it’s most helpful, even if it appears
> blunt/rude, to direct a questioner to “read this” or “look the answer up
> here” (“teach a man to fish…” as the saying goes).
>
>
>
> Also, it’s a common situation to see one big email with a series of
> questions (of varying breadth/complexity).  When listed or bulleted out, it
> becomes easier to respond to the whole post, but ultimately such posters
> should anticipate they may receive partial answers to the posting.  For
> example: Perhaps I feel I have the time to respond, but only know a complete
> answer to 4 out of 5 questions… should I not respond at all?  Extrapolating
> that line of thinking to the everyone - perhaps nobody would respond to that
> post.  I’d rather encourage anyone willing to contribute to definitely share
> what you know, and don’t feel pressured to know everything – others on the
> list can “fill in the gaps” as may be necessary.
>
>
>
> This branches into an elephant in the room – questions are certainly posed
> that *nobody* knows the answer to, indeed with no solution!  As long as it
> has been around, the science/art of building energy modeling still seems (to
> my young eyes) a fairly bleeding-edge field of study and practice.  Students
> and other end-users getting their feet wet in this skillset should recognize
> coming in that it’s not unheard of to run into a question nobody has
> explicitly asked before!  This is where the partial answers, experiences and
> open suggestions available through a ‘meeting-of-the-minds’ in venues like
> the onebuilding.org lists can be a key resource for one’s own search for a
> solution (delving into google, DOE2 docs, digging in the archives, etc).
> Such queries are where a community like this really shines over the
> potential for any support department/hotline.
>
>
>
> That said, an expert staff of compensated, full-time eQuest/DOE2
> answer-givers would certainly be a welcome thing, but it would be a
> complement to (not a replacement of) the function of this existing community
> at-large.
>
>
>
> In light of the context, I’d like to avoid saying that’s my two cents, but
> there you have it =)!
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *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:* Carol Gardner [mailto:cmg750 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 16, 2010 11:01 PM
> *To:* John Waller
> *Cc:* Nick Caton; <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>; Dakota Kelley
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] eQUEST unconditioned spaces
>
>
>
> Boy, I guess it's been a long week for many of us. Since my name was
> brought up I thought I'd chime in. Thanks for the shout out, John
>
> I was reading this email chain and thanking my lucky stars that I learned
> how to do this stuff back before dirt was invented and you had to enter your
> input deck line by line using BDL. It gave me a pretty solid background as
> it turns out.
>
> It seems to me that some of you guys are spending entirely too much time in
> the Wizard doing things that might be able to be done easier in the DDedit.
> I know I've said this before. For instance if you think of an unconditioned
> zone for awhile you realize that it really doesn't matter what system it
> gets attached to, its unconditioned. You will see on your SV-A report that
> there isn't any cfm for it or any load. If there is you are doing something
> wrong. I always makesure that the space and the thermal zone are both
> labeled "unconditioned" because I don't trust eQUEST for a minute if there
> are inconsistencies.
>
> So back the the utility of having a "reliable authority" dedicated to
> answering questions on this site. While I can't claim entire reliability, I
> ran across something last week that really had me trembling with
> trepidation, sorry it's Friday night after all, related to eQUEST.
>
> If you'll remember I asked a question about EIR curve fits last week to
> which I received a resounding non response. I'm pretty sure I know why and
> it's probably bad news for the results we are giving people. I don't think
> people really know how to do curve fits properly. I know I learned something
> new as I researched and researched every where I could think of to find the
> answer. And even then I had to make a desperation call to one of the few
> real experts.
>
> Some background on the problem: all curves using raw data need to be
> normalized around ARI data points except for refrigeration compressors, see
> Volume 2r written in 2008. So if you are entering a curve, say the cooling
> capacity as a function of the entering wet bulb and the outdoor dry bulb,
> you would have three lines of data: 2 independent and 1 dependent. The
> independents would be your selected wet bulb temperatures and your selected
> dry bulb temperatures. You are allowed to enter up to 20. The tricky part is
> when you specify the dependent value: the capacity. The person who I am
> helping with this model had simply entered the capacities as they varied
> based on the temps: 307 kBtu, 299 kBtu, and 292 kBtu (the ARI capacity),
> etc. [Note: I'm just making these numbers up.], and didn't normalize them
> around the ARI data point capacity. If they had the numbers would have been:
> 1.051, 1.024, 1.0, etc. And the file ran with no indication of an error
> anywhere. I've seen this over the years in some surprising places. It scares
> me because I don't know how the results are being effected. I guess no one
> else does either because I haven't heard anyone saying anything like "hey I
> entered bad data into eQUEST and it ran" or hey the LEED reviewer said XX,
> fill in the blank.
