[Equest-users] PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption

Morteza Kasmai morteza.kasmai at gmail.com
Thu May 7 14:19:24 PDT 2015
Previous message: [Equest-users] PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption
Next message: [Equest-users] Equest-users Digest, Vol 86, Issue 4
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear Keith,

Thank you so much for all the clarifications and recommendations. I will
follow your instruction and coordinate with the mechanical engineer who
thinks it is possible to achieve a considerable energy savings with the
WLHP system.

I truly appreciate your help,
Morteza




On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:02 PM, <equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org>
wrote:

> Send Equest-users mailing list submissions to
>         equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         equest-users-owner at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Equest-users digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Area of the building (Bishop, Bill)
>    2. Re: Area of the building (Singhal, Harshul)
>    3. Re: PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption (Keith Swartz)
>    4. Re: eQuest LPD input output disagree (Nicholas Caton)
>    5. Re: eQuest LPD input output disagree (Sami, Vikram)
>    6. Re: eQuest LPD input output disagree (Nicholas Caton)
>    7. What is meant by Zone Min Design Air Flow (Faisal Sharif)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Bishop, Bill" <bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
> To: "Singhal, Harshul" <HSinghal at thorntontomasetti.com>, "
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 20:06:30 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Area of the building
>
> Harshul,
>
> Go to the spreadsheet view for spaces, not zones, via the Building Shell
> or Internal Loads modules. I believe that is how the conditioned area is
> determined.
>
> ~Bill
>
>
>
> *From:* Singhal, Harshul [mailto:HSinghal at ThorntonTomasetti.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 4:01 PM
> *To:* Bishop, Bill; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: Area of the building
>
>
>
> Thanks for reply. Yeah I checked my LSC. Sorry about numbers. My total
> “conditoned” office area is 35,000 sq ft & “unconditioned” office area is
> 15,000 for future. For *unconditioned office* we cant take credit. But if
> you see snapshot given below, I have assigned warehouses spaces as
> conditioned where I have given only heating schedule only (for makeup unit
> air system as I mentioned in my first email). All warehouses are named with
> “WH”.  Is there any other spot where I need to make necessary changes so
> that eQuest can report these areas too?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Harshul Singhal, LEED AP BD+C*
> Project Consultant
> Thornton Tomasetti
> 386 Fore Street, Suite 401
> Portland, ME  04101
> *T* +1.207.245.6060  *F* +1.207.245.6061
> *D* +1.207.245.6074
> HSinghal at ThorntonTomasetti.com
> www.ThorntonTomasetti.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Bishop, Bill [mailto:bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com
> <bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:41 PM
> *To:* Singhal, Harshul; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: Area of the building
>
>
>
> Harshul,
>
> I didn’t open your model but I suspect you are not modeling the entire
> warehouse as “conditioned”. The area used in the metrics on BEPS/BEPU are
> based on conditioned area. See the LS-C report for the conditioned area in
> the model. Based on your numbers below, your modeled conditioned area is
> only 35,000 ft2 or so.
>
> ~Bill
>
>
>
> *William Bishop, PE, BEMP, BEAP, CEM, LEED AP **|** Pathfinder Engineers
> & Architects LLP*
>
> *Senior Energy Engineer*
>
>
>
>
>
> 134 South Fitzhugh Street                 Rochester, NY 14608
>
> *T: (585) 698-1956 <%28585%29%20698-1956>              *          F: (585)
> 325-6005
>
> bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
> www.pathfinder-ea.com
>
> [image: http://png-5.findicons.com/files/icons/977/rrze/720/globe.png]Carbon
> Fee and Dividend - simple, effective, and market-based.
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf Of *Singhal,
> Harshul
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:29 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] Area of the building
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I am working on this warehouse (distribution center) building with 50,000
> sf of office space (VAV system) & 1.5 million sq ft of warehouse (makeup
> unit of only 13,500 CFM with heating only). When I do calculation on excel
> sheet for EUI (total area 1.5 million + 50,000), it’s around 15 (for design
> case) but when I look into BEPS report, it shows 395 EUI which doesn’t even
> make sense. It seems like it’s not reporting the area for distribution
> center and doing EUI calculation just for office space area. Can you please
> let me know how to make equest report the whole area of the facility?
