[Equest-users] Boiler HIR and Section G3.1.1
vamshi ranga
vamshiranga at gmail.com
Fri Aug 30 01:54:15 PDT 2013
Hi Nick,
HIR of 1.219 is equal to 82% but reviewer considered it as 77%, which is 5%
deviation from 82%. So, we modeled it with HIR of 87% (82%+5%) which is
equal to HIR of 1.149.
Thanks,
Vamshi.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com>wrote:
> Hi Vamshi,****
>
> ** **
>
> Could you further explain the 5% +/- deviation the reviewer cited? This
> is the first I’ve heard of such a thing!****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ** **
>
> ~Nick****
>
> ** **
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]**
>
> * *
>
> *NICK CATON, P.E.*
>
> SENIOR ENGINEER****
>
> ** **
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers****
>
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200****
>
> olathe, ks 66061****
>
> direct 913.344.0036****
>
> fax 913.345.0617****
>
> www.smithboucher.com* *****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* vamshi ranga [mailto:vamshiranga at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2013 12:30 AM
> *To:* Hall, Brendan
> *Cc:* Nick Caton; Steve Jacobs; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; r s
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Boiler HIR and Section G3.1.1****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear All,****
>
> ** **
>
> It was very useful suggestion from all of you. At the end, we got LEED
> reviewer acceptance on boiler efficiency. As suggested by reviewer earlier, HIR
> of 1.219 is equivalent to 77% efficiency which is 5% deviation from 82%. We
> have took this 5% deviation and with this submission, we have modeled HIR
> of 1.149 whose inverse would give 87% boiler efficiency, which 5% more than
> 82%.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Vamshi.****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Hall, Brendan <BHall at karpinskieng.com>
> wrote:****
>
> I wanted to just add one more point to this whole discussion. We should
> certainly try to understand both the intent and application of code and the
> LEED guidelines and how best to do that using the software available. That
> being said, overly scrutinizing an efficiency number to the *+* 1% can
> give a false sense of preciseness. Think about what the uncertainty is in
> some of the most basic parameters that go into the model. Such as the
> occupancy, lighting and equipment use, how the control systems react,
> infiltration rates, and a number of other things. ****
>
> ****
>
> Yes, for LEED many of these are controlled for between the two cases, but
> some are not, and it also does not stop most clients from asking for what
> we think their savings is going to be in absolute terms. I don’t want to
> dissuade anyone from trying to figure out these issues, ultimately we need
> to find ways to get results to approach reality in all cases, but I don’t
> want anyone to get lost in the details when there are often much bigger
> question marks.****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Brendan Hall, PE, LEED AP BD+C****
>
> Engineer, Mechanical****
>
> karpinski
> ENGINEERING
> 3135 Euclid Avenue
> Cleveland, OH 44115
> P 216.391.3700 Ext 3111
> E *bhall at karpinskieng.com*
> W *www.karpinskieng.com <http://www.karpinskieng.com/>*****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Nick Caton
> *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 3:39 PM
> *To:* Steve Jacobs; vamshi ranga****
>
>
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Boiler HIR and Section G3.1.1****
>
> ****
>
> I agree with Steve – if you need more direct guidance or clarification
> than you’ve already seen here, you’re best advised to contact your
> project’s reviewer for clarification directly through the available
> channels.****
>
> ****
>
> This [Equest-users] is a great forum for discussion of all-things energy
> modeling, not exclusive to equest alone. The nuances of LEED and 90.1.
> The responses you’ve seen so far are telling however: Your reviewer’s
> comment (as shared), is not clear, and the subject matter (90.1 baseline
> efficiencies of large boilers) is known to be a definite grey area, as has
> been brought up already. ****
>
> ****
>
> The best we can do as a body of fellow energy modelers is share our
> collective experience and information we’ve come up with on the matter.
> It’s ultimately your choice to make to decide how to use this information
> and what actions to take.****
>
> ****
>
> Rest assured, unclear review commentary is not an unheard-of experience.
> My commentary responses have in the past included corrections and
> clarifications to best present my understanding of an issue for my
> reviewer’s benefit as well, though it may be less work to at least try
> reaching out to the review team directly, schedule allowing. ****
>
> ****
>
> Best of luck, and let us know how it turns out!****
>
> ****
>
> ~Nick****
>
> [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]****
>
> * *****
>
> *NICK CATON, P.E.*****
>
> SENIOR ENGINEER****
>
> ****
>
> Smith & Boucher Engineers****
>
> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200****
>
> olathe, ks 66061****
>
> direct 913.344.0036****
>
> fax 913.345.0617****
>
> www.smithboucher.com* *****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
> mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jacobs
> *Sent:* Friday, July 05, 2013 11:52 AM
> *To:* vamshi ranga
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Boiler HIR and Section G3.1.1****
>
> ****
>
> Personally I would have made the same conversion from efficiency to HIR.
