[Equest-users] End results analysis

[Carol Gardner]

Hi Sambhav,

I agree with Pasha's answer. When I read your email I was surprised that you
have a reduction in occupancy between your base and proposed case. I don't
think that's allowed, at least not by LEED, and I doubt by anyone else. What
is the reason for that reduction?

Carol

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <
pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sambhav,
>
> My first guess on this issue is that is has something to do with the
> controls that you've specified for the chilled water loop (i.e. load reset,
> or OA reset, etc.)  Apparently you are seeing that your fans are the ones
> trying to satisfy the "call for cooling."   But the bigger question is what
> are the cooling or chiller schedules that you have input for your plant
> systems vs. your air-side systems.
>
> My next guess is that with such a dramatic difference in fans, but not in
> cooling energy is that in one of the models you probably have a large number
> of hours of cooling not met (throttling hours out of range.)  Have you
> checked your BEPS/U reports, SS-F, SS-R?   Did you input your own schedules
> or did you use the default operation schedules from the program?
>
> As is always the case for simulation questions when you ask "what's going
> on?" the basic response is, "IT DEPENDS..."  on so many variables that at
> this point you are the only one who knows which variables in your model you
> have (or have not) adjusted.
>
> Best way for us to try and offer insight or solutions is to upload your
> .pd2, .inp, and maybe even your weather file for us to run and look deeper
> into your model file for you.
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:49 AM, sambhav tiwari <tiwari.sambhav at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>          In on of my projects i was geeting the energy end results
>> for two cases
>>
>>                                  Cooling                     Fan
>>                  Pump
>>
>> 1 Proposed Case        3627607                   26,226,040
>>  59,369
>>
>> 2 Proposed Case2     3627295                    12141210
>> 59,369
>>
>>
>> This is a fctory hall of 72000sqft served by 2 air cooled screw chiller of
>> 180TR
>>
>> The difference in two cases is that in first case  Proposed Case1 the
>> EPD was 38w/sqft and occupancy was 220 ,and in Proposed case2  EPD
>> was changed to 11w/sqft and Occupancy to 100, my doubt is that with
>> such a large variation in EPD and Occupancy why there is neligiable
>> variation in cooling energy0.008% and zero variation in pump energy as
>> shown in above results although this is large variation in fan energy.
>>
>> I was expecting that the energy in three of them  Cooling Fan and Pump
>> should have come down drasticaly it happened with fan but not with
>> cooling and pump.
>>
>> Can anyone suggest some logic to this.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sambhav Tiwari
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 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
>
>


-- 
Carol Gardner PE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100721/ce35fab8/attachment.htm>