> Please find the attachment of eQuest files.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>  *Harshul Singhal, LEED AP BD+C*
> Project Consultant
> Thornton Tomasetti
> 386 Fore Street, Suite 401
> Portland, ME  04101
> *T* +1.207.245.6060  *F* +1.207.245.6061
> *D* +1.207.245.6074
> HSinghal at ThorntonTomasetti.com
> www.ThorntonTomasetti.com
>
>
>
>
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
>
>
> The information in this email and any attachments may contain
>
>
>
> confidential information that is intended solely for the
>
>
>
> attention and use of the named addressee(s). This message or
>
>
>
> any part thereof must not be disclosed, copied, distributed
>
>
>
> or retained by any person without authorization from the
>
>
>
> addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, please
>
>
>
> notify the sender immediately, and delete this message.
>
>
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Singhal, Harshul" <HSinghal at thorntontomasetti.com>
> To: "Bishop, Bill" <bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>, "
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 20:11:50 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Area of the building
>
> Thanks Bill. It worked out. J
>
>
>
> *Harshul Singhal, LEED AP BD+C*
> Project Consultant
> Thornton Tomasetti
> 386 Fore Street, Suite 401
> Portland, ME  04101
> *T* +1.207.245.6060  *F* +1.207.245.6061
> *D* +1.207.245.6074
> HSinghal at ThorntonTomasetti.com
> www.ThorntonTomasetti.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Bishop, Bill [mailto:bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 4:06 PM
> *To:* Singhal, Harshul; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: Area of the building
>
>
>
> Harshul,
>
> Go to the spreadsheet view for spaces, not zones, via the Building Shell
> or Internal Loads modules. I believe that is how the conditioned area is
> determined.
>
> ~Bill
>
>
>
> *From:* Singhal, Harshul [mailto:HSinghal at ThorntonTomasetti.com
> <HSinghal at ThorntonTomasetti.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 4:01 PM
> *To:* Bishop, Bill; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: Area of the building
>
>
>
> Thanks for reply. Yeah I checked my LSC. Sorry about numbers. My total
> “conditoned” office area is 35,000 sq ft & “unconditioned” office area is
> 15,000 for future. For *unconditioned office* we cant take credit. But if
> you see snapshot given below, I have assigned warehouses spaces as
> conditioned where I have given only heating schedule only (for makeup unit
> air system as I mentioned in my first email). All warehouses are named with
> “WH”.  Is there any other spot where I need to make necessary changes so
> that eQuest can report these areas too?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Harshul Singhal, LEED AP BD+C*
> Project Consultant
> Thornton Tomasetti
> 386 Fore Street, Suite 401
> Portland, ME  04101
> *T* +1.207.245.6060  *F* +1.207.245.6061
> *D* +1.207.245.6074
> HSinghal at ThorntonTomasetti.com
> www.ThorntonTomasetti.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Bishop, Bill [mailto:bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com
> <bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:41 PM
> *To:* Singhal, Harshul; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: Area of the building
>
>
>
> Harshul,
>
> I didn’t open your model but I suspect you are not modeling the entire
> warehouse as “conditioned”. The area used in the metrics on BEPS/BEPU are
> based on conditioned area. See the LS-C report for the conditioned area in
> the model. Based on your numbers below, your modeled conditioned area is
> only 35,000 ft2 or so.
>
> ~Bill
>
>
>
> *William Bishop, PE, BEMP, BEAP, CEM, LEED AP **|** Pathfinder Engineers
> & Architects LLP*
>
> *Senior Energy Engineer*
>
>
>
>
>
> 134 South Fitzhugh Street                 Rochester, NY 14608
>
> *T: (585) 698-1956 <%28585%29%20698-1956>              *          F: (585)
> 325-6005
>
> bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
> www.pathfinder-ea.com
>
> [image: http://png-5.findicons.com/files/icons/977/rrze/720/globe.png]Carbon
> Fee and Dividend - simple, effective, and market-based.
