[Equest-users] Building Orientation Accuracy?

[Carol Gardner]

Hi Otto,

If I were a betting woman I would place a lot of money on eQUEST functioning
properly vis a vis building orientation. That bug would have been fixed
years ago. The beauty of an 8,760 hour/year interactive program are just
that: 8760 hours of weather data and a program that accounts for all of the
building interactions. The interactions include the shell, the lights, the
people, the coming and going, shutting on and off, etc., etc. You are
getting good feedback from Paul and Nick. Keep the faith and keep fixing
your input. Don't spend too much time thinking the model isn't working
right; spend it instead making the input right.

Regards,
Carol

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com> wrote:

>  With that extra background, and glancing at this new baseline, I can
> guess where your analysis may have gone awry…
>
>
>
> Your assumed behavior, that “energy spent cooling” ought to be higher with
> the glass facing South, is certainly logical for a project in the Northern
> Hemisphere, as the cooling season solar contributions ought to be higher
> facing South (barring any shades, of course).  If you’ll run a 180-azimuth
> parametric calc on your “North Baseline” most recently uploaded, you can
> observe this is exactly the behavior being modeled (check out SIM report
> LS-B to compare solar contributions for each run).
>
>
>
> Where I think you’re making a leap is assuming a higher “space cool”
> consumption figures equal higher cooling loads.  If you’ll check those same
> reports, you’ll find you actually do have higher peak cooling loads when
> facing south.  The lower South-facing “space cool” energy consumption
> figures come alongside higher “ventilation” consumption figures – eQuest
> appears to be up-sizing your South-facing *CFM*’s and/or *run-time*instead of cooling coil/condenser capacities.  With some additional inputs
> you may be able to lock-in the fan and airflow capacities, which would force
> your condensers to do more of the fan’s work (higher coil capacities),
> resulting in a higher “space cool” total, if that’s what you’d like the
> reports to show.  Ultimately your South-facing run may simply need to run
> your fans more often over the year, so you may not be able to entirely avoid
> a higher ventilation total…
>
>
>
> Of note, for any orientation, it appears you have a significant number of
> under-heated hours.  You’ve may want to review your equipment heating
> temperature setpoints and/or space/equipment CFM inputs.  You may already
> know this, but as an additional reminder: your classroom as modeled is only
> going to interact with the exterior conditions on the single exterior wall,
> as the other three “internal walls” simply model space thermal massing and
> heat transfer to other spaces.
>
>
>
> Best of luck,
>
>
>
> ~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:* Otto Schwieterman [mailto:oschwieterman at fhai.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 17, 2010 3:36 PM
> *To:* Nick Caton; Paul Riemer; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Building Orientation Accuracy?
>
>
>
> I want to thank everyone for their help.
>
>
>
>  Originally, I created one north facing classroom and ran the simulation,
> then I rotated it 180 degrees. The heating results were acceptable but the
> cooling results were odd. The cooling consumption was greater on the north
> facing orientation than the south facing orientation. The weather file is
> Dayton Ohio so this does not make sense. I then tried to copy the classroom
> and rotate one of the classrooms so I had a north facing and south facing
> classroom. I did not realize that eQUEST changed some of the plenum and
> interior wall values when I copied the original classroom.
>
>
>
> I am still trying to figure out why the north facing classroom requires
> more cooling than when I rotate the building 180 degrees and essentially
> have a south facing classroom. I would think that because of solar heat gain
> the south facing classroom would require more cooling. I have attached a
> simplified classroom (I did not copy so there should be no room for errors).
>
>
>
> *From:* Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 17, 2010 4:25 PM
> *To:* Otto Schwieterman; Paul Riemer; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Building Orientation Accuracy?
>
>
>
> Otto,
>
>
>
> I just looked at your revised files – you are still modeling two seemingly
> fairly different classrooms.  Note your “North” classroom has adiabatic
> internal walls/ceiling and your “South” classroom has heat transferring
> ones.  I haven’t scoured for other differences that may well be in there
> regarding schedule assignments and such – I don’t know of a fast way to do
> so.
>
>
>
> If you’re truly concerned with eQuest’s ability to correctly account for a
> varying azimuth and want to test it, you could make your task easier by
> creating a square classroom with identical walls on each side and observe
> identical results with 0,90,180,270 degree azimuths.
>
>
>
> ~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:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Otto
> Schwieterman
> *Sent:* Monday, May 17, 2010 3:07 PM
> *To:* Paul Riemer; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Building Orientation Accuracy?
>
>
>
> I fixed the differences and now I get the following results:
