From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Wiley & Sons Publisher, Chap 2.10 - Beam and Diffuse Components of Hourly Radiation (taken from Erbs et al): I_d / I = 1.0 - 0.09 * k_t for k_t <= 0.22 = 0.9511 - 0.1604 * k_t + 4.388*k_t^2 - 16.638*k_t^3 +12.336*k_t^4 for 0.22 < = k_t <= 0.8 = 0.165 for k_t > 0.80 where: I_d / I = diffuse fraction of hourly total horiz radiation k_t = hourly clearness index You should read the section before you apply this. Your engineering library should have a copy. If not, let me know and I'll fax you a copy. Good luck. - Jim ________________________ Jim Kelsey P.E. KW Energy Engineering 175 Filbert Street, Suite 205 Oakland, CA 94607-2541 510.834.6420 http://www.kw-energy.com Vikas Shrestha wrote: > Hello! > > I have hourly data on total horizontal radiation for Kathmandu, Nepal. I > need to derive direct beam radiation and diffused radiation. I also do > have hourly data on total sunshine hours and cloud cover. > > Does anybody have the algorithm handy to calculate direct beam and > diffused components? I would really appreciate your help. > > Vikas Shrestha > Graduate student > Department of Architecture and Urban Design > UCLA > > ====================================================== > You received this e-mail because you are subscribed > to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe > from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM -- ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: P.Voit, Th.Lechner, and M.Schuler, and titled, "Common EC validation = procedures for dynamic building simulation programs -- application with = TRNSYS". An acquaintance of mine in Japan is looking for it, and I said I would = see if I could locate it. I haven't been able to find it by searching = the web. Thanks. Larry D. *************************************************************************= **** Larry O. Degelman, P.E., Professor e-mail: larry at taz.tamu.edu Department of Architecture Phone: +1-979-845-1891 Texas A&M University Fax: +1-979-862-1571 College Station, TX 77843-3137 Download ENER-WIN at: http://taz.tamu.edu/~energy/enerwin.html *************************************************************************= ***** ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFB9C6.C91198A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Does anyone recognize this = citation?
 
From a conference of an international simulation = society,=20 1994, by P.Voit, Th.Lechner, and M.Schuler, and titled, "Common EC = validation=20 procedures for dynamic building simulation programs -- application with=20 TRNSYS".
 
An acquaintance of mine in Japan is looking for = it, and I=20 said I would see if I could locate it.  I haven't been able to find = it by=20 searching the web.
 
Thanks.
 
Larry D.

************************************************************= *****************
Larry=20 O. Degelman, P.E., Professor     e-mail: larry at taz.tamu.edu
Department = of=20 Architecture          &= nbsp;      =20 Phone: +1-979-845-1891
Texas A&M=20 University          &nb= sp;           &nbs= p; =20 Fax:    +1-979-862-1571
College Station, TX=20 77843-3137
Download ENER-WIN at: http://taz.tamu.edu/~en= ergy/enerwin.html
************************************************= ******************************
 
 

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFB9C6.C91198A0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: There is a new installation password for Beta 5 which will be sent automatically after you fill out the registration form on the web site (to the email address you enter on the registration form). You may download the setup file prior to receiving your password, but you will not be able to install until you get your password. Highlights of Beta 5.0 include: * Phase I Energy Meter reporting * Low Temp Radiant Heating/Cooling * Interior Surface Convection (see Inside Convection Algorithm input description) * Thermal Comfort Options (see People input description) * Evaporative Cooler Models * Steam Absorption Chiller * Air Flow Sizing (based on Zone requirements) * Improved Sky Model for Daylighting Calculation * Ability to read multiple interval per hour weather data files * Plenum Implementation * Return air heat gain (from lights) enhancement calculation * Flat Plate Exhaust Air Heat Recovery * IFCtoIDF generation capability This is the fifth beta release prior to EnergyPlus V1.0 release. There will be multiple Beta 5s released prior to the V1.0 release. Additional Beta 5 releases will include new features as well as corrections as necessary. The password will remain the same for all Beta 5 releases. Ther remaining Beta release schedule is: * Multiple Beta 5 releases - February 2001 - March 2001 * V1.0 Release - April 09, 2001 Thanks for your participation! The EnergyPlus Development, Testing, and Support Team ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ----------------------- AIR-CONDITIONING CREDITS Specific air conditioning credits vary substantially from case style to case style. Case loads are made up of internal electric loads, radiant heat from exterior lighting (very substantial on top display cases), wall conduction and the infiltration load which is a combination of sensible and latent heat. Manufacturers also usually add some percentage for safety to account for loading techniques, traffic, warm product and times of poor ambient control. It would not be practical to try and exactly calculate the credit for each style of case and its application. A general rule is acceptable that takes into account the mix of cases in a typical store since the air conditioning calculation itself is partly an educated guess particularly considering outside air influences and person loads. Only open cases should be considered for this calculation. Walkin coolers and freezers and glass door merchandisers should not be used. The following credit is then usually acceptable and should be calculated using the total published open case load. sensible credit = 40% latent credit = 30% ----------------------- Can someone comment on the disparity between the above numbers and the respective 65%-10% credits in DOE2.1E? Also, should it be understood that closed cases should not be considered as zone loads in a DOE2.1 simulation? Has anyone had trouble using the REFG-SENS-SCH and REFG-LAT-SCH commands? The results I get with or without schedules are identical. Thank you again for your help. Dominique Michaud Building Energy Technician Dessau-Soprin Inc. 375 blvd Rolland-Therrien, Suite 400 Longueuil, Quebec, J4H 4A6 Tel.: (514) 281-1033 ext 2568 Fax: (450) 442-9996 ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: REFG-ZONE-LOAD is the total cooling effect... Manufacturers of supermarket cases usually do not list the total cooling effect of their cases directly. Instead, they list the compressor capacity at a standard suction temperature required per lineal foot of case work. The sensible cooling effect is typically 65% of this number, and the latent cooling effect is about 10%. The total cooling effect is then about 75% of the listed compressor capacity per lineal foot, multiplied by the lineal feet of case work. Does this mean that 75% of the compressor's cooling capacity cools the zone? Where does the other 25% disappear to? Do these figures vary depending on ambient conditions? Are there any references for these numbers (ASHRAE or otherwise)? Any and all help is greatly appreciated. Dominique Michaud Building Energy Technician Dessau-Soprin Inc. 375 blvd Rolland-Therrien, Suite 400 Longueuil, Quebec, J4H 4A6 Tel.: (514) 281-1033 ext 2568 Fax: (450) 442-9996 ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: John Andrews, PE Project Engineer RUMSEY ENGINEERS, INC 99 Linden St. Oakland, CA 94607 510-663-2070 ext.204 510-663-2080 (fax) jandrews at rumseyengineers.com -----Original Message----- From: Robert Lord [mailto:rgl.lsbris at lincolne.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:19 PM To: Bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports For completeness, the old Ansett Airport Terminal in Sydney Australia has displacement air conditioning also. -----Original Message----- From: Tianzhen Hong [mailto:thong at eley.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:05 AM To: Bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports Thanks a lot for those help. Following is a sum list, Heathrow Terminal 1 JFK NY Smoking Lounge Bangkok Airport Vancouver, BC new intl. airport Frankfort intl. airport Xiamen Gaoqi intl airport, China I have not got the time to confirm or get details. I will share what I find later. Tianzhen ================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =====================================================You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C25F5E.9F8763D0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Thank=20 you, Sir !!
-----Original Message-----
From: Tianzhen Hong=20 [mailto:thong at eley.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 = 2:01=20 PM
To: JAulbach at semprasolutions.com
Cc:=20 BLDG-SIM at GARD.COm
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Displacement = Ventilation=20 Systems in Airports

 
 
A=20 good source to start is couple papers published by Prof. Yan Chen in = ASHRAE=20 Transactions.
Prof. Chen is also developing the design guideline = for=20 displacement ventilation system for ASHRAE.
 
According to Halton company, Dallas airport being = constructed now is=20 using DV too.
 
Tianzhen
 
 
 -----Original=20 Message-----
From: postman at gard.com = [mailto:postman at gard.com] On=20 Behalf Of Aulbach, John
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, = 2002 2:47=20 PM
To: Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [Bldg-sim] = Displacement=20 Ventilation Systems in Airports

Gee, maybe you high brow people can explain to us regular = folks what=20 "displacement cooling" is ???
-----Original Message-----
From: John Andrews=20 [mailto:jandrews at rumseyengineers.com]
Sent: Tuesday, = September=20 17, 2002 2:51 PM
To: = Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject:=20 [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in=20 Airports

Tianzhen,
 
From observation, Heathrow appears to = be using=20 Trox swirl-style diffusers.