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf Of *Singhal,
> Harshul
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 3:29 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] Area of the building
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I am working on this warehouse (distribution center) building with 50,000
> sf of office space (VAV system) & 1.5 million sq ft of warehouse (makeup
> unit of only 13,500 CFM with heating only). When I do calculation on excel
> sheet for EUI (total area 1.5 million + 50,000), it’s around 15 (for design
> case) but when I look into BEPS report, it shows 395 EUI which doesn’t even
> make sense. It seems like it’s not reporting the area for distribution
> center and doing EUI calculation just for office space area. Can you please
> let me know how to make equest report the whole area of the facility?
> Please find the attachment of eQuest files.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>  *Harshul Singhal, LEED AP BD+C*
> Project Consultant
> Thornton Tomasetti
> 386 Fore Street, Suite 401
> Portland, ME  04101
> *T* +1.207.245.6060  *F* +1.207.245.6061
> *D* +1.207.245.6074
> HSinghal at ThorntonTomasetti.com
> www.ThorntonTomasetti.com
>
>
>
>
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
>
>
> The information in this email and any attachments may contain
>
>
>
> confidential information that is intended solely for the
>
>
>
> attention and use of the named addressee(s). This message or
>
>
>
> any part thereof must not be disclosed, copied, distributed
>
>
>
> or retained by any person without authorization from the
>
>
>
> addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, please
>
>
>
> notify the sender immediately, and delete this message.
>
>
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
>
>
>
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
> The information in this email and any attachments may contain
>
> confidential information that is intended solely for the
>
> attention and use of the named addressee(s). This message or
>
> any part thereof must not be disclosed, copied, distributed
>
> or retained by any person without authorization from the
>
> addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, please
>
> notify the sender immediately, and delete this message.
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Keith Swartz <KSwartz at seventhwave.org>
> To: "equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 20:18:09 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption
>
> Morteza,
>
>
>
> If you are looking for a relatively simple upgrade from PTACs (with
> electric resistance heat), consider packaged terminal heat pumps.
>
>
>
> Keith Swartz, PE
>
> Senior Energy Engineer | *Seventhwave *| *Madison.Chicago.Minneapolis*
>
> (formerly Energy Center of Wisconsin)
>
> 608.210.7123 | www.seventhwave.org
>
>
>
> *From:* David Eldridge [mailto:DEldridge at grummanbutkus.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 11:45 AM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption
>
>
>
> Some of the advantages of a WLHP system are related to maintenance and
> service life compared to systems with air-cooled condensers and requiring
> envelope penetrations. These concerns won’t show up in an ASHRAE 90.1
> appendix G energy analysis. (Higher infiltration from PTACs?) Also I’d
> expect some efficiencies of scale from central equipment if your building
> is large, compared to the PTACs, this may not apply here.
>
>
>
> But regarding your EAP2 questions…WLHP offers an energy savings when parts
> of the building are in heating while others are in cooling – depending on
> your building’s form and location, as well as modeling assumptions about
> setpoints, this may not be taking place. For a residential building it
> might be reasonable to assume that some portion of the residential units
> are set to different temperature ranges.
>
>
>
> Conversely, if your location is cooling dominated all year, some of the
> advantages of WLHP go away. One thing to check here is the end-use demand
> components in your model. Is the WLHP using less at full load than the
> air-cooled system? If so, then you need to investigate the modeling
> assumptions about the controls of the WLHP system when operating at part
> load. Make sure that what you gained in peak efficinecy isn’t given back
> when the system is only partially loaded.
>
>
>
> Verify that the WLHP control for the condenser loop is variable flow (if
> the proposed heat pump units have two-way control valves…if not, talk to
> your engineer about that!) and that there is a an adequate temperature
> range for the loop so that the towers and boilers don’t come on
> immediately. WLHP condenser loop which should be in the range where a
> condensing boiler will operate successfully, verify that the proposed case
> takes advantage of this compared to the baseline. Make sure that the
> condenser loop is operating on call for demand so that the model isn’t
> assuming continuous operation.
>
>
>
> Regarding the DOAS, make sure that the baseline system has the same OA
> requirements at the PTAC units. Lastly, verify that the fan power for the
> WLHP units is entered based on the design pressure drop and not eQUEST
> defaults. Double-check that the fan run-times for the equipment are the
> same…which for LEED would be fans operating continuously. You probably have
> this in place already.