> I'm not aware of a conversion that will take an efficiency of 77% and get
> you an HIR of 1.21.
>
> I think the best course of action would be to contact the review team
> directly. They are fairly responsive to questions, and it helps avoid the
> guessing game.
>
> I think your other option would be to writeup your confusion while
> addressing the comments. You could explain the potential impact on the
> model with the two values. It is unlikely the reviewer would deny the
> whole credit if they don't like the input, they may just adjust your
> results.
>
> This is the kind of grey area that you can waste hours and hours and not
> really accomplish anything.
>
> - Steve
>
> On 7/5/2013 7:32 AM, vamshi ranga wrote:****
>
> Dear All, ****
>
> ****
>
> Could any help me out with the issue. Is it like, this site is only meant
> for doubts related to eQUEST? (I asked the related doubt 2 months back
> also, but could not get any answer. On the same we got the LEED reviewer
> comment). If so, requested to suggest me the sites where I can ask the
> doubts related to ASHRAE.****
>
> ****
>
> Your valuable time is appreciated.****
>
> ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Vamshi.****
>
> ****
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, vamshi ranga <vamshiranga at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Dear All, ****
>
> ****
>
> Thank you very much for your time. It was very useful information and good
> learning for me. I would be following the conservative approach as
> suggested by Nick for boiler HIR modeling.****
>
> ****
>
> I also would be requiring your esteemed assistance on the Query No. 2.
> Which is the major issue for the LEED Reviewer.****
>
> ****
>
> As queried by Ms. Ramya Shivkumar, there is no MPR issue and the reviewer
> does not have any problem of modeling two building together. The issue is
> about which system needs to be modeled and interpretation of section G
> 3.1.1 as queried in my previous mail.****
>
> ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Vamshi.****
>
> ****
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Daniel Knapp <danielk at arborus.ca> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Just to followup with a little more clarity, my hope was that the
> modellers have access to the boiler specs with fuel input and heat output
> information that they can use to define the eQuest HIR. If all they have
> is the combustion efficiency then yes, they are in the 90.1 no-man's land
> of how to arrive at an overall thermal efficiency given only the combustion
> efficiency.****
>
>
> On 2013-07-02, at 1:54 PM, Daniel Knapp <danielk at arborus.ca> wrote:
>
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > I agree entirely with what you're saying here and have read through the
> attached discussion with great interest. I sincerely appreciate your
> contributions in not only thinking this issue out in great detail but also
> in making the effort to share your thoughts with the group.
> >
> > To be clear, I wasn't meaning to downplay your response which I think is
> helpful to the question at hand. In regards to this specific question
> posed by the modeller, my interpretation of the reviewer comment was that
> the reviewer was speaking to the modelling of the Proposed design
> efficiency, i.e. that they were modelling it at 82% due to the combustion
> efficiency being 82% when they really need to model the Proposed design
> according to the overall efficiency of the boiler (fuel input vs. heat
> output) which may be lower than 82%.
> >
> > With best regards,
> > Dan
> >
> > —
> > Daniel Knapp, PhD, P Phys, LEED® AP O+M
> > danielk at arborus.ca
> >
> > Arborus Consulting
> > Energy Strategies for the Built Environment
> > www.arborus.ca
> > 76 Chamberlain Avenue
> > Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9
> > Phone: (613) 234-7178 ext. 113
> > Fax: (613) 234-0740
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2013-07-02, at 12:40 PM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Daniel!
> >>
> >> The wrench in the spokes is that 90.1 prescribes a combustion
> efficiency (less flue/jacket losses), without providing any further
> guidance for how to arrive at an overall thermal efficiency for modeling
> purposes.
> >>
> >> It isn't a problem isolated to eQuest/DOE2, but put another way
> 90.1/LEED only provide part of what we need to define baseline HIR inputs
> for a comparison to real-world equipment and losses. A full discussion is
> within the attached thread if you're interested =).
> >>
> >> This of course might have nothing to do with Vamshi's reviewer's
> commentary - I don't think that issue has been made clear just yet...
> >>
> >> ~Nick
> >>
> >> NICK CATON, P.E.