John = Andrews,=20 PE
Project Engineer =

RUMSEY = ENGINEERS,=20 INC
99 Linden St. =
Oakland, CA  94607
510-663-2070 ext.204
510-663-2080 (fax)
jandrews at rumseyengineers.co= m=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Lord = [mailto:rgl.lsbris at lincolne.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, = September=20 17, 2002 2:19 PM
To: = Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject:=20 [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in=20 Airports

For=20 completeness, the old Ansett Airport Terminal in Sydney = Australia has=20 displacement air conditioning = also.

 

=

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 Tianzhen Hong [mailto:thong at eley.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = September 18, 2002=20 4:05 AM
To:=20 Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [Bldg-sim] = Displacement=20 Ventilation Systems in Airports

 

 

Thanks a lot=20 for those help.

 

Following is a=20 sum list,

 

Heathrow=20 Terminal 1

JFK = NY Smoking=20 Lounge

Bangkok=20 Airport

Vancouver, BC=20 new intl. airport

Frankfort=20 intl. airport

Xiamen Gaoqi=20 intl airport, China

 

I = have not got=20 the time to confirm or get details. I will share what I find=20 later.

 

Tianzhen

 

 

 

 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail =
because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM =
mailing list.  To =
unsubscribe 
from this =
mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DYou received this e-mail because =
you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C25F5E.9F8763D0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: diffusers. John Andrews, PE Project Engineer RUMSEY ENGINEERS, INC 99 Linden St. Oakland, CA 94607 510-663-2070 ext.204 510-663-2080 (fax) jandrews at rumseyengineers.com -----Original Message----- From: Robert Lord [mailto:rgl.lsbris at lincolne.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:19 PM To: Bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports For completeness, the old Ansett Airport Terminal in Sydney Australia has displacement air conditioning also. -----Original Message----- From: Tianzhen Hong [mailto:thong at eley.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:05 AM To: Bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports Thanks a lot for those help. Following is a sum list, Heathrow Terminal 1 JFK NY Smoking Lounge Bangkok Airport Vancouver, BC new intl. airport Frankfort intl. airport Xiamen Gaoqi intl airport, China I have not got the time to confirm or get details. I will share what I find later. Tianzhen ================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =====================================================You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C25F1B.D8018850 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
 
A good=20 source to start is couple papers published by Prof. Yan Chen in ASHRAE=20 Transactions.
Prof. Chen is also developing the design guideline for = displacement ventilation system for ASHRAE.
 
According to Halton company, Dallas airport being constructed = now is=20 using DV too.
 
Tianzhen
 
 
 -----Original = Message-----
From:=20 postman at gard.com [mailto:postman at gard.com] On Behalf Of Aulbach,=20 John
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:47 PM
To:=20 Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation = Systems=20 in Airports

Gee,=20 maybe you high brow people can explain to us regular folks what = "displacement=20 cooling" is ???
-----Original Message-----
From: John Andrews=20 [mailto:jandrews at rumseyengineers.com]
Sent: Tuesday, = September 17,=20 2002 2:51 PM
To: Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: = [Bldg-sim]=20 Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports

Tianzhen,
 
From observation, Heathrow appears to be = using Trox=20 swirl-style diffusers.

John = Andrews, PE=20
Project Engineer

RUMSEY = ENGINEERS, INC=20
99 Linden St.
Oakland, CA  94607
510-663-2070 ext.204
510-663-2080=20 (fax)
jandrews at rumseyengineers.com= =20

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Lord=20 [mailto:rgl.lsbris at lincolne.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, = September 17,=20 2002 2:19 PM
To: Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: = [Bldg-sim]=20 Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports

For=20 completeness, the old Ansett Airport Terminal in Sydney Australia = has=20 displacement air conditioning = also.

 

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 Tianzhen Hong [mailto:thong at eley.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September = 18, 2002=20 4:05 AM
To:=20 Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [Bldg-sim] = Displacement=20 Ventilation Systems in Airports

 

 

Thanks = a lot for=20 those help.

 

Following is a=20 sum list,

 

Heathrow=20 Terminal 1

JFK=20 NY Smoking Lounge

Bangkok=20 Airport

Vancouver, BC=20 new intl. airport

Frankfort intl.=20 airport

Xiamen = Gaoqi=20 intl airport, China

 

I=20 have not got the time to confirm or get details. I will share what = I find=20 later.

 

Tianzhen

 

 

 

 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because =
you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing =
list.  To unsubscribe =

from this mailing =
list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DYou received this e-mail because you =
are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C25F1B.D8018850-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: diffusers. John Andrews, PE=20 Project Engineer=20 RUMSEY ENGINEERS, INC=20 99 Linden St.=20 Oakland, CA 94607=20 510-663-2070 ext.204=20 510-663-2080 (fax)=20 jandrews at rumseyengineers.com=20 -----Original Message----- From: Robert Lord [mailto:rgl.lsbris at lincolne.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:19 PM To: Bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports For completeness, the old Ansett Airport Terminal in Sydney Australia = has displacement air conditioning also. =20 -----Original Message----- From: Tianzhen Hong [mailto:thong at eley.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:05 AM To: Bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports =20 =20 Thanks a lot for those help. =20 Following is a sum list, =20 Heathrow Terminal 1 JFK NY Smoking Lounge Bangkok Airport Vancouver, BC new intl. airport Frankfort intl. airport Xiamen Gaoqi intl airport, China =20 I have not got the time to confirm or get details. I will share what I = find later. =20 Tianzhen =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C25E94.48AE83C4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Tianzhen,
 
From=20 observation, Heathrow appears to be using Trox swirl-style=20 diffusers.

John Andrews, = PE=20
Project Engineer

RUMSEY ENGINEERS, = INC=20
99 Linden St.
Oakland, CA  94607
510-663-2070=20 ext.204
510-663-2080 (fax) =
jandrews at rumseyengineers.com= =20

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Lord=20 [mailto:rgl.lsbris at lincolne.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, September = 17,=20 2002 2:19 PM
To: Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: = [Bldg-sim]=20 Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports

For=20 completeness, the old Ansett Airport Terminal in Sydney Australia has=20 displacement air conditioning = also.

 

-----Original=20 Message-----
From: = Tianzhen=20 Hong [mailto:thong at eley.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, = 2002 4:05=20 AM
To:=20 Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject:=20 [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in = Airports

 

 

Thanks=20 a lot for those help.

 

Following = is a sum=20 list,

 

Heathrow = Terminal=20 1

JFK NY=20 Smoking Lounge

Bangkok=20 Airport

Vancouver, = BC new=20 intl. airport

Frankfort = intl.=20 airport

Xiamen=20 Gaoqi intl airport, China

 

I have=20 not got the time to confirm or get details. I will share what I find=20 later.

 

Tianzhen

 

 

 

 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because =
you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing =
list.  To unsubscribe =

from this mailing =
list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C25E94.48AE83C4-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: John Andrews, PE Project Engineer RUMSEY ENGINEERS, INC 99 Linden St. Oakland, CA 94607 510-663-2070 ext.204 510-663-2080 (fax) jandrews at rumseyengineers.com -----Original Message----- From: Robert Lord [mailto:rgl.lsbris at lincolne.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:19 PM To: Bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports For completeness, the old Ansett Airport Terminal in Sydney Australia has displacement air conditioning also. -----Original Message----- From: Tianzhen Hong [mailto:thong at eley.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:05 AM To: Bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports Thanks a lot for those help. Following is a sum list, Heathrow Terminal 1 JFK NY Smoking Lounge Bangkok Airport Vancouver, BC new intl. airport Frankfort intl. airport Xiamen Gaoqi intl airport, China I have not got the time to confirm or get details. I will share what I find later. Tianzhen ================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =====================================================You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C25E93.B2B7F940 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Gee,=20 maybe you high brow people can explain to us regular folks what = "displacement=20 cooling" is ???
-----Original Message-----
From: John Andrews=20 [mailto:jandrews at rumseyengineers.com]
Sent: Tuesday, = September 17,=20 2002 2:51 PM
To: Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: = [Bldg-sim]=20 Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports

Tianzhen,
 
From=20 observation, Heathrow appears to be using Trox swirl-style=20 diffusers.

John = Andrews, PE=20
Project Engineer

RUMSEY = ENGINEERS, INC=20
99 Linden St.
Oakland, CA  94607
510-663-2070=20 ext.204
510-663-2080 = (fax)
jandrews at rumseyengineers.co= m=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Lord=20 [mailto:rgl.lsbris at lincolne.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, = September 17,=20 2002 2:19 PM
To: Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: = [Bldg-sim]=20 Displacement Ventilation Systems in Airports

For=20 completeness, the old Ansett Airport Terminal in Sydney Australia = has=20 displacement air conditioning = also.

