[Equest-users] Baseline vs. Proposed Fan Curves

[Robby Oylear]

You're not quite understanding what Nick is saying.  The equation applies
to each system individually.  A system is made up of supply, relief,
return, and exhaust fans.  For each system, you calculate the value of Pfan
based on the supply fan airflow.  Then you proportion that Pfan (kW or HP)
to each fan within the system (typically by CFM/total CFM, though not
explicitly stated).

So for instance, if I calculated that a system has 100 HP per the fan power
equations, based only on its Supply Fan CFM value, I might distribute that
horsepower to be 52 HP to the supply fan and 48 HP to the relief fan,
assuming that the relief fan is 90% of the airflow capacity as the supply
and that the system does not have an exhaust or return fan.  You would
repeat the same procedure for each baseline system in your model.

Hope that makes sense.

Not sure how much this directly relates to your question, but I found this
ASHRAE interpretation request regarding fan power calculations to be
interesting:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ashrae.org%2Ffile%2520library%2Fdoclib%2Fstdsinterpretations%2Fic_90-1-2004-34.pdf&ei=0_pQVJiyOJSfyATq4oDoDQ&usg=AFQjCNFAGI3cy9agug0E7xjSnT-eadlxmw&sig2=NvN0kGk_6IluFRbuc3OOkg&bvm=bv.78597519,d.aWw&cad=rja

-Robby

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Bernie Hont <bhont at girard.com> wrote:

>  Thanks. G3.1.2.8 indicates that return/relief fans should be included if
> they are in the baseline design, and sized for either 90% of supply flow or
> supply less outside air, whichever is greater.
>
>
>
> In my case the proposed building has two packaged VAV rooftop units with
> supply and return fans. The baseline system is System 6, across 5 floors.
> So there are 5 baseline systems (one per floor). If I understand what you
> are saying correctly, the sum of all baseline system supply fans should be
> used to calculate an overall KW/CFM which will apply to all systems. The
> return fans would also be sized in the same manner, less 10% or minimum
> outside air.
>
>
>
> Would that be correct sizing method for fan power? I ask because that only
> ultimately has a negligible impact on the total fan power for the baseline
> system versus sizing each baseline floor individually (less than 2% overall
> reduction).
>
>
>
> Bernie
>
>
>
> *From:* Nick Caton [mailto:nick at 360-analytics.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:41 PM
> *To:* Bernie Hont; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Baseline vs. Proposed Fan Curves
>
>
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
>
>
> From your phrasing, I’d caution to avoid a mistake I once made regularly
> until corrected: A single value should be determined for the baseline
> system fan power (Pfan).  Put another way, Pfan should not be calculated
> separately for each fan.  The language in Appendix G preceding the Pfan
> calculation method specifies this value accounts for supply, return,
> relief, and exhaust fan energies for the system (as they may occur)… If you
> wish to explicitly model both supply and return fan energies for your
> baseline system, you can apportion the Pfan quantity/result between those
> kW/CFM inputs, but the resulting sum between the two should not exceed the
> singular Pfan calculated for the system.
>
>
>
> As you touched on, kW/CFM is not the only input affecting fan energy
> end-use sums.  How those proposed/baseline fans operate relative to each
> other for 8760 hours can be a much bigger deal.  It’s almost always a
> worthwhile QC check to state how both baseline and proposed system fans
> SHOULD operate (VAV/CV?  Cycling?  On 24/7? Setback behavior?), then run a
> couple system and/or zone hourly reports to track the flow rates simulated
> and confirm whether they match your expectations.  There are enough
> “gotchas” between the various system types and enough potential for simple
> human error between all the involved inputs to potentially trip up even
> very experienced eQuest-ers on this front.
>
>
>
> This advice may already be on your radar, but if I’ve presented a new
> perspective it may help you shape/understand where the reviewer is coming
> from in anticipating an overall performance reduction.
>
>
>
>
>
> *[image: 360 Logo cropped]*
>
> *NICK CATON, P.E.*
> *Senior Engineer*
>
>
>
> *360 Analytics*
> 9750 3rd Ave NE, Suite 405
>
> Seattle, WA 98115
> office:  206.557.4732 ext. 205
> www.360-Analytics.com <http://www.360-analytics.com/>
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bernie Hont
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2014 5:38 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] Baseline vs. Proposed Fan Curves
>
>
>
> I have just revised a baseline and proposed model for LEED submission and
> the fan energy savings has changed dramatically as a result. The first
> go-round the fan energy savings was 27% between baseline to proposed. The
> formulas in G3.1.2.8 and G3.1.2.9 were used incorrectly though in the first
> round, so I had to revise the supply and return fan power calculations. The
> result is that they both were higher (0.001217556 KW/CFM supply and
> 0.001049567 KW/CFM return now). The baseline fan curve is the equation from
> G3.1.3.15 Method 2.
>
>
>
> The proposed model fan power matches the actual units purchased, (0.001164
> KW/CFM supply and 0.000435 KW/CFM return). This represents a 4.4% reduction
> in supply fan power and a 58.6% reduction in return fan power. The fan
> curve used for the proposed model is Variable Speed Drive FPLR.
>
>
>
> There is a huge savings on the return side and a slight savings on the
> supply side, so I can visualize how a 60% overall savings between the two
> models is feasible, but is the sizing for the return fan under the baseline
> scenario accurate? I followed the G3.1.2.8 method of sizing them based on
> the supply flow minus the ventilation (or 90%) but the calculations still
> come out with a substantially higher return fan power than the proposed
> model. This may be perfectly acceptable, but USGBC always put the
> disclaimer on the review comment that “the comments are perceived to reduce
> projected savings”. That would be the case otherwise, but since the fan
> energy has changed so dramatically after revising the baseline calculations
> that the savings actually increased from 17.99% to 21.77% solely on the fan
> energy. Does anyone have experience where, with an explanation of why this
> occurred, that USGBC will accept the revised results even though the
> savings is actually higher now?
>
>
>
> [image: Girard Logo]
>
> Bernie Hont, PE, LEED AP
>
> Girard Engineering, P.C.
>
> 7600 Leesburg Pike
>
> West Suite 310
>
> Falls Church. Virginia 22043
>
> 703.442.8787 (T)
>
> 703.734.3946 (D)
>
> 703.356.0169 (F)
>
> www.girard.com
>
>
>
> [image: View my profile on LinkedIn]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/berniehont>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141029/11d8d665/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 37655 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141029/11d8d665/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4429 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141029/11d8d665/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1038 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20141029/11d8d665/attachment-0001.png>