> >> SENIOR ENGINEER
> >>
> >> Smith & Boucher Engineers
> >> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
> >> olathe, ks 66061
> >> direct 913.344.0036
> >> fax 913.345.0617
> >> www.smithboucher.com
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Daniel Knapp [mailto:danielk at arborus.ca]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:13 AM
> >> To: Nick Caton
> >> Cc: r s; vamshi ranga; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Boiler HIR and Section G3.1.1
> >>
> >> I don't know if this helps, but from the perspective of eQuest/DOE-2,
> the HIR is the ratio of the fuel heat input to the boiler to the heating
> capacity at full load. I.e. all DOE-2 cares about is how much fuel to
> assign each unit of heat produced for the building. If you know what the
> fuel input and the heating capacity at full load are you may be able to
> bypass the thorny nature of the combustion efficiency vs. thermal
> efficiency question?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> -
> >> Daniel Knapp, PhD, P Phys, LEED(r) AP O+M
> >> danielk at arborus.ca
> >>
> >> Arborus Consulting
> >> Energy Strategies for the Built Environment www.arborus.ca
> >> 76 Chamberlain Avenue
> >> Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9
> >> Phone: (613) 234-7178 ext. 113
> >> Fax: (613) 234-0740
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2013-07-02, at 11:46 AM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Regarding boiler HIR input vs. efficiency... Your reviewer's
> commentary isn't clear by your description, but you might find the attached
> recent discussion informative regarding thermal vs. combustion efficiencies.
> >>>
> >>> The issue of whether it's appropriate to model boiler thermal
> efficiency (inclusive of flue/jacket losses), and if so exactly how, is to
> my best understanding a bit of a toss-up right now for 90.1/LEED. The
> attached discussion thread takes the issue to the sidewalk's end however,
> so I hope you can use this to figure out where your reviewer is coming from
> and how to respond in turn.
> >>>
> >>> ~Nick
> >>>
> >>> <image001.jpg>
> >>>
> >>> NICK CATON, P.E.
> >>> SENIOR ENGINEER
> >>>
> >>> Smith & Boucher Engineers
> >>> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
> >>> olathe, ks 66061
> >>> direct 913.344.0036
> >>> fax 913.345.0617
> >>> www.smithboucher.com
> >>>
> >>> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> >>> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of r s
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:27 AM
> >>> To: vamshi ranga
> >>> Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Boiler HIR and Section G3.1.1
> >>>
> >>> Hi Vamshi,
> >>>
> >>> Just wondering, you say two buildings? Was there any MPR issue raised
> within PIf1 in the review about having only one building per LEED submittal?
> >>>
> >>> Ramya
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:04 AM, vamshi ranga <vamshiranga at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Dear All,
> >>>
> >>> I have following doubts, I would be very grateful for your valuable
> >>> time,
> >>>
> >>> 1. We have modeled a boiler with 82% combustion efficiency in eQUEST
> >>> with HIR = 1.219 which is just the inverse of boiler efficiency . But
> >>> from LEED reviewer, we got comment saying that, HIR of 1.219 is
> >>> equivalent to 77% efficiency. Could you please let us know, how to
> >>> convert combustion efficiency to HIR
> >>>
> >>> 2. We have two buildings, one is Main Office building (7 day week, 8hr
> >>> running and Air-Conditioned, Main Office building has 5 to 7% of total
> >>> two building areas) and the other is Factory+Office building (7 day
> >>> week, Factory is 24 hr running and Air-Conditioned with 100% of
> >>> occupancy, lighting and equipment on all the time. While the Factory's
> >>> Office is 24hr running and Air-Conditioned with 50% of occupancy,
> >>> lighting and equipment on all the time) which are connected by
> >>> enclosed bridge (air conditioned). These buildings are modeled
> >>> together in eQUEST and it comes to be System 7 (Boiler for heating) as
> >>> per Table G 3.1.1. After reading it for many number of times and to
> >>> confirm my understanding of the section, doubts are as follows on
> >>> ASHRAE Appendix G Section G3.1.1
> >>>
> >>> - What should be the system type for Main Office
> building (Conditioned area is around 45000 Sq ft)? and let me know the
> exception of G3.1.1 if any gets applied
> >>> - What should be the system type for factory's Ground
> Floor Office building? (Area is around 150000 Sq ft) and Does the exception
> "Schedules that differ by 40 equivalent full load hours" gets applied?
> since the diversity is 50% for factory's office, if this exception is not
> applicable, let me know how the equivalent full load hours need to be
> calculated )
> >>> - What should be the system type for Factory's First
> Floor office building? (This floor is total office, and ground floor
> factory area is of double height from ground)
> >>> - Does the exceptions of Section G 3.1.1 applies at
> building level or at each system level? Exception "b" says both the things,
> so there is confusion
> >>> - Does the term "Peak thermal loads" in exception "b"
> consider the load added due to outside air as well?
> >>>
> >>> Let me know, if you need any further clarification to resolve my
> doubts.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Vamshi.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <Mail Attachment.eml>_______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> <Mail Attachment.eml>
> >****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> 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/20130830/4e0f08e6/attachment-0001.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/20130830/4e0f08e6/attachment-0002.jpeg>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list