[Equest-users] eQuest - outside air heating issues
Nick Caton
ncaton at smithboucher.com
Wed May 26 09:57:45 PDT 2010
This is why I love these lists!
Thanks to everyone who’s responded and everyone who’ve yet to, in advance. The collective advice I’m reading makes a lot of sense to me, and is probably going to be more time-efficient to boot. I’m growing into a better energy modeler every time I go out on a limb like this =).
~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: Dakota Kelley [mailto:dakotak at teliospc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11:17 AM
To: Bishop, Bill; Nick Caton; Tomlinson, Scott; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] eQuest - outside air heating issues
I “fourth” Bill’s, Lan’s, and Jeremy’s responses; design OA flow rates are dictated by zone requirements and should therefore be simulated at the zone level, regardless of system type. System OA parameters should typically be limited to economizer control, MIN-OA-SCH, and OA-FROM-SYSTEM (and ERV or DCV parameters, if applicable). Following this methodology ensures the zone and building-level OA flow rates match between models, and it ensures each zone is getting its design OA regardless of whether or not one is comparing single-zone systems to multi-zone systems.
DAKOTA KELLEY
Project Designer
Office: 214-744-6199
Cell: 214-280-3825
Fax: 214-744-0770
http://www.teliospc.com <http://www.teliospc.com/> 3535 Travis St. Suite 115
dakotak at teliospc.com <mailto: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 © 2010 Telios Corporation.
From: Bishop, Bill [mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:36 AM
To: Nick Caton; Tomlinson, Scott; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] eQuest - outside air heating issues
Scott, Nick,
To meet the 90.1 Appendix G requirement for identical minimum outdoor air flowrates, I enter OUTSIDE-AIR-FLOW cfm for all zones in both the baseline and proposed models. To get these values, I will either calculate them based on the design drawings, or get them from the SV-A reports. I set the Minimum OA Control Method to “Fraction of Design Flow” so that the fraction of OA increases as a variable air volume system ramps down.
The idea of adjusting the OA rates between systems, while creative, does not meet my understanding of the intent of Appendix G. The proposed model should simulate the actual design as closely as possible, using as much information as is known about the design. Presumably, the mechanical designer will calculate minimum OA rates for all zones per code, or ASHRAE 62.1, or both.
To verify that OA rates are actually identical between baseline and proposed models, I create hourly report blocks for at least one system to track total system supply air flow rate and ratio of outside air to total supply air.
I recently filled out the online LEED template for credit EAp2 for a LEED 2009 project, and there was a note on one of the tables that if an ERV is used, the modeler should “verify that outside air is modeled with zero flow in both cases during unoccupied periods.” To meet this, I create a minimum air schedule, set to 0% during unoccupied hours and “999” for all other hours to default to the program-calculated OA percentage.
Regards,
Bill
William Bishop, EIT, BEMP, LEED® AP | Pathfinder Engineers & Architects LLP
Mechanical Engineer
134 South Fitzhugh Street
Rochester, NY 14608
T: (585) 325-6004 Ext. 114
F: (585) 325-6005
wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com
www.pathfinder-ea.com
P May is National Bike Month. Bike to Work Day May 21st.
________________________________
From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11:31 AM
To: Tomlinson, Scott; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] eQuest - outside air heating issues
Hey Scott,
To be frank, I haven’t yet modeled any LEED projects that would use systems 5+, so I have no direct experience to relate. That said, if I were in an omniscient USGBC reviewer’s shoes, and you presented this method of matching ventilation rates, I would check that the design OA rates for each floor are roughly matching the proposed values and design documents. The practice to specify MIN-OA-RATIO’s at the system level to start, then tweaking as necessary has (for me) turned out to be the most efficient way I’ve found of (1) getting the baseline quantities to start in the right vicinity relative to the proposed, and (2) maintain an equal distribution of the OA to each zone. As you point out, it’s on us to not bend the rules and redistribute the OA in a way that is advantageous…
Off the top of my head, I think for baseline systems 5+, I would follow the same basic procedure, using MIN-OA-RATIO’s from the proposed to get a starting point. For step 5, it may be appropriate to use a zonal method to specify/tweak the resulting ventilation rates to match, it would depend on the project-at-hand. On the other hand, MIN-OA-RATIO may still be a viable option if the modeler will pay mind as you say to treat each floor/system separately and not to simply match the gross values for the building.
I have not received any USGBC commentary raising issues with this approach – as a simple disclaimer: that’s not to say it has actually been scrutinized!