 

=

-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Tianzhen=20 Hong [mailto:thong at eley.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September = 18, 2002=20 4:05 AM
To:=20 Bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject:=20 [Bldg-sim] Displacement Ventilation Systems in = Airports

 

 

Thanks = a lot for=20 those help.

 

Following is a sum=20 list,

 

Heathrow Terminal=20 1

JFK=20 NY Smoking Lounge

Bangkok = Airport

Vancouver, BC new=20 intl. airport

Frankfort intl.=20 airport

Xiamen = Gaoqi intl=20 airport, China

 

I=20 have not got the time to confirm or get details. I will share what = I find=20 later.

 

Tianzhen

 

 

 

 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail =
because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM =
mailing list.  To =
unsubscribe 
from this =
mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DYou received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C25E93.B2B7F940-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: simulation welll, but waterside poorly. TAS can approximate water-side = plant using Report scripts. If you are just after indicative plant = energy use and relative savings then these tools are sufficient, but = depending on your application, the waterside simulationmay be very = important in which case proceed with caution. If you are just trying to rough out the potential energy savings for a = mixed moe system then running hourly reports from DOE-2 and subtracting = plant energy use for those hours where NV appears appropriate will give = you the feasibility estimate. A filter of hours to exclude can be = worked up from typical internal or space sensible loads, average airflow = (stack and wind driven) based on simplified calcs, and desired space = temperatures ... Regards, Graham ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Brian Thornton=20 To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:06 AM Subject: [BLDG-SIM] natural ventilation analysis tools Does anyone have experience with CFD, and non-CFD analysis tools for = design and energy analysis of natural ventilation?=20 Tas is one I have heard a lot about lately.=20 Can anyone describe their experience in learning, using, providing = usable and correct results, and extrapolating results to annual energy = usage/savings? Any other software that provides at least some 2-D or 3-D CFD, and = hourly thermal calculations for natural ventilation?=20 Thanks,=20 Brian =20 Brian Thornton, P.E.=20 Lead Engineer, Energy Services=20 GLUMAC=20 I N T E R N A T I O N A L=20 320 SW Washington, Suite 200=20 Portland, Oregon 97204=20 503.227.5280 Phone=20 503.274.7674 Fax=20 www.Glumac.com=20 The information in this Internet e-mail is confidential and may be = legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to = this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended = recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in = response to this email is prohibited and may be unlawful. Because = e-mail can be altered electronically, the integrity of this = communication cannot be guaranteed. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C398D9.F5CE77A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable natural ventilation analysis tools
To add to Jon Hand's comments.  =
 
I have used Apache (IES) successfully = for the=20 assessment / design of natural ventilation systems.  While I = am not an=20 expert with TAS, it appears to offer very similar functionality to IES = based on=20 my limited experience with it.  Both offer multi-zone bulk = airflow=20 modelling combined with the dynamic thermal simulation.  CFD is = typically=20 used to gain a greater insight into local air temperatures and airflow = at one=20 point in time where bulk airflow provides a zone average = otherwise. =20 Increasingly some consultants are using CFD for transient = simulations.  The=20 Swiss Reinsurance building in London (The Ghurkin) I believe was = designed using=20 CFD exclusively by Hilson-Moran.  While some CFD packages are now = claiming=20 to account for the transient radiant loads, I am doubtful whether this = would=20 provide as useful of a tool as bulk airflow modelling - this = will change=20 ...
 
In terms of useful and correct results, = there has=20 been BESTesting and some validation of these tools from real = buildings.  In=20 my experience you need to be very careful to declare results in absolute = terms.  There are so many variables beyond our control and the = biggest one,=20 the weather, drives when natural ventilation systems are useful.  A = sensitivity study of key variables to understand the risks and thus = where better=20 information and additional design is needed to be confident, is=20 essential.
 
From an energy point of view, both TAS = and Apache=20 handle airside plant simulation welll, but waterside poorly.  TAS = can=20 approximate water-side plant using Report scripts.  If you are just = after=20 indicative plant energy use and relative savings then these tools are=20 sufficient, but depending on your application, the waterside = simulationmay be=20 very important in which case proceed with caution.
 
If you are just trying to rough out the = potential=20 energy savings for a mixed moe system then running hourly reports from = DOE-2 and=20 subtracting plant energy use for those hours where NV appears = appropriate will=20 give you the feasibility estimate.  A filter of hours to exclude = can be=20 worked up from typical internal or space sensible loads, average airflow = (stack=20 and wind driven) based on simplified calcs, and desired space = temperatures=20 ...
 
Regards,
Graham
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Brian=20 Thornton
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, = 2003 9:06=20 AM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] natural = ventilation=20 analysis tools

Does anyone have experience with CFD, = and non-CFD=20 analysis tools for design and energy analysis of natural = ventilation?=20

Tas is one I have heard a lot about = lately.=20

Can anyone describe their experience in = learning,=20 using, providing usable and correct results, and extrapolating results = to=20 annual energy usage/savings?

Any other software that provides at = least some 2-D=20 or 3-D CFD, and hourly thermal calculations for natural = ventilation?=20

Thanks,

Brian 

Brian Thornton, P.E.
Lead Engineer, Energy Services
GLUMAC
I N T E R N A T I O N A = L
320 SW Washington, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97204

503.227.5280  Phone =
503.274.7674  Fax

www.Glumac.com

The information in this Internet e-mail = is=20 confidential and may be legally privileged.  It is intended = solely for=20 the addressee.  Access to this email by anyone else is=20 unauthorized.  If you are not the intended recipient, any = disclosure,=20 copying, distribution or any action taken in response to this email is = prohibited and may be unlawful.  Because e-mail can be altered=20 electronically, the integrity of this communication cannot be=20 guaranteed.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------=_NextPart_000_0043_01C398D9.F5CE77A0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: expensive, particularly when you have to rate the HX for high pressures. There are two kinds of plate HXs, gasketed and soldered. Getting a soldered type sort of defeats one of the main advantages of a plate-frame type HX, its expandability. The gasketed type for high-pressure applications are less in supply and as a result cost a lot. The highest-pressure rating I've seen for a gasketed-type plate-frame HX is 300 psia. =20 My following comments apply to a gasketed-type plate-frame heat exchanger. =20 (1) How high do you want to go? This is really an indirect question related to the fill pressure of the system, the location of the expansion tank, and the location of the HX in the system. Note that when you fill the system, you need an addition 2 to 5 psig of pressure to allow the water to spit out of the top of the system, ensuring the entire system is filled and most (if not all) of the air is out. (2) By putting the HX at the pump discharge means you will feel the full impact of the dynamic head of the pump and static head of the system at that location. Not the best place in large systems like campuses or district energy plants. (3) When including the comments provided in (2) previously, one can then note that you can eliminate the dynamic head from the equation. (4) HX exposed to all of the static head plus the dynamic head depending upon the placement of the pump in relation to the HX. (5) Your static head is minimum, and dynamic head is again only that contribution depending on the pump's placement in relation to the HX. Note this is probably your cheapest plate-frame HX since the pressure is probably the lowest (assuming the expansion tank is also located at the suction inlet of the pump). (6) I don't know exactly what you mean here. =20 As for what are the issues when the HX is replaced with other equipment such as chillers and boilers: this will depend upon the system you are dealing with. Are there existing chillers and boilers being displaced by this replacement? Why? Is it of economic benefit to the owner? Higher efficient device? Perhaps you are referring to the approach temperature. Note the closer the approach temperature, the more expensive the heat exchanger. However, the closer the approach temperature, the more efficient the system. For example, if you have a chilled-water system circulating water at a 14 delta T, and you have a heat exchanger with a 2 degree approach, then the load side of the heat exchanger operates at a 10 degree delta T. If you have the same chiller system circulating water at 14 degrees delta T and you have a 1-degree approach, then your load side of the heat exchanger can operate at a 12-degree delta T. As you can intuitively see, the one-degree approach HX provides for a more efficient system. =20 =20 Sincerely, =20 Eric Kirchhoff, PE =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Varkie Thomas [mailto:Varkie.Thomas at som.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 3:05 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Pump location =20 I am looking for information (articles, research papers, case studies) on the effect of the location of the pump relative to a plate and frame heat exchanger in a closed piping system. Some of the issues are (1) the vertical height of the piping system (1000' to 2000'), how high can you go, (2) pumping thru HX, (3) pumping away from HX, (4) pump and HX located at bottom of system, (5) pump and HX at top of system, and (6) pump start up. What are the issues when the HX is replaced with other equipment such as chillers and boilers? =20 Varkie Thomas Skidmore, Owings & Merrill 312-360-4467 =20 =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3DYou received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C64D.87E20F7E Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable specific energie in office buildings

Thanks for all the information I received.  The questions about the vertical height limits used in = closed piping systems for tall buildings, the alternative locations for pumps = and equipment in piping systems, and determining the number of and location = of mechanical floors came up when viewing piping riser diagrams at a = graduate course at IIT-Chicago. 300 psi is equivalent to 690 ft (about 50 = floors), but plate & frame HX’s can be designed for higher pressures up to = 450 psi (over 1000 ft).  Shell & tube HXs are designed for even higher pressures so why not break the piping system every 1000 ft with a HX = when pumping say district CHW up to cooling coils at say 2000 ft.  The = riser diagram that I presented to the class was based on a real project and = showed plate & frame HXs and the pump location on the discharge side of the HX.  I was hoping to find published literature on this topic and on = piping systems design for high-rise buildings in general explaining the pros = & cons of different piping arrangements. 

