[Equest-users] Issue of mis-match in reported building areas - Reviewer's Comment

Alamelu Brooks alamelub at gmail.com
Wed Mar 4 17:54:21 PST 2015


Anura,

 Here is another option. Look at the 'Building Totals' row in the LV-B
report. Please note that this total area also includes the plenum area, so
don't forgot to subtract the plenum area to get the gross building area.
 You can find the plenum space type  in the first column and the
corresponding space SQFT area in the next-to-last column.

 Best regards,
Alamelu

 Alamelu  Brooks LEED AP (BD+C), HBDP, BEAP, EIT| Senior Associate |
+1.443.718.4881 direct | Alamelu.Brooks at icfi.com | icfi.com
ICF INTERNATIONAL | 7125 Thomas Edison Drive, Suite 100, Columbia, MD 21046
USA |



On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Nicholas Caton <ncaton at catonenergy.com>
wrote:

> Your response to the comment should concisely state the reason for the
> discrepancy in your initial submission, just as you did below.
>
>
>
> Skimming the archives, this may be a quick fix to make the outputs meet
> the reviewer’s intuitions - enter the building’s gross area (unconditioned
> + conditioned) here.
>
>
>
> If that doesn’t correct your BEPU results, you could try switching all
> non-plenum SPACEs to “conditioned” (leaving zone inputs alone).  Double
> check to ensure this results in identical performance.
>
>
>
> If the quick fix didn’t work, I’d probably just do my own sums of
> conditioned, non-plenum unconditioned, and gross space areas (starting from
> the space loads csv export) and cite/upload my work for resubmission.
>
>
>
> ~Nick
>
>
>
> *NICK CATON, P.E.*
> *Owner*
>
>
>
> *Caton Energy Consulting*
>   1150 N. 192nd St., #4-202
>
>   Shoreline, WA 98133
>   office:  785.410.3317
>
> www.catonenergy.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Anura Perera
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2015 3:43 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] Issue of mis-match in reported building areas -
> Reviewer's Comment
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> This is the comment received by the reviewer:
>
>
>
> *The BEPU reports for the Proposed and Baseline models appear to indicate
> that the total building area reflected in each model is approximately
> 231,398 square feet (i.e. 49,982,000 MBtu/216 kBtu per square foot
> indicated in the BEPU report for the Baseline model), which is inconsistent
> with the total building area of 376,892 square feet indicated in Section
> 1.1A and Section 1.2 of the form. Revise the Proposed and Baseline models,
> Section 1.1A, and Section 1.2, as needed, to reflect the total building
> area reflected in the actual design, and/or provide a supplemental
> narrative explaining the discrepancy. Note the energy consumption
> associated with unconditioned spaces (interior lighting, process loads,
> etc.) must be included in the Proposed and Baseline models.*
>
>
>
> The discrepancy indicated by the reviewer is due to the fact that the
> building has conditioned and unconditioned areas. What is highlighted by
> the reviewer is that reported by eQUEST output that considers ONLY the
> conditioned areas.
>
> Is there any way to make the output file to depict the unconditioned areas
> as well so that the reviewer does not see this as a discrepancy?.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Anura
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150304/87586551/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28250 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150304/87586551/attachment.png>


More information about the Equest-users mailing list