[Equest-users] Revert efficiencies to autosize from detailed?

[Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.]

short answer: no

longer answer:  equest reverts to a default efficiency of the type of 
unit selected, in eir/hir not seer/eer or hspf/cop, that is not based on 
90.1-2004, 2007, or 2010.  the 'easiest' method of determing a 'correct' 
efficiency (search archives for different methods of calculating a 
'correct' efficiency') is to simply open a dummy project, go to the hvac 
systems, change the efficiency (in seer or eer as applies to the minimum 
required for your unit type) to the 90.1 required, save the project, 
then switch it to detailed mode & look at the hvac unit efficiency in 
eir/hir.

out of curiosity, what was the exact comment & what did the modeler use 
for what system types?

On 6/12/12 2:11 PM, Laura Howe, RCE wrote:
>
> HI All-
>
> While there are some posts similar to this issue, I want to ask the 
> group for clarification for a slightly different application.  Please 
> bear with me for some assistance, I'd sure appreciate it!
>
> I am working on someone else's model that has had comments back from 
> GBCI for a LEED project. The model came to me in detailed mode.  They 
> note that in the baseline model apparently non-90.1 baseline 
> efficiencies were used.  Looking at the model, it does seem that the 
> modeler manually entered efficiencies (they are in red) and they do 
> not seem to be correct (even the GBCI comment notes this).  They are 
> less efficient than 90.1. In some of the similar threads on this 
> topic, someone mentioned that you can revert to autosizing by right 
> clicking on the heating and cooling capacity and selecting "restore 
> default".  Since the modeler did not manually input system size, just 
> system efficiency (both cooling and heating hp eff, fan design kw/cfm 
> and total eff frac seem to be manually entered), my question is if I 
> restore those efficiency values to default (using right clicking), 
> will Equest use the proper efficiencies and I'm good to ho?  I've done 
> this, and it seems to work, although I'm not experienced enough to 
> truly verify this.
>
> When I compare the two models (original base and my reverted base) I 
> do see where the power demand has dropped (SV-A), and none of the peak 
> loads have changed (LS-A) but the equipment sizing (SV-A) has 
> increased.  This all seems correct, do others think I am on track 
> here?  Using the correct methodology?
>
> If I can also confirm another question, LEED specific.  I understand 
> 90.1 is the only appropriate base case for LEED even in Washington 
> state, even if portions of their energy code are more stringent, 
> correct?  The requirement to achieve a 10% reduction is how I think 
> LEED addresses more stringent state codes so the base doesn't need to 
> be written specific to those (numerous) state codes.  Correct? One 
> comment from the client leads me to think that complying with WA code 
> might explain the difference in equipment efficiencies used in the 
> base case, and even though it doesn't add up I want to confirm my 
> understanding.
>
> Another issue that further confuses this is that the modeler 
> apparently chose two of the systems to be variable speed (all are 
> system type 4, constant volume in 90.1) and I'm not sure why.  The 
> original modeler is not available for questioning.  Any ideas?  The 
> VFD's were applied to an office space and data/server room packaged 
> heat pumps, but not a large storage space.  Based on what I know right 
> now, it seems those should be modeled constant volume.  If I'm 
> updating the base model, I think it makes sense to correct this if the 
> base incorrectly models a more efficient system.
>
> Lastly, can anyone tell me how to change the project descriptor at the 
> top left of the sim reports?  It's got some boilerplate name and it 
> sure would be nice to have the filename show, or at least a single 
> descriptor I can update in each model run.
>
> Thanks so much-
>
> Laura
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20120612/4ccd6f9f/attachment.htm>