 

Riser diagrams and equipment = schedules on HVAC, Plumbing & Fire Protection drawings identify most of the = energy consuming products in the base building with a few exceptions such as elevators.  All energy consuming products in the building and their operating profiles have to be entered as input into energy programs to = get the correct electrical demand costs.  Is there any interest in = developing a teaching design manual for graduate courses in “Energy Efficient = Building Design” and “Energy Codes & Code Compliance”? =  The manual would be developed with the support of architectural-engineering = design firms and would emphasize case studies of different types of = buildings.

 

Varkie Thomas, Ph.D., P.E., CEM

Adjunct Professor, Illinois = Institute of Technology.

 

 

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: Kirchhoff, Eric [mailto:EKirchhoff at semprasolutions.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December = 17, 2003 6:42 PM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] Pump = location

 

From = design experience, plate-frame heat exchangers can be quite expensive, = particularly when you have to rate the HX for high pressures.  There are two = kinds of plate HXs, gasketed and soldered.  Getting a soldered type sort of = defeats one of the main advantages of a plate-frame type HX, its = expandability.  The gasketed type for high-pressure applications are less in supply and as a = result cost a lot.  The highest-pressure rating I’ve seen for a gasketed-type plate-frame HX is 300 psia.

 

My = following comments apply to a gasketed-type plate-frame heat = exchanger.

 

(1) = How high do you want to go?  This is really an indirect question related to the = fill pressure of the system, the location of the expansion tank, and the = location of the HX in the system.  Note that when you fill the system, you need = an addition 2 to 5 psig of pressure to allow the water to spit out of the = top of the system, ensuring the entire system is filled and most (if not all) = of the air is out.  (2) By putting the HX at the pump discharge means you = will feel the full impact of the dynamic head of the pump and static head of = the system at that location.  Not the best place in large systems like = campuses or district energy plants. (3) When including the comments provided in = (2) previously, one can then note that you can eliminate the dynamic head = from the equation.  (4) HX exposed to all of the static head plus the = dynamic head depending upon the placement of the pump in relation to the HX.  = (5) Your static head is minimum, and dynamic head is again only that contribution depending on the pump’s placement in relation to the HX.  = Note this is probably your cheapest plate-frame HX since the pressure is probably = the lowest (assuming the expansion tank is also located at the suction inlet = of the pump).  (6) I don’t know exactly what you mean = here.

 

As = for what are the issues when the HX is replaced with other equipment such as chillers and boilers:  this will depend upon the system you are dealing = with.  Are there existing chillers and boilers being displaced by this = replacement?  Why?  Is it of economic benefit to the owner?  Higher = efficient device?  Perhaps you are referring to the approach = temperature.  Note the closer the approach temperature, the more expensive the heat exchanger.  However, the closer the approach temperature, the more efficient the system.  For example, if you have a chilled-water = system circulating water at a 14 delta T, and you have a heat exchanger with a = 2 degree approach, then the load side of the heat exchanger operates at a = 10 degree delta T.  If you have the same chiller system circulating = water at 14 degrees delta T and you have a 1-degree approach, then your load side = of the heat exchanger can operate at a 12-degree delta T.  As you can = intuitively see, the one-degree approach HX provides for a more efficient = system.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Eric Kirchhoff, = PE

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Varkie Thomas [mailto:Varkie.Thomas at som.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December = 17, 2003 3:05 PM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] Pump = location

 

I am looking for information (articles, research papers, case studies) on the = effect of the location of the pump relative to a plate and frame heat exchanger = in a closed piping system.  Some of the issues are (1) the vertical = height of the piping system (1000’ to 2000’), how high can you go, (2) pumping thru HX, (3) pumping away from HX, (4) pump and HX located at = bottom of system, (5) pump and HX at top of system, and (6) pump start up.  = What are the issues when the HX is replaced with other equipment such as chillers = and boilers?

 

Varkie Thomas

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

312-360-4467

 

 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DYou received this e-mail =
because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing =
list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a =
blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are =
subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  =
To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message =
to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C64D.87E20F7E-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: particularly when you have to rate the HX for high pressures. There are two kinds of plate HXs, gasketed and soldered. Getting a soldered type sort of defeats one of the main advantages of a plate-frame type HX, its expandability. The gasketed type for high-pressure applications are less in supply and as a result cost a lot. The highest-pressure rating I've seen for a gasketed-type plate-frame HX is 300 psia. My following comments apply to a gasketed-type plate-frame heat exchanger. (1) How high do you want to go? This is really an indirect question related to the fill pressure of the system, the location of the expansion tank, and the location of the HX in the system. Note that when you fill the system, you need an addition 2 to 5 psig of pressure to allow the water to spit out of the top of the system, ensuring the entire system is filled and most (if not all) of the air is out. (2) By putting the HX at the pump discharge means you will feel the full impact of the dynamic head of the pump and static head of the system at that location. Not the best place in large systems like campuses or district energy plants. (3) When including the comments provided in (2) previously, one can then note that you can eliminate the dynamic head from the equation. (4) HX exposed to all of the static head plus the dynamic head depending upon the placement of the pump in relation to the HX. (5) Your static head is minimum, and dynamic head is again only that contribution depending on the pump's placement in relation to the HX. Note this is probably your cheapest plate-frame HX since the pressure is probably the lowest (assuming the expansion tank is also located at the suction inlet of the pump). (6) I don't know exactly what you mean here. As for what are the issues when the HX is replaced with other equipment such as chillers and boilers: this will depend upon the system you are dealing with. Are there existing chillers and boilers being displaced by this replacement? Why? Is it of economic benefit to the owner? Higher efficient device? Perhaps you are referring to the approach temperature. Note the closer the approach temperature, the more expensive the heat exchanger. However, the closer the approach temperature, the more efficient the system. For example, if you have a chilled-water system circulating water at a 14 delta T, and you have a heat exchanger with a 2 degree approach, then the load side of the heat exchanger operates at a 10 degree delta T. If you have the same chiller system circulating water at 14 degrees delta T and you have a 1-degree approach, then your load side of the heat exchanger can operate at a 12-degree delta T. As you can intuitively see, the one-degree approach HX provides for a more efficient system. Sincerely, Eric Kirchhoff, PE -----Original Message----- From: Varkie Thomas [mailto:Varkie.Thomas at som.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 3:05 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Pump location I am looking for information (articles, research papers, case studies) on the effect of the location of the pump relative to a plate and frame heat exchanger in a closed piping system. Some of the issues are (1) the vertical height of the piping system (1000' to 2000'), how high can you go, (2) pumping thru HX, (3) pumping away from HX, (4) pump and HX located at bottom of system, (5) pump and HX at top of system, and (6) pump start up. What are the issues when the HX is replaced with other equipment such as chillers and boilers? Varkie Thomas Skidmore, Owings & Merrill 312-360-4467 =====================================================You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C4FF.C27A37C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable specific energie in office buildings

F= rom design experience, plate-frame heat exchangers can be quite expensive, = particularly when you have to rate the HX for high pressures.  There are two kinds of plate HXs, gasketed and soldered.  Getting a = soldered type sort of defeats one of the main advantages of a plate-frame type HX, = its expandability.  The = gasketed type for high-pressure applications are less in supply and as a result cost a = lot.  The highest-pressure rating = I’ve seen for a gasketed-type plate-frame HX is 300 = psia.

<= ![if = !supportEmptyParas]> 

=

M= y following comments apply to a gasketed-type plate-frame heat = exchanger.

