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

[Nick Caton]

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
[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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<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(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 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<mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130708/59865a30/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20130708/59865a30/attachment-0002.jpg>