[Equest-users] Boiler HIR and Section G3.1.1

[vamshi ranga]

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>
>> >
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130705/37fdae69/attachment-0002.htm>