>
> Anyway, back to the EIR curve-fit. With further research I found the actual
> equation that is being used in eQUEST which are EIRt = Cooling EIR *
> Cool-EIR-FT (EWB,ODB) * Cool-EIR-FPLR (PLR). That's when I asked my question
> to you all: what equation type do I use when there are three independents as
> there seem to be here - EWB, ODB & PLR. No answer. So I placed the call and
> was told that eQUEST solves the equation using 2 curves: the EIR varying
> based on the EWB and ODB, normalized around the ARI EIR as discussed above,
> and the EIR varying based on the part load conditions. I didn't know that
> before because I usually can avoid curve fits. In this case, however, I was
> modeling a VRF system so it's pretty much required since they are not like
> the current systems that are accessible to us. Luckily I had really good
> data from Daikin, although it took awhile to get it. I was modeling European
> units, too, just to further complicate things.
>
> Anyway, lesson learned. Sorry to be so long winded, I kind of reminded
> myself of Nick here. Sorry, Nick, just kidding! Your answers do lean towards
> being thorough, though, but that's good. You have a great knowledge of how
> to use the Wizards as well as the DDedit. I think that in this case, though,
> my past experience of entering the line by line BDL really helped me. When
> we had to do that we had more time to think about how and why we were doing
> things and generally more access to the engineering formulas behind it all.
> With the friendly front ends we have now, and make no mistake I love them,
> modeling has become more of an art and less of a science. This is both good
> and bad. It's why I think that there is room for having a dedicated,
> experienced resources person for eQUEST as well as the users of this
> listserv. There's a lot to know and it takes time to learn it.
>
> I rest my case.
>
> Carol
>
>
>  On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:21 PM, John Waller <jwaller at email.arizona.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> You are absolutely right!  My (so-called) feathers get ruffled way too
> easily, which is why I make a conscieous effort not to comment in here
> unless I'm 'mostly' confident that my contributions could even potentially
> benefit someone encountering a problem similar to one I've encountered in
> the past. Such constraint on behalf of all contributors would do wonders for
> such an environment. The quality of query in which I witness here for the
> most part is astonishing. (i.e. 'how do spell equest'?). Rather than doing
> the research on their own, or at the very least, exploring the 'onebuilding'
> query history, this platform makes it all too easy to ask the infamous
> 'stupid question', though I realize there exists no such thing.
>
>
>
> I am beginning to believe that Carol is right in suggesting a more
> professional and reliable authority to more acurately respond to user
> querries. And someone else who suggested an eQUEST-wiki might just be spot
> on. Thought I will admit, in an age where electronic response has become the
> norm, there is certainly something something quite a bit more 'personal'
> about receiving a reply from a beating heart.
>
>
>
> As such, it is my feeling, that any 'responder', should not respond so
> specifically so as to ignore the larger question an inquiry might be
> addressing, particularly when a prior responder has already replied and
> explicitly requests additional input on his offered solution.
>
>
>
> In the spirit of community (as you have suggested) I would challange anyone
> who posits a potential solution to address the formal issue at large, rather
> than simply offering his(her) two-cents in contrast simply for the purpose
> of seeming 'right'.
>
>
>
> To do so, I am sure, would more likely benefit the group as a whole.
>
>
>
> John Waller
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2010, at 2:55 PM, "Nick Caton" <ncaton at smithboucher.com> wrote:
>
>   Hi John,
>
>
>
> My perceptive powers are not the greatest, as my wife will assure you, but
> I’m failing to see the reason to get any feathers need to be hackled here (I
> did miss your reply, perhaps it wasn’t copied to the list?)….
>
>
>
> The reality that DOE2 has a “no child-zone left behind act” of sorts is
> just the nature of the beast, and nobody is arguing that’s unintuitive –
> it’s simply something we have to learn as we become familiar with the
> engine.  I don’t know that I’d expect this issue to be resolved in the next
> major update as it’s something a user can work around (unlike some other
> more pertinent issues), as Dakota is plainly demonstrating with his
> (typically) thorough response.
>
>
>
> Everyone is here to help each other, rest assured (^_^)b, those who aren’t
> don’t stick around long, and Dakota’s certainly been around for awhile!  If
> you have a “more correct” or otherwise better solution to handling
> unconditioned zones before or after the wizards, I would personally like to
> know also – I do the same as Dakota.  I understand others simply ignore the
> zone grouping wizard screens altogether (though I find them to be quite a
> time-saver), so his inclusion of “simply do this” in detailed is very
> appropriate to the group at large…
>
>
>
> Wishing everyone a safe and happy weekend,
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
> * *
>
> *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 *John David
> Waller
> *Sent:* Friday, July 16, 2010 3:16 PM
> *To:* Dakota Kelley
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] eQUEST unconditioned spaces
>
>
>
> Maybe I was too vague in my reply.