>
>
>
> I see an interesting paper forwarded by Maria came through while I was
> typing. Note that the graphics in Figure 1 and Figure 2 are for CO2
> emissions, and have non-zero axes, so there could be some variance for your
> specific case depending on the relative cost of utilities.
>
>
>
> It is very interesting – if we take a proposed high-efficiency WLHP system
> from Figure 2 in Atlanta producing about 625 MTCDE compared to the Figure 1
> ASHRAE 90.1 baseline air-source heat pump it is just under 650 MTCDE. In
> your case, by adding the DOAS and some other efficiencies and depending on
> your specific utility rates, it should be possible for a high-tech WLHP
> system to at least reach equivalency with PTACs if not surpass it.
> Additional savings should result if you are able to add efficiency from
> upgraded envelope, lighting, and DHW measures in the proposed design. Check
> the LS reports to verify that building heating and cooling loads are
> reduced in the proposed case compared to the baseline.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP
>
> *Grumman/Butkus Associates*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf Of *Tim Johnson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 10:26 AM
> *To:* 'Morteza Kasmai'; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption
>
>
>
> Morteza,
>
> I took a quick look at your models and the one thing that sticks out to me
> is your pump energy.  The difference between PTAC and WSHP is huge.  I
> would expect some difference since the WSHP needs to run the pumps in
> cooling mode as well as heating while the PTAC only needs pumps in heating,
> but the difference in energy seems too big.  Also keep in mind that the
> heating and cooling efficiencies of the WSHPs are only for that piece of
> equipment, they don’t include the heat rejection required in cooling mode,
> the boiler input in heating mode, or the pumps.  For those reasons, I
> wouldn’t expect the WSHP system to be a lot more efficient than the PTAC.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> *Tim Johnson*
>
> Mechanical Engineer
>
> o 208.336.4900 | d 208.577.5645
>
> [image: CTA_email_graphic]
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf Of *Morteza
> Kasmai
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 7:54 AM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption
>
>
>
> Dear eQUEST experts,
>
> I am still struggling to find out the main reason(s) for high-energy
> consumption of WLHP system comparing to PTAC system and what can be done to
> make this system more efficient that the baseline system. In other words
> for complying with EAp2 requirements, for a mid rise residential building
> what types of HVAC systems (other than split system HP) can be selected
> which consume less annual energy than the PTAC.
>
> I would appreciate it if you would share your experience on this and make
> some recommendation.
>
> Morteza
>
>
>   [image:
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/Uuukta80GuFfvKouzA0mdSvUXqml7MtSwSiw-evuGMU=w147-h43-p-no]
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:03 PM, <
> equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org> wrote:
>
> Send Equest-users mailing list submissions to
>         equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         equest-users-owner at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Equest-users digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption (Morteza Kasmai)
>    2. Re: PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption (David Reddy)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Morteza Kasmai <morteza.kasmai at gmail.com>
> To: "equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 12:04:23 -0400
> Subject: [Equest-users] PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption
>
> Dear all,
>
>
> This is a multifamily mid-rise building, 9 floors above grade. Per ASHRAE
> Table G3.1.1A the Baseline HVAC system is system 1 (PTAC with hot-water
> fossil fuel boiler) 9.3 to 11 EER.
> Selected HVAC system for the proposed design is WLHP (3 Ton High
> efficiency HP by Daikin, 15.9 EER and 4.83 COP) with 2 cell cooling tower,
> DOAS unit (9.8 EER) and 2 Boilers (0.92 Eff.).
>
>
>
> Although the efficiency of the selected HVAC systems is much higher than
> the efficiency of the baseline model, the simulation results indicate
> annual energy consumption of the proposed design is much higher than the
> baseline!
>
>
>
> Am I missing something or did something wrong in the models? Please see
> the attached files of the both models
>
> .
