[Equest-users] Boiler HIR and Section G3.1.1
Steve Jacobs
sjacobseng at gmail.com
Fri Jul 5 09:51:38 PDT 2013
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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:danielk at arborus.ca>
> >
> > Arborus Consulting
> > Energy Strategies for the Built Environment
> > www.arborus.ca <http://www.arborus.ca>
> > 76 Chamberlain Avenue
> > Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9
> > Phone: (613) 234-7178 ext. 113
> <tel:%28613%29%20234-7178%20ext.%20113>
> > Fax: (613) 234-0740 <tel:%28613%29%20234-0740>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2013-07-02, at 12:40 PM, Nick Caton
> <ncaton at smithboucher.com <mailto: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 <tel:913.344.0036>
> >> fax 913.345.0617 <tel:913.345.0617>
> >> www.smithboucher.com <http://www.smithboucher.com>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Daniel Knapp [mailto:danielk at arborus.ca
> <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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:danielk at arborus.ca>
> >>
> >> Arborus Consulting
> >> Energy Strategies for the Built Environment www.arborus.ca
> <http://www.arborus.ca>
> >> 76 Chamberlain Avenue
> >> Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9
> >> Phone: (613) 234-7178 ext. 113
> <tel:%28613%29%20234-7178%20ext.%20113>
> >> Fax: (613) 234-0740 <tel:%28613%29%20234-0740>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2013-07-02, at 11:46 AM, Nick Caton
> <ncaton at smithboucher.com <mailto: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 <tel:913.344.0036>
> >>> fax 913.345.0617 <tel:913.345.0617>
> >>> www.smithboucher.com <http://www.smithboucher.com>
> >>>
> >>> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>
> >>> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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/20130705/935d9cce/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list