>
>
>
> I, too, was hoping for some insight into this particular issue.
>
>
>
> While I do believe this to be a software (developer) oversight, I also
> believe that any offered solution(s) to such a 'problem' could be handled
> with slightly more dignity; perhaps even some humility!
>
>
>
> It is more likely that 'this' is a software issue more than anything else.
>  Hopefully this, and many other issues, will have been addressed in '3.6.4'!
>
>
>
> It makes absolutely no sense to me to assign a system to 'unconditioned
> space' that is being used to 'condition', condition space. Since every
> 'space', or zone requires the assignment of a specific mechanical system,
> then wouldn't it be likely [as in the 'real world' vs. our 'virtual' one, be
> equipped with 'NO" system since it is 'NOT' conditioned, versus an
> 'operable' system that supplies conditioning to a space that requires such?
>
>
>
>
> While it agreed that all zone 'must belong to a system', I'm not convinced
> that your [emphatic] solution employs the ideal method for addressing such
> an issue.  It seems to me that you're placing her back to the same point in
> which she came to discover such a unique condition.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to a legitimate response!
>
>
>
> Sincerely--
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Dakota Kelley <dakotak at teliospc.com>
> wrote:
>
> Amber,
>
>
>
> If I’m following your description, you must be specifying the unconditioned
> zone in Shell Wizard/Screen 2/Zone Characteristics button.  Then you’re
> obviously specifying system-per-floor in the HVAC wizard.  This sounds like
> it should work, but what is happening is Shell Wizard/Screen 14 settings are
> trumping Shell Wizard/Screen 2.  There are two solutions:
>
>
>
> 1)      Simply change the zones to unconditioned in the detailed
> interface.
>
> 2)      Create a new zone group in Shell Wizard/Screen 14.  Assign the
> unconditioned zones to this group, and then make sure the “Conditioned”
> check box is *not* checked.  Assign the group to whatever system makes
> sense and move on (making sure that at least one conditioned zone group is
> also assigned to that system).  All zones have to belong to a system, but if
> they’re unconditioned their parent system is irrelevant.  This method is
> only slightly longer than the one above, but it lets you stay in the wizard.
>
>
>
> If you try to leave an unconditioned “on its own”, which I interpret as
> being assigned to its own single-zone system, you’ll get an error saying
> every system has to have at least one conditioned zone.  Let me know if I
> have misunderstood you.
>
>
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *DAKOTA KELLEY *
>
> Project Designer | Energy Analyst
>
>
>
>                               Office: 214.744.6199
>
>                               Cell: 214.280.3825
>
>                               Fax: 214.744.0770
>
>
>
> http://www.teliospc.com          3535 Travis St. Suite 115
>
> dakotak at teliospc.com            Dallas, TX 75204
>
>
>
>
> | MEP ENGINEERING · ENERGY MODELING · LEED CONSULTATION · COMMISSIONING |
>
> * *
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which it is addressed,
>
> And may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt
> from disclosure under applicable law. If you
>
> are not the intended recipient, please email the sender immediately, and
> delete this email from all computers.  Any
>
> distribution or other use is strictly prohibited.  Copyright © 2009 Telios
> Corporation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Amber Welsh [mailto:amber at timmonsdesigneng.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:23 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] eQUEST unconditioned spaces
>
>
>
> What is the best way to handle unconditioned spaces in eQUEST?  Right now,
> I am zoning it separate and calling it unconditioned in the WIZARD.  Then,
> when I assign systems, I am putting the unconditioned zone in a system with
> a conditioned space and saying “ one system per floor”.  Is this the proper
> way to do it?
>
>
>
> I have tried just leaving the zone as unconditioned and on its own, but
> then when I do the “permit submittal” calculation it still asks for the fan
> flow and cooling capacity for that zone.
>
>
>
> *Amber Welsh, P.E. **|** **Associate**
> **LEED® Accredited Professional*
>
>
> 397 5th Street NE,
>
> Atlanta, GA 30308
> (v) 404.810.9020
> (c) 678.488.1967
> timmonsdesigneng.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carol Gardner PE
>



-- 
Carol Gardner PE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100719/0ecfd0cd/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100719/0ecfd0cd/attachment-0002.jpeg>