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

[Javed Iqbal]

You can check http://www.leeduser.com

Hope it helps you!


On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:32 AM, vamshi ranga <vamshiranga at gmail.com> 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
>
>


-- 


Javed Iqbal, LEED AP, CEA
Energy Analyst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130705/1f50766c/attachment-0002.htm>