<= ![if = !supportEmptyParas]> 

=

(= 1) How high do you want to go?  = This is really an indirect question related to the fill pressure of the system, = the location of the expansion tank, and the location of the HX in the = system.  Note that when you fill the = system, you need an addition 2 to 5 psig of pressure to allow the water to spit out = of the top of the system, ensuring the entire system is filled and most (if = not all) of the air is out.  (2) = By putting the HX at the pump discharge means you will feel the full impact of the = dynamic head of the pump and static head of the system at that location.  Not the best place in large = systems like campuses or district energy plants. (3) When including the = comments provided in (2) previously, one can then note that you can eliminate = the dynamic head from the equation.  (4) HX exposed to all of the static head plus the dynamic head depending = upon the placement of the pump in relation to the HX.  (5) Your static head is minimum, and dynamic head is = again only that contribution depending on the pump’s placement in = relation to the HX.  Note this is probably your = cheapest plate-frame HX since the pressure is probably the lowest (assuming the expansion = tank is also located at the suction inlet of the pump).  (6) I don’t know exactly what you mean = here.

<= ![if = !supportEmptyParas]> 

=

A= s for what are the issues when the HX is replaced with other equipment such = as chillers and boilers:  = this will depend upon the system you are dealing with.  Are there existing chillers and boilers being = displaced by this replacement?  = Why?  Is it of economic benefit to = the owner?  Higher efficient = device?  Perhaps you are referring to = the approach temperature.  = Note the closer the approach temperature, the more expensive the heat = exchanger.  However, the closer the = approach temperature, the more efficient the system.  For example, if you have a chilled-water system = circulating water at a 14 delta T, and you have a heat exchanger with a 2 degree = approach, then the load side of the heat exchanger operates at a 10 degree delta = T.  If you have the same chiller = system circulating water at 14 degrees delta T and you have a 1-degree = approach, then your load side of the heat exchanger can operate at a 12-degree delta = T.  As you can intuitively see, = the one-degree approach HX provides for a more efficient = system.

<= ![if !supportEmptyParas]> 

<= ![if = !supportEmptyParas]> 

=

S= incerely,

<= ![if = !supportEmptyParas]> 

=

Eric Kirchhoff, = PE<= /p>

 <= /p>

=  

=

-----Original Message-----
From: Varkie Thomas [mailto:Varkie.Thomas at som.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = December 17, 2003 3:05 PM
To: = bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] Pump = location

 

I am looking = for information (articles, research papers, case studies) on the effect of = the location of the pump relative to a plate and frame heat exchanger in a = closed piping system.  Some of the issues are (1) the vertical height of = the piping system (1000’ to 2000’), how high can you go, (2) = pumping thru HX, (3) pumping away from HX, (4) pump and HX located at bottom of system, (5) = pump and HX at top of system, and (6) pump start up.  What are the issues = when the HX is replaced with other equipment such as chillers and = boilers?=

 =

Varkie = Thomas=

Skidmore, = Owings & Merrill

312-360-4467=

 = 

 =

 =

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DYou received this =
e-mail because you are subscribed =

to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing =
list.  To unsubscribe =
=

from this mailing list send a =
blank message to =

BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM=


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3C4FF.C27A37C0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: screen 2=20 and click on the drop down arrow for Footprint Shape and select Custom, = select=20 Blank Slate, and OK.  This is also where you can select an AutoCAD = drawing=20 if you have one.  Then outline your shape.  You may want to go = through=20 the tutorial, but one important point is to create your shapes in a = counter=20 clockwise direction.  You can do the same sort of thing with zones = from=20 screen 2 of the wizard.  Be sure to complete the floor first.  = Any=20 changes to the floor can mess with your already completed=20 zones.
 
Try it, and=20 if you still want to draw in detailed edit mode, let me know and I will = help you=20 through it.  Or if you have any trouble with using eQUEST to draw, = I can=20 probably there, also.
 
Good=20 luck,
 
Mike
 
-----Original Message-----
From: postman at gard.com=20 [mailto:postman at gard.com]On Behalf Of fernando
Sent: = Friday,=20 March 31, 2000 2:04 AM
To: = BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject:=20 [BLDG-SIM] e-quest things

Dear users:
 
My name is Fernando, and I am a = doctorate student=20 in the university of Valladolid, Spain.
I followed your advice and change = from powerdoe=20 to e-quest, but now I have some problems, that I'm sure that are easy = to solve=20 but I can't.
 
First, as I am used to powerdoe, I = prefer using=20 the detailed data edit, but first I must begin with the wizard and = close it.=20 Is there any way to begin directly in detailed data edit?
 
Second, when I try to create a = polygon from=20 scratch, I'm obligued to write the first three vertex, I cannot use = directly=20 the editor with the *dwg drawing.I have to create a polygon of three = vertex=20 and then modify it with the *dwg drawing editor. I don't know if there = is an=20 alternative way to do this. In the help document it is mentioned = that=20 there is an add/delete vertex mode and a select shape mode, but I = cannot find=20 it, I only find them in powerdoe.
 
Third, when I create a construction = from a layers=20 input, I cannot see the useful drawing of the construction thermal = behaviour,=20 instead it appears the message "heat transfer graph goes here". I = don't=20 know if it is a downloading error, a bug or that it is not = developed=20 yet.
 
And last of all, when I = create exterior=20 walls, they don't appear in the 3d figure until I close the program = and reload=20 the project. Strange, isn't it?  
 
Thank you very = much. 
 
Fernando Varela D=EDez
C=E1tedra = de=20 Termotecnia
Escuela de Ingenieros Industriales
Universidad de=20 Valladolid
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C4170C.A5CC69E0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: using Con-Ed steam and electric rates you mentioned, for a typical = office building you will see a benefit in using steam-turbine chillers = (either option 2 and 3, depending on your electrical load factor and = refrigeration full load hours). Of course, assuming that in all the = cases you use reasonably efficient refrigeration machines. =20 Here is how you do it in Doe2.1: =20 INPUT PLANT.. =20 ELEC-DRIVE=3DPLANT-EQUIPMENT TYPE=3DHERM-CENT-CHLR SIZE=3D24 INSTALLED-NUMBER=3D1 MAX-NUMBER-AVAIL=3D1 .. =20 =20 STEAM-CHILLER =3D PLANT-EQUIPMENT TYPE =3D ABSOR2-CHLR SIZE =3D 24 MAX-NUMBER-AVAIL=3D1 .. .. =20 EQUIPMENT-QUAD ABSOR2-CAP-FT=3DCCAPT3 ABSOR2-HIR-FT=3DEIRT3 ABSOR2-HIR-FPLR=3DEIRPLR3 .. =20 . . . =20 Then in PLANT PARAMETRS you specify=20 =20 ABSOR2-HIR =3D ? Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have further questions Konstantin Babets Jaros Baum and Bolles (212) 530 9455 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Varkie Thomas=20 To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM=20 Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 10:40 AM Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Steam-Turbine Drive Centrigugal LiquidChillers Steve: I received other responses suggesting the same thing: 1. Use 2 stage absorption chiller with HIR of the turbine 2. Assign PLR curves of centrifugal chiller to corresponding curves of = absorption machine. I assume this will produce reasonably accurate steam consumption of = the steam-turbine. I need a sample DOE2 Plant "inp" or "bdl" statements = showing how to do this. The chillers in question are York model YST. = York will provide the performance data. The location is NYC and the = utility rates are ConEd Steam Service Classification 2 (lower rates in = summer) and ConEd Electric Service Classification 9 Rate II - General = Large Time of Use=20 = http://q050-www5.coned.com/es/tariffs/ps.asp?URL=3Dtariffs.htm&s=3Dtariff= s Since there are several buildings in NYC that use a hybrid plant of = steam-turbine and electric-motor drive chillers, I assume studies have = already been done justifying this combination. So far I have found the = ASHRAE Sept 2003 article: Advances in Steam Cooling by Ian Spanswick I would like to compare the following alternative options: (1) two = 2000-ton electric-drive chillers, (2) two 2000-ton steam-drive chillers = and (3) one 2000-ton electric-drive chiller and one 2000-ton steam-drive = chiller sequenced to "start first" based on ConEd year-round steam and = electric rates. This would be for (A) a building that operates 24 hours = per day such as a hospital, and (B) an office building that operates 7 = AM - 6 PM, Mon-Fri. I would also like to see a life cycle cost analysis = of the alternative options. Have such studies been done for buildings = located in cities with district steam (NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, = Minneapolis)? The Trane TRACE700 program (which we also use in this office along = with Carrier's HAP program) models steam-turbine chillers. However the = building in question has already been modeled in detail with DOE2.1E = using electric chillers. I prefer to use DOE2.1E directly (we also have = eQUEST and EnergyPro in the office) for LEED certification and to show = Code compliance. The building description language (bdl) provides = flexibility and it can be read like a specification for others to = review. Does this program have a future? How many A-E design firms are = using EnergyPlus on large commercial building projects? Varkie Thomas -----Original Message----- From: postman at gard.com [mailto:postman at gard.com] On Behalf Of = stvgates at pacbell.net Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:13 PM To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Steam-Turbine Drive Centrigugal Liquid Chillers You would need to model it as an absorption chiller. The chiller's = heat input ratio and performance curves would need to reflect the = combination of the steam turbine and the chiller compressor. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Varkie Thomas=20 To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM=20 Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:58 PM Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Steam-Turbine Drive Centrigugal Liquid Chillers Has anyone modeled steam turbine drive centrifugal chillers with = DOE2.1E? Is it possible to add this equipment to DOE2, given the part = load performance data? Varkie Thomas =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C4A7AC.FEF6FEF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable specific energie in office buildings