I’d love to hear others share their approaches if you have a “normal” procedure… I’m sure there’s a variety out there and we might all learn something =).
~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: Tomlinson, Scott [mailto:stomlinson at smma.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:12 AM
To: Nick Caton; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] eQuest - outside air heating issues
Nick,
First off, thanks for the reply.
If I am understanding you correctly, your method is getting the total OA of each model to match up, and you are doing this at the system level for both the design and baseline buildings. This differs from my method, where I am trying to get the OA rates to match up for each zone of the two models.
Your method would seem to work for a baseline system type 1, 2, 3 or 4, where each thermal block needs to be modeled as a separate system, but for a system 5, 6, 7 or 8 (where each floor of the baseline building needs to be modeled with a separate HVAC system) I would think you would have difficulty getting things to match up. When you work on these higher system types, and you are modifying the OA ratios of your baseline systems, do you do it equally for all the systems? If not, I would think this could give you some freedom the ‘game’ your baseline model in a way that USGBC would not approve of. I’m not saying you personally would do this, let me use my current model as an example.
My current building is a 3 story system 8 school. The design building has some AHUs (about 25% OA), some ERUs (100% OA) and some UHs (0% OA). Now, using my method of entering the OA at the zone level in the baseline building things are working out that I need energy recovery in the first floor HVAC system, but not the second or third floor systems. If I use your method of getting the total building OA rates to match (and if I am understanding it correctly), what would stop me from taking some of the OA from the first floor system and transferring it to the second are third floor systems so I can get all three systems under the requirements for energy recovery, and provide myself some artificially inflated energy savings, while keeping my total building OA rates equal? In my very limited feedback from USGBC it seems like they don’t like letting the modeler have such freedoms.
Have you ever had any issues with USGBC using your method?
- Scott
From: Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:04 AM
To: Tomlinson, Scott; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] eQuest - outside air heating issues
Scott,
I want to say off the bat that you actually are asking a very good and fundamental question: What is a “best practice” for matching baseline ventilation air rates to the proposed model?
My general processes is:
1. where I’ll build a proposed model to match the drawings/schedules, address anything that results in odd results/ warnings / unmet hours.
2. Build the baseline – clear out any zone/system level OA inputs to autosize, then
3. For each airside system, enter the 1.15/1.25 oversizing parameters and a “MIN-OA-RATIO” at the system level to match the corresponding proposed design model’s system ratio
4. Run both simulations and compare results for ventilation air to determine if things are way off (and they have been) – I use the SV-A reports and excel for this comparison
5. Tweak baseline systems’ OA-RATIOs as required up or down to make the total ventilation air sync with the proposed model’s.
Following this procedure, which I document for model review, the design system OA sums between the baseline model, proposed model, and construction documents are typically very close to each other, if not perfectly in sync.
Is this a procedure others are following or is there a simpler way?
To the rest of your email… Different systems will use different amounts/types of energy for the same amount of load (OA). Your baseline model’s tripling of gas consumption isn’t something I’d immediately discount as unreasonable, but worth reviewing to find something you may have missed – perhaps lowering CFM’s are the culprit? In some cases, the core “secret” to surprisingly outstanding proposed/baseline performance is getting lucky with a terrible baseline… the prescriptive requirements, by their nature, can be close to or far from “a good idea” for any given project/site.
~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 Tomlinson, Scott
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:35 AM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] eQuest - outside air heating issues
Hello all,
I have a question regarding outside air input. For my design building I enter my outside air at the system level, as the minimum outside air ratio, which I get from my equipment schedules. 90.1 requires that the outside airflow be the same. To do this I take my summary report from my design building and enter the values from that report into the baseline model zones. When I run my baseline model the outside airflow rates from the summary report match those of my design model, and my unmet heating hours are good in both models, but the heating gas consumption in my baseline building triples. The result is I am getting great, but unrealistic, energy savings.
Does anyone know why this is happening? Why would entering the OA at the zone level cause such increased heating for the save total CFM entered at the system level? How are you folks typically handling your outside ventilation air.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you.
__________________________________________
Scott Tomlinson, PE, LEED-AP
Mechanical
Symmes Maini & McKee Associates, Inc.
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138
t: 617.520.9438
f: 617.354.5758
stomlinson at smma.com
www.smma.com <http://www.smma.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100526/e8a486ef/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/20100526/e8a486ef/attachment-0003.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 3170 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100526/e8a486ef/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2327 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100526/e8a486ef/attachment-0004.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14792 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100526/e8a486ef/attachment-0005.jpeg>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list