>
> I would greatly appreciate it if anyone kindly gives some feedback on this,
>
>  Morteza
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   [image:
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/Uuukta80GuFfvKouzA0mdSvUXqml7MtSwSiw-evuGMU=w147-h43-p-no]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Reddy <david at 360-analytics.com>
> To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 09:39:44 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption
>
> Hi Morteza,
> I have not reviewed the results or detailed inputs of your model, but one
> thing to be aware is that depending on the rating conditions of your
> efficiency data, you may have to adjust the EIRs to be consistent with
> DOE-2 performance curves.  The default DOE-2 curves are normalized to the
> GSHP rating condition, so if using these and if your efficiency data is @
> the WSHP rating condition, you will need to apply these adjustments.
>
> Here is the table from the DOE-2 help provided with eQUEST.  There is a
> library of DOE-2 WSHP curves available from ClimateMaster that do not need
> these adjustments.
>
> [image: cid:image002.jpg at 01D087E7.BEE13610]
>
> - David
>
> On 5/4/2015 9:04 AM, Morteza Kasmai wrote:
>
>   Dear all,
>
>
> This is a multifamily mid-rise building, 9 floors above grade. Per ASHRAE
> Table G3.1.1A the Baseline HVAC system is system 1 (PTAC with hot-water
> fossil fuel boiler) 9.3 to 11 EER.
> Selected HVAC system for the proposed design is WLHP (3 Ton High
> efficiency HP by Daikin, 15.9 EER and 4.83 COP) with 2 cell cooling tower,
> DOAS unit (9.8 EER) and 2 Boilers (0.92 Eff.).
>
>
>
> Although the efficiency of the selected HVAC systems is much higher than
> the efficiency of the baseline model, the simulation results indicate
> annual energy consumption of the proposed design is much higher than the
> baseline!
>
>
>
> Am I missing something or did something wrong in the models? Please see
> the attached files of the both models
>
> .
>
> I would greatly appreciate it if anyone kindly gives some feedback on this,
>
>  Morteza
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   [image:
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/Uuukta80GuFfvKouzA0mdSvUXqml7MtSwSiw-evuGMU=w147-h43-p-no]
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> Equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nicholas Caton <ncaton at catonenergy.com>
> To: Dale elegant <elegantdale at gmail.com>,
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 13:50:44 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] eQuest LPD input output disagree
>
> The EUI figures reported on BEPU use the building area entered in the
> following location (if entered).  You might check here first to see if it
> reads 700,000 or something else:
>
>
>
> *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 *Dale elegant
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 10:49 AM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] eQuest LPD input output disagree
>
>
>
> Dear all:
>
>
>
> I'm modeling a 700000 sqft warehouse, everything works fine, except in
> BEPU report it shows a 360.310 KWH /SQFT-YR GROSS-AREA, which doesn't
> make any sense. The utility rates are correct, under Quality control
> reports, it indicates errors of the peak lighting load of 67.74 w/sqft and
> peak miscellaneous equipment load of 40.91 w/sqft. I did input LPD and EPD
> with around 0.6 w/sqft and 0.5 w/sqft, the corresponding schedules are
> correct, the building area in each floor and each zone are correct, the
> total energy demand looks about right for the size of building.
>
> But at some point the model makes the LPD output 100 times bigger than
> what I input, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with any
> advices, thanks!
>
> Qing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Sami, Vikram" <vikram.sami at zgf.com>
> To: Nicholas Caton <ncaton at catonenergy.com>, Dale elegant <
> elegantdale at gmail.com>, "equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 16:39:08 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] eQuest LPD input output disagree
>
> Dale,
>
>
>
> Curious. Could you attach your inp file?
>
>
>
> *Vikram Sami*
> AIA, BEMP, LEED BD+C
> Associate Partner
>
>
>
> ZGF ARCHITECTS LLP
> *T *206.521.3509 *E *vikram.sami at zgf.com
> 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2400
> Seattle, WA 98104
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Nicholas Caton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:51 PM
> *To:* Dale elegant; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] eQuest LPD input output disagree
>
>
>
> The EUI figures reported on BEPU use the building area entered in the
> following location (if entered).  You might check here first to see if it
> reads 700,000 or something else:
>
>
>
> *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 *Dale elegant
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 10:49 AM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] eQuest LPD input output disagree
>
>
>
> Dear all:
>
>
>
> I'm modeling a 700000 sqft warehouse, everything works fine, except in
> BEPU report it shows a 360.310 KWH /SQFT-YR GROSS-AREA, which doesn't
> make any sense. The utility rates are correct, under Quality control
> reports, it indicates errors of the peak lighting load of 67.74 w/sqft and
> peak miscellaneous equipment load of 40.91 w/sqft. I did input LPD and EPD
> with around 0.6 w/sqft and 0.5 w/sqft, the corresponding schedules are
> correct, the building area in each floor and each zone are correct, the
> total energy demand looks about right for the size of building.