Varkie,

 

From my experience in = modeling=20 similar plant combinations in NYC and using Con-Ed steam and = electric=20 rates you mentioned, for a typical office building you will see a = benefit in=20 using steam-turbine chillers (either option 2 and 3, depending on your=20 electrical load factor and refrigeration full load hours). Of course, = assuming=20 that in all the cases you use reasonably efficient refrigeration=20 machines.

 

Here is how you do it in=20 Doe2.1:

 

INPUT = PLANT..

 

ELEC-DRIVE=3DPLANT-EQUIPMENT

 TYPE=3DHERM-CENT-CHLR

 SIZE=3D24

 INSTALLED-NUMBER=3D1

 MAX-NUMBER-AVAIL=3D1=20 ..

 

 

STEAM-CHILLER =3D=20 PLANT-EQUIPMENT

TYPE =3D=20 ABSOR2-CHLR

SIZE =3D=20 24

MAX-NUMBER-AVAIL=3D1=20 ..

..

 

EQUIPMENT-QUAD

ABSOR2-CAP-FT=3DCCAPT3

ABSOR2-HIR-FT=3DEIRT3

ABSOR2-HIR-FPLR=3DEIRPLR3

..

 

.

.

.

 

Then in PLANT = PARAMETRS you=20 specify

 

ABSOR2-HIR=20 =3D ?
 
Hope this helps.
 
Please let me know if you have further = questions
 
Konstantin Babets
Jaros Baum and Bolles
(212) 530 9455
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Varkie=20 Thomas
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 = 10:40=20 AM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] = Steam-Turbine Drive=20 Centrigugal LiquidChillers

Steve:

 

I received other responses = suggesting the=20 same thing:

 

1. Use 2 stage = absorption chiller=20 with HIR of the turbine

2. Assign PLR curves of=20 centrifugal chiller to corresponding curves of absorption=20 machine.

 

I assume this will produce = reasonably=20 accurate steam consumption of the steam-turbine.  I need a sample = DOE2=20 Plant =93inp=94 or =93bdl=94 statements showing how to do this.  = The chillers in=20 question are York model YST.  York will provide the performance data.  The = location is=20 NYC and the utility rates are ConEd Steam Service Classification 2 = (lower=20 rates in summer) and ConEd Electric Service Classification 9 Rate II - = General=20 Large Time of Use

 

http://q050-www5.coned.com/es/tariffs/ps.asp?URL=3Dtariffs= .htm&s=3Dtariffs

 

Since there are several = buildings in NYC=20 that use a hybrid plant of steam-turbine and electric-motor drive = chillers, I=20 assume studies have already been done justifying this = combination.  So=20 far I have found the ASHRAE Sept 2003 article: Advances in Steam = Cooling by=20 Ian Spanswick

 

I would like to compare the = following=20 alternative options: (1) two 2000-ton electric-drive chillers, (2) two = 2000-ton steam-drive chillers and (3) one 2000-ton electric-drive = chiller and=20 one 2000-ton steam-drive chiller sequenced to =93start first=94 based = on ConEd=20 year-round steam and electric rates.  This would be for (A) a = building=20 that operates 24 hours per day such as a hospital, and (B) an office = building=20 that operates 7 AM =96 6 PM, Mon-Fri.  I would also like to see a = life=20 cycle cost analysis of the alternative options.  Have such = studies been=20 done for buildings located in cities with district steam (NYC,=20 Boston, Philadelphia, Minneapolis)?

 

The Trane TRACE700 program = (which we also=20 use in this office along with Carrier=92s HAP program) models = steam-turbine=20 chillers.  However the building in question has already been = modeled in=20 detail with DOE2.1E using electric chillers.  I prefer to use = DOE2.1E=20 directly (we also have eQUEST and EnergyPro in the office) for LEED=20 certification and to show Code compliance.  The building = description=20 language (bdl) provides flexibility and it can be read like a = specification=20 for others to review.  Does this program have a future?  How = many=20 A-E design firms are using EnergyPlus on large commercial building=20 projects?

 

Varkie Thomas

 

 

 

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 postman at gard.com [mailto:postman at gard.com] On Behalf Of=20 stvgates at pacbell.net
Sent: Thursday, September=20 30, 2004 5:13=20 PM
To: = BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] = Steam-Turbine=20 Drive Centrigugal Liquid=20 Chillers

 

You would need to model = it as an=20 absorption chiller.  The chiller's heat input ratio and = performance=20 curves would need to reflect the combination of the steam turbine and = the=20 chiller compressor.

----- Original Message = -----=20

From: Varkie=20 Thomas

To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM=20

Sent:=20 Thursday, September = 30,=20 2004 12:58=20 PM

Subject:=20 [BLDG-SIM] Steam-Turbine=20 Drive Centrigugal Liquid=20 Chillers

 

Has anyone=20 modeled steam turbine drive centrifugal chillers with DOE2.1E?  = Is it=20 possible to add this equipment to DOE2, given the part load = performance=20 data?

 

