[Equest-users] Building Orientation Accuracy?
Nick Caton
ncaton at smithboucher.com
Tue May 18 07:22:44 PDT 2010
Otto,
Regarding LEED, the basic "rules" regarding baseline system heating and
cooling capacities are that they must be auto-sized, then incrementally
increased (in eQuest, using the heating and cooling capacity ratios) as
may be necessary to reign in unmet hours that may occur. Fan sizing is
another can of worms that happens in the middle of that process. My
interpretation has been this procedure applies specifically to the
"normal" (0-degree azimuth) rotation. Where the 4 baseline rotations
exist specifically to "normalize" the variable of building orientation
on utility costs (for LEED), I think it makes sense to allow eQuest to
autosize each new rotation in the same manner as the first.
Your specific case resulted in an inordinately dramatic change in the
ratio of "space cooling" to "ventilation" annual consumption, but that's
because it was just a single classroom with one exterior face. In my
experience, entire buildings with all orientations represented being
rotated vary only slightly in the annual consumption figures. For that
reason, the 'problem' you noticed doesn't really surface as something of
concern. Note that I don't think we're expected to check and meet the
same unmet hours criteria for the rotated parametric runs as we are for
the baseline (zero-degree) calculation - only to run the same, finalized
baseline model at 4 different orientations.
I hope others will join this discussion and share their thoughts. On
the other hand my personal deadlines are looming for this week, so I may
be a bit less active =).
~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: Otto Schwieterman [mailto:oschwieterman at fhai.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 6:42 AM
To: Scott Criswell
Cc: Nick Caton; Paul Riemer; Carol Gardner;
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] Building Orientation Accuracy?
I want to thank everyone for their help. This is what I found out.
As Nick mentioned, I was allowing eQUEST to size my heating and cooling
equipment. I specified the CFM but not the capacity. I did this because
I have different building layouts with different window sizes. I went
back into my file and set the capacity for the heating and cooling
equipment and then rotated the building, I got results as I would
expect. The summer cooling energy consumption was greater for the south
facing classrooms than the north facing classrooms.
When working with LEED, has anyone "locked in" the heating and cooling
capacity before rotating the building? If not, they may run into the
same problem that I had.
Scott, I am using a modified version of eQUEST 3-63b.
Thanks for everyone's help!
From: Scott Criswell [mailto:scott.criswell at doe2.com]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:39 PM
To: Otto Schwieterman
Cc: Nick Caton; Paul Riemer
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Building Orientation Accuracy?
Otto,
One other thing I would recommend is that you upgrade to the v3.63b
release of eQUEST posted back on 7/3/09. The project files that you
have circulated today were written from the preceding version, v3.63,
which is known to have a couple of simulation bugs.
The following is an excerpt of the eQUEST website page dealing with
upgrading from v3.63 to 3.63b:
Update from 3.63 Release (posting date: 7/03/2009, ~2 MB): Download an
3.63b update to the eQUEST version 3.63 full installation
<http://doe2.com/download/equest/eQUEST_3-63b_Update.exe> This update
can only be used on a complete eQUEST 3.63 (build 6500) release dated
5/13/2009 or later. We suggest that you download the update program to
your hard drive (select save after left clicking the link or right click
on the link and "save target as") rather than opening or running the
installation procedure from your browser.
- Scott
Otto Schwieterman wrote:
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
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
________________________________________________________________________
________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100518/7933639c/attachment-0002.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/20100518/7933639c/attachment-0002.jpeg>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list