>
>
>
> North Facing: Space Cooling: 4.1 MBTU, Space Heating: 21.7 MBTU
>
> South Facing: Space Cooling: 4.3 MBTU, Space Heating: 18.7 MBTU
>
>
>
> When I change the orientation 180 degrees, the results are:
>
> North Facing: Space Cooling: 3.8 MBTU, Space Heating: 22.6 MBTU
>
> South Facing: Space Cooling: 3.6 MBTU, Space Heating: 17.8 MBTU
>
> These also seem incorrect for the same reason.
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Riemer [mailto:Paul.Riemer at dunhameng.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 17, 2010 3:56 PM
> *To:* Otto Schwieterman; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: Building Orientation Accuracy?
>
>
>
> Otto,
>
> Your north and south have different inputs.  I specifically noted plenums
> temperature set points and plenum floor weight.
>
> I suggest you clean it up and run it again.
>
> Paul Riemer
>
> Dunham
>
>
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Otto
> Schwieterman
> *Sent:* Monday, May 17, 2010 2:39 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] Building Orientation Accuracy?
>
>
>
> I have noticed that eQUEST does not accurately determine the cooling and
> heating loads when rotating the building 180 degrees using the Azimuth
> feature under the building properties in the detailed edit mode. I created
> and attached a file where there are two classrooms. One classroom faces
> north and one faces south.
>
>
>
> When I run the simulation I get the following results:
>
>
>
> North Facing: Space Cooling: 4.1 MBTU, Space Heating: 21.9 MBTU
>
> South Facing: Space Cooling: 4.3 MBTU, Space Heating: 18.9 MBTU
>
>
>
> When I change the orientation 180 degrees, the results are:
>
>
>
> North Facing: Space Cooling: 3.9 MBTU, Space Heating: 23.0 MBTU
>
> South Facing: Space Cooling: 3.6 MBTU, Space Heating: 18.1 MBTU
>
>
>
> When I rotate the site 180 degrees the north and south facing energy
> consumption is different (they should be exactly the same). Also, the space
> cooling does not make sense because the building’s weather file is Dayton
> Ohio and the south facing classroom should use more cooling than the north
> facing classroom.
>
>
>
> This makes me assume that eQUEST has a problem with building rotation in
> the detailed edit mode.
>
>
>
> Please check to see if I am assuming this correctly because this will
> affect every LEED project.
>
>
>
> Otto Schwieterman
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. intends to send this transmission (including any attachments) only to the
>
> designated individual or entity.   If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying
>
> to the electronic mail (if electronic) or by telephone at the number indicated on this document.
>
> Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in the
>
> electronic mail.  Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc., will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising
>
> from the use of this electronic mail or attachments. Use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction
>
> of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and maybe unlawful.   Any information included in
>
> this transmission that is not related to contracts with our authorization, verbal or written, by Fanning/Howey
>
> Associates, Inc. may not be covered by our professional liability insurance.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. intends to send this transmission (including any attachments) only to the
>
> designated individual or entity.   If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying
>
> to the electronic mail (if electronic) or by telephone at the number indicated on this document.
>
> Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in the
>
> electronic mail.  Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc., will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising
>
> from the use of this electronic mail or attachments. Use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction
>
> of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and maybe unlawful.   Any information included in
>
> this transmission that is not related to contracts with our authorization, verbal or written, by Fanning/Howey
>
> Associates, Inc. may not be covered by our professional liability insurance.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. intends to send this transmission (including any attachments) only to the
>
> designated individual or entity.   If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying
>
> to the electronic mail (if electronic) or by telephone at the number indicated on this document.
>
> Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in the
>
> electronic mail.  Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc., will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising
>
> from the use of this electronic mail or attachments. Use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction
>
> of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and maybe unlawful.   Any information included in
>
> this transmission that is not related to contracts with our authorization, verbal or written, by Fanning/Howey
>
> Associates, Inc. may not be covered by our professional liability insurance.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100518/9c77f7ea/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/20100518/9c77f7ea/attachment-0002.jpeg>