Varkie=20 Thomas

 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C4A7AC.FEF6FEF0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: You can expect reasonable energy delivery (approx 40% efficiency) up to 10 C (20 F) above ambient temperature. This assumes that the building surfaces are oriented toward the sun. To get higher temperatures you would need glazed collectors. Might not be a bad idea for free heat and would reduce the cooling load slightly. I would hate to have to service clogged or broken pipes that are embedded in concrete. Use cross linked poly ethylene pipe with an oxygen barrier. -----Original Message----- From: postman at gard.com [mailto:postman at gard.com] On Behalf Of Catherine MacCallum Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 4:19 PM To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Solar hot water heat collectors integrated into the envelope? Does anyone have any experience using pipes integrated into the building envelope as solar collectors? I am involved in a project in Mexico where the design team would like to incorporate solar hot water heating as much as possible but don't like the look of standard commercial solar collectors. As an alternative, they are interested in embedding pipes in the roof surface. The pipes would be covered in a thin layer of concrete (or possibly copper roofing). This is obviously not the most efficient system but the site receives a lot of sun and there is a large roof area available. Has anyone heard of similar installations? Any suggestions based on past experience? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Catherine ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: (cold winter) climates, I have seen where a heating dominated building = =3D heating dominated climate; has been turned into a cooling dominated building because of over-design with energy conserving strategies (ie too high of R-values and use of heat recovery), in addition to ignoring the type of occupancy and/or the hours of operation of the building. I understand that this doesn't help you directly, but I wanted to support Mitchell's comments about fully knowing your building and it's occupancy in order to understand why you might be seeing your energy results go in the opposite direction of what you would initally expect. Also you might find that using high performance glazing such as the values you are proposing (might I assume this is a Visionwall or heat mirror glazing assembly performance) are truly more beneficial in eliminating the need (and Capital cost) of installing a perimeter heating system. The reason being, with this high R-value performance of the glazing system, you have neutralized the skin losses, and the situation may actually become more of a thermal comfort issue, rather than an energy conserving issue. I had this exact thing happen when trying to apply and model the Visionwall 4-element (triple-pane equivalent) glazing system to a University building in Winnepeg, Manitoba. The true benefit of the application of the U =3D 0.19 performance value I was modelling was not in the energy savings, but in the lack of need to install a perimeter heating system, ultimately saving the project over $90,000 capital cost and resulting in less than a 1 year payback for the University. The short payback was associated more with the offset of capital cost, rather than the energy cost savings for the high performance glazing. Hope this gives you more ideas to think about. cheers, Pasha Korber Associate LEED Accredited Professional Stantec Consulting 2742 17th Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Phone: 415-626-6864 Direct: 415-706-9518 Fax: 415-626-1268 pkorber at stantec.com stantec.com >>> Mitchell Dec 12/15/05 1:27 PM >>> When using a "high performance glazing" you need to be careful. Every building has a different signature (i.e. different shape, size, occupancy, climate, etc.) Therefore, one should be careful to say a "high performance" glazing is better than a lesser performance glazing. It is best to model a wide range of u-values such that you can see which glazing is optimal for the specific building. Often, one will see that a manufacturer says it is "high performance" which it is on its own. But, couple that with your wall insulation and the "high performance" wall configuration requires a different u-value. =20 You will see a point of diminishing return and in many cases a point at which the lower window u-value coupled with your wall insulation will in fact cause one load to go up and the other to go down or vice versa, depending on your climate. This is also similar in determining when you have too much or too little insulation. What "high performance" glazings do is allow an opportunity to determine what the most cost effective path is, decreased window u-value or increased wall insulation. Therefore, one is able to have several optimization paths. =20 I find it convenient to produce a graphical representation (excel is pretty easy for this) to graph the variable versus the desired output (energy used or dollars saved, if a LEED project). =20 I hope this helps. =20 -Mitch =20 Mitchell J. Dec Energy Analyst 503.345.6283 | mdec at glumac.com =20 =20 _____ =20 320 SW Washington, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204-2640 T. 503.227.5280 F. 503.274.7674 Thinking. Inside the building. http://www.glumac.com/ =20 -----Original Message----- From: Zoeteman, Mark R. [mailto:mrzoeteman at FTCH.com] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:53 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] High Performance Glazing I am modeling high performance glazing with U=3D0.14, SC=3D0.35 and comparing to typical 1" thick insulating low-e glass with U=3D0.33, SC=3D0.76. Climate is midwest US and 86% of the glass is facing north. The north wall is basically all glass and spandrel. Heating is suppied from district steam supply. Results show increased steam energy consumption from February through September with high performance glazing and less for remaining winter months. HVAC system is VAV with hot water reheat coils. Overall annual steam energy consumption reduction is very small. I expected to see significant heating energy savings due to increased perimeter R-value. Has anyone modeled high performance glazing and seen similar results?=20 Mark Zoeteman FTC&H, Inc.=20 (616) 464-3739 mrzoeteman at ftch.com=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3DYou received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: (cold winter) climates, I have seen where a heating dominated building =3D = heating dominated climate; has been turned into a cooling dominated = building because of over-design with energy conserving strategies (ie too = high of R-values and use of heat recovery), in addition to ignoring the = type of occupancy and/or the hours of operation of the building. I = understand that this doesn't help you directly, but I wanted to support = Mitchell's comments about fully knowing your building and it's occupancy = in order to understand why you might be seeing your energy results go in = the opposite direction of what you would initally expect. Also you might find that using high performance glazing such as the values = you are proposing (might I assume this is a Visionwall or heat mirror = glazing assembly performance) are truly more beneficial in eliminating the = need (and Capital cost) of installing a perimeter heating system. The = reason being, with this high R-value performance of the glazing system, = you have neutralized the skin losses, and the situation may actually = become more of a thermal comfort issue, rather than an energy conserving = issue. I had this exact thing happen when trying to apply and model the = Visionwall 4-element (triple-pane equivalent) glazing system to a = University building in Winnepeg, Manitoba. The true benefit of the = application of the U =3D 0.19 performance value I was modelling was not in = the energy savings, but in the lack of need to install a perimeter heating = system, ultimately saving the project over $90,000 capital cost and = resulting in less than a 1 year payback for the University. The short = payback was associated more with the offset of capital cost, rather than = the energy cost savings for the high performance glazing. Hope this gives you more ideas to think about. cheers, Pasha Korber Associate LEED Accredited Professional Stantec Consulting 2742 17th Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Phone: 415-626-6864 Direct: 415-706-9518 Fax: 415-626-1268 pkorber at stantec.com stantec.com >>> Mitchell Dec 12/15/05 1:27 PM >>> When using a "high performance glazing" you need to be careful. Every building has a different signature (i.e. different shape, size, occupancy, climate, etc.) Therefore, one should be careful to say a "high performance= " glazing is better than a lesser performance glazing. It is best to model = a wide range of u-values such that you can see which glazing is optimal for the specific building. Often, one will see that a manufacturer says it is "high performance" which it is on its own. But, couple that with your = wall insulation and the "high performance" wall configuration requires a different u-value. =20 You will see a point of diminishing return and in many cases a point at which the lower window u-value coupled with your wall insulation will in fact cause one load to go up and the other to go down or vice versa, depending on your climate. This is also similar in determining when you have too much or too little insulation. What "high performance" glazings = do is allow an opportunity to determine what the most cost effective path is, decreased window u-value or increased wall insulation. Therefore, one is able to have several optimization paths. =20 I find it convenient to produce a graphical representation (excel is = pretty easy for this) to graph the variable versus the desired output (energy = used or dollars saved, if a LEED project). =20 I hope this helps. =20 -Mitch =20 Mitchell J. Dec Energy Analyst=20 503.345.6283 | mdec at glumac.com =20 =20 _____ =20 320 SW Washington, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204-2640 T. 503.227.5280 F. 503.274.7674 Thinking. Inside the building. http://www.glumac.com/ =20 -----Original Message----- From: Zoeteman, Mark R. [mailto:mrzoeteman at FTCH.com] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:53 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] High Performance Glazing I am modeling high performance glazing with U=3D0.14, SC=3D0.35 and = comparing to typical 1" thick insulating low-e glass with U=3D0.33, SC=3D0.76. Climate = is midwest US and 86% of the glass is facing north. The north wall is = basically all glass and spandrel. Heating is suppied from district steam supply. Results show increased steam energy consumption from February through September with high performance glazing and less for remaining winter months. HVAC system is VAV with hot water reheat coils. Overall annual steam energy consumption reduction is very small. I = expected to see significant heating energy savings due to increased perimeter R-value. Has anyone modeled high performance glazing and seen similar results?=20 Mark Zoeteman=20 FTC&H, Inc.=20 (616) 464-3739=20 mrzoeteman at ftch.com=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3DYou received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: buildings and alterations to existing buildings) the proposed standards are estimated to reduce the growth in electricity by 479 GWh and to reduce the growth in peak demand by 182.3 MW. In addition, natural gas use is expected to be reduced by 8.9 million therms. The savings will accumulate as the Standards affect each subsequent year of constructions. After two years the savings will double; they will triple after three years and they will be ten times in the tenth year. Jon McHugh, PE, LC Technical Director Heschong Mahone Group Inc. 11626 Fair Oaks Blvd #302 Fair Oaks, CA 95628 (Sacramento) (916)962-7001 ext 38 (916)962-0101 FAX e-mail: mchugh at h-m-g.com URL: www.h-m-g.com -----Original Message----- From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Elmer Morrissey Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 5:44 AM To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Title 24 benefits Hello all, I have a simple enough request, does anyone know of any papers or literature pertaining to the increased energy efficiency benefits leveraged from Title 24 in the last few years? Kind regards -Elmer Morrissey=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: buildings and alterations to existing buildings) the proposed standards are estimated to reduce the growth in electricity by 479 GWh and to reduce the growth in peak demand by 182.3 MW. In addition, natural gas use is expected to be reduced by 8.9 million therms. The savings will accumulate as the Standards affect each subsequent year of constructions. After two years the savings will double; they will triple after three years and they will be ten times in the tenth year. Jon McHugh, PE, LC Technical Director Heschong Mahone Group Inc. 11626 Fair Oaks Blvd #302 Fair Oaks, CA 95628 (Sacramento) (916)962-7001 ext 38 (916)962-0101 FAX e-mail: mchugh at h-m-g.com URL: www.h-m-g.com -----Original Message----- From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Elmer Morrissey Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 5:44 AM To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Title 24 benefits Hello all, I have a simple enough request, does anyone know of any papers or literature pertaining to the increased energy efficiency benefits leveraged from Title 24 in the last few years? Kind regards -Elmer Morrissey=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: BLAST so I suppose EnergyPlus has some extra features but I'm not sure = if that is right. =20 Best regards, Renato Sousa Tel: +351 919 316 221 | E-mail: renato.sousa at fluidinova.pt =20 ___________________________________________________ FluidInova, Engenharia de Fluidos, SA TECMAIA - Parque de Ci=EAncia e Tecnologia da Maia Rua Eng=BA Frederico Ulrich, n=BA 2650 | 4470-605 Moreira da Maia | = Portugal =20 Tel: +351 229 408 265 | Fax: +351 229 408 266 E-mail: geral at fluidinova.pt | Web: = www.fluidinova.pt/ =20 =20 =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D29.F351334C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here=20 is some more information on EnergyPlus simulation run times. =20
 
I recently did a study with 5,374 = EnergyPlus=20 baseline models covering virtually every kind and size of = commercial=20 building out there (as reflected in 1999 CBECS public use data).  = These are=20 all full-blown, annual building models with 5-zone-per-floor = thermal=20 zoning, 15-minute timesteps, PSZ and VAV HVAC systems, etc, = etc. =20
 
Here=20 is a summary of the run times I encountered:
 
Average:  4.53 minutes
Standard Deviation: 3.15 minutes
Minimum: 0.92 minutes
Maximum: 16.6 minutes
 
These=20 were run on 3GHz, 64 bit AMD processors running Linux=20 with a 64-bit-compile of Version 1.2.3.  =
 
I = have learned=20 the hard way that it is entirely possible (and quite tempting) to = create=20 overly-complicated EnergyPlus models that will lead to excessive run=20 times.  To speed things up, use Zone multipliers = wherever=20 practical and keep the number of windows and surfaces low.   I = also set Minimum System Timestep to 5 minutes, and Maximum HVAC = Iterations=20 to 5.
 
