[Equest-users] Huge envelope changes having small affect on energy savings

[Ron Pecarina]

Looking at the LS-A and LS-D reports, you seem to have a reasonable change
in envelope loads for the glass changes.  That leaves the systems as the
probable culprit.  You are using a PMZS for each zone with heat control
constant at 115F and cool control reset from 65 to 56F.  With this control,
your envelope loads are only 3% of the total systems loads from SS-D.  A
lot of energy is wasted blending the hot deck and cold deck to maintain the
zone temp.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Sami, Vikram
<Vikram.Sami at perkinswill.com>wrote:

> I didn’t see any changes in the envelope between the 2 inp files you sent
> me. However the first file (Rindge-1) seemed to have a California weather
> file while the second one had Boston. When I switched them both to Boston –
> the numbers were almost identical. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I don’t think you have modeled your skin correctly. ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> * *
>
> *Vikram Sami*, LEED AP BD+C****
>
> Sustainable Design Analyst****
>
> 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309****
>
> t: 404-443-7462    f: 404.892.5823       e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com
> www.perkinswill.com****
>
> *Perkins+Will.*  Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Ron Pecarina
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 22, 2012 4:44 PM
> *To:* Lee Chorney
>
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Huge envelope changes having small affect
> on energy savings****
>
> ** **
>
> From what I see from these input files, the zone AC/Hr went from 0.2 to
> 0.8.  I did not note a change in any R-value from 4 to 20.  The increased
> ventilation load is the likely culprit.****
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Lee Chorney <leec at alliedconsulting.net>
> wrote:****
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> Here all the .inp files. 1.inp is the base and 2.inp is the proposed.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Lee****
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Lee Chorney <leec at alliedconsulting.net>
> wrote:****
>
> Hi All,
>
>
> I recently did a model where I had the same system in both base and
> proposed but I changed the R-Value from 4 (base) to 20 (proposed). I also
> changed the window U-value from .80 (base) to .35 (proposed). After I did
> the run, I saw only a 5% savings between the heating and cooling use in the
> model. When I looked at the loads I saw the base had twice as much cooling
> and heating load than the proposed. Does any know why the energy savings
> would only be 5% when you have a huge difference between the cooling and
> heating loads?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lee****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Pecarina, PE, CEM, LEED-AP BD&C
> Energy and Sustainable Design Consultants, Inc.
> 1128 Noblewood Drive
> Billings, MT   59101
> 406-208-0227****
>



-- 
Ron Pecarina, PE, CEM, LEED-AP BD&C
Energy and Sustainable Design Consultants, Inc.
1128 Noblewood Drive
Billings, MT   59101
406-208-0227
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20120823/2a15dcaa/attachment-0002.htm>