>
> But at some point the model makes the LPD output 100 times bigger than
> what I input, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with any
> advices, thanks!
>
> Qing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     ZGF Email Disclaimer <https://www.zgf.com/ZGF_Email_Disclaimer.html>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nicholas Caton <ncaton at catonenergy.com>
> To: "Sami, Vikram" <vikram.sami at zgf.com>, Dale elegant <
> elegantdale at gmail.com>, equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 11:18:48 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] eQuest LPD input output disagree
>
> Hey Vikram,
>
>
>
> Qing Dale replied off-list that his issue is resolved.  For his 700,000
> ft2 project, only a small fraction was conditioned and therefore used for
> EUI reporting.  I suspect among other possible solutions, he could have
> used the input I suggested below to override the area used in determining
> reported EUI metrics.
>
>
>
> ~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:* Sami, Vikram [mailto:vikram.sami at zgf.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:39 AM
> *To:* Nicholas Caton; Dale elegant; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] eQuest LPD input output disagree
>
>
>
> Dale,
>
>
>
> Curious. Could you attach your inp file?
>
>
>
> *Vikram Sami*
> AIA, BEMP, LEED BD+C
> Associate Partner
>
>
>
> ZGF ARCHITECTS LLP
> *T *206.521.3509 *E *vikram.sami at zgf.com
> 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2400
> Seattle, WA 98104
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nicholas
> Caton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:51 PM
> *To:* Dale elegant; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] eQuest LPD input output disagree
>
>
>
> The EUI figures reported on BEPU use the building area entered in the
> following location (if entered).  You might check here first to see if it
> reads 700,000 or something else:
>
>
>
> *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 *Dale elegant
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 10:49 AM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] eQuest LPD input output disagree
>
>
>
> Dear all:
>
>
>
> I'm modeling a 700000 sqft warehouse, everything works fine, except in
> BEPU report it shows a 360.310 KWH /SQFT-YR GROSS-AREA, which doesn't
> make any sense. The utility rates are correct, under Quality control
> reports, it indicates errors of the peak lighting load of 67.74 w/sqft and
> peak miscellaneous equipment load of 40.91 w/sqft. I did input LPD and EPD
> with around 0.6 w/sqft and 0.5 w/sqft, the corresponding schedules are
> correct, the building area in each floor and each zone are correct, the
> total energy demand looks about right for the size of building.
>
> But at some point the model makes the LPD output 100 times bigger than
> what I input, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with any
> advices, thanks!
>
> Qing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ZGF Email Disclaimer <https://www.zgf.com/ZGF_Email_Disclaimer.html>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Faisal Sharif <fisharif at gmail.com>
> To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 15:36:00 -0400
> Subject: [Equest-users] What is meant by Zone Min Design Air Flow
> Dear Equest Users
>
> Can you please advice what is meant by Zone Min Design Air Flow?..  dose
> that refer to the min Vent. fresh air required for a specific zone (all
> zone here were considered as office)
> As per the below Schematic design wizard .. this is  a 3 story building;
> each level has core and perimeter zones
> The wizard had generated the green data as default ... it looks for me
> that 2.54 l/s m2 is too high for an office min. vent air , if that is meant
> by Zone Min Design Air Flow
> Or it could be something else
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> Regards,
>
> Faisal Ibrahim Sharif
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> Equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4443 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3859 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3859 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28250 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 81273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1647 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1517 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1647 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0006.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1517 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0007.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 81273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0008.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28250 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 28250 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150507/e9d45ef6/attachment-0005.png>
Previous message: [Equest-users] PTAC vs WLHP Annual Energy Consumption
Next message: [Equest-users] Equest-users Digest, Vol 86, Issue 4
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Equest-users mailing list