Brent Griffith, = NREL
 

 -----Original=20 Message-----
From: bldg-sim at gard.com = [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com]On=20 Behalf Of Mahabir Bhandari
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, = 2006 11:41=20 AM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] = EnergyPlus -=20 DOE

Brian,

 

I think one additional difference from = uses’ point of=20 view, which is not reported in this report, is simulation run time. It = seems=20 EnergyPlus takes 5-10 times longer to complete a whole year = simulations than=20 DOE2. I was running a simple 5 story building with VAV system and it = took me=20 more than 40 minutes for annual hourly simulations (1 hr time step) in = EnergyPlus while eQuest could run the same building in less than 5 = minutes. I=20 am interested in hearing from others on the run time=20 issue.

 

Mahabir = Bhandari

 

 

From: Brian=20 Fountain [mailto:bfountain at greensim.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, = 2006 12:12=20 PM
To:=20 bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject:=20 [bldg-sim] EnergyPlus - DOE

 

That is a = big=20 question.

 

For a = comparison of=20 current energy simulation software, you could look at Dru = Crawley’s paper=20 comparing 20 tools:

http://= www.energytoolsdirectory.gov/pdfs/contrasting_the_capabilities_of_buildin= g_energy_performance_simulation_programs_v1.0.pdf<= /o:p>

 

Main = differences=20 between DOE and EnergyPlus: 

1)     =20 DOE = calculates the=20 space loads for each hour then calculates the system and plant = response for=20 each hour.  EnergyPlus simultaneously solves the loads the = system/plant=20 response for each timestep.

2)     =20 DOE has a = fixed 1=20 hour timestep, EnergyPlus has a variable timestep (down to 1=20 minute?).

3)     =20 There are = also key=20 issues with the weighting factor assumptions, the wall convective=20 coefficients.

 

I = haven’t used=20 EnergyPlus much yet.  What did I miss = guys?

 

Brian=20 Fountain

 

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Renato = Sousa
Sent: January 18, 2006 10:56=20 AM
To:=20 bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject:=20 [bldg-sim] EnergyPlus - DOE

 

Hello=20 everybody.

 

I would like to know if = anybody=20 has experience on using both EnergyPlus and=20 DOE.

Currently I'm using an = interface=20 for EnergyPlus. From the software description I couldn't find out the = main=20 differences between EnergyPlus and DOE. Does anyone know the main = differences=20 or where can I find them?

 

From the description it = is said=20 that EnergyPlus was based on DOE and BLAST so I suppose EnergyPlus has = some=20 extra features but I'm not sure if that is=20 right.

 

Best=20 regards,

Renato=20 Sousa

Tel:=20 +351 919 316 221 | E-mail: renato.sousa at fluidinova.pt=

 

___________________________________________________<= /B>

FluidInova,=20 Engenharia de Fluidos, SA

TECMAIA=20 - Parque de Ci=EAncia e Tecnologia da=20 Maia

Rua=20 Eng=BA Frederico Ulrich, n=BA 2650 | 4470-605 Moreira da = Maia |=20 Portugal             =20     

Tel:=20 +351 229 408 265 | Fax: +351 229 408=20 266

E-mail: geral at fluidinova.pt<= /SPAN> | Web: www.fluidinova.pt/

 

 

 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You =
received this e-mail because you are subscribed =

to the =
BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe =

from this =
mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are =
subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM =
mailing list.  To unsubscribe =

from this mailing list send a =
blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
<= PRE> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM 

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D29.F351334C-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: BLAST so I suppose EnergyPlus has some extra features but I'm not sure = if that is right. =20 Best regards, Renato Sousa Tel: +351 919 316 221 | E-mail: renato.sousa at fluidinova.pt =20 ___________________________________________________ FluidInova, Engenharia de Fluidos, SA TECMAIA - Parque de Ci=EAncia e Tecnologia da Maia Rua Eng=BA Frederico Ulrich, n=BA 2650 | 4470-605 Moreira da Maia | = Portugal =20 Tel: +351 229 408 265 | Fax: +351 229 408 266 E-mail: geral at fluidinova.pt | Web: = www.fluidinova.pt/ =20 =20 =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D0B.B31FD7E3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Energy Plus can calculate moisture = and heat transfer at the same time and much = more.

 

From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Brian Fountain
Sent: Wednesday, January = 18, 2006 12:12 PM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] = EnergyPlus - DOE

 

That is a big = question.

 

=

For a comparison of current energy simulation software, you could look at Dru Crawley’s paper = comparing 20 tools:

http://= www.energytoolsdirectory.gov/pdfs/contrasting_the_capabilities_of_buildin= g_energy_performance_simulation_programs_v1.0.pdf<= /o:p>

 

=

Main differences between DOE and EnergyPlus: 

1)      DOE calculates the space loads for each hour then calculates = the system and plant response for each hour.  EnergyPlus simultaneously = solves the loads the system/plant response for each = timestep.

2)      DOE has a fixed 1 hour timestep, EnergyPlus has a variable = timestep (down to 1 minute?).

3)      There are also key issues with the weighting factor = assumptions, the wall convective coefficients.

 

=

I haven’t used EnergyPlus = much yet.  What did I miss guys?

 

=

Brian = Fountain

 

=

-----Original = Message-----
From: bldg-sim at gard.com = [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Renato = Sousa
Sent: January 18, 2006 = 10:56 AM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] = EnergyPlus - DOE

 

Hello = everybody.

 

I would like to know if = anybody has experience on using both EnergyPlus and = DOE.

Currently I'm using an = interface for EnergyPlus. From the software description I couldn't find out the main differences between EnergyPlus and DOE. Does anyone know the main = differences or where can I find them?

 

From the description it is = said that EnergyPlus was based on DOE and BLAST so I suppose EnergyPlus has some = extra features but I'm not sure if that is right.

 

Best = regards,

 

 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are =
subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  =
To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message =
to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
You =
received this e-mail because you are subscribed =

to the =
BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.=A0 To unsubscribe =

from this =
mailing list send a blank message to =

BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D0B.B31FD7E3-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: BLAST so I suppose EnergyPlus has some extra features but I'm not sure = if that is right. =20 Best regards, Renato Sousa=20 Tel: +351 919 316 221 | E-mail: renato.sousa at fluidinova.pt = =20 =20 ___________________________________________________=20 FluidInova, Engenharia de Fluidos, SA TECMAIA - Parque de Ci=EF=BF=BDncia e Tecnologia da Maia Rua Eng=EF=BF=BD Frederico Ulrich, n=EF=BF=BD 2650 | 4470-605 Moreira da = Maia | Portugal =20 Tel: +351 229 408 265 | Fax: +351 229 408 266 E-mail: geral at fluidinova.pt | Web: = www.fluidinova.pt/ =20 =20 =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the =20 BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 =20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.=EF=BF=BD To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 =20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM --=20 V=C3=A4mshi Gooj=C3=A9 ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C61CE1.6903BDB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Vamshi,

 

Just to clarify, DOE2 does NOT use steady state analysis. The = main difference in run time is due the different simulation techniques used = in these two programs. DOE2 uses sequential simulation technique while EnergyPlus = uses simultaneous simulation technique for loads, systems and plants. In DOE2 building zones, air handling systems and central plant equipment are = simulated sequentially with no feedback from one to the other while in EnergyPus = all the elements are integrated with proper feed backs and are solved simultaneously. =

Mahabir

 

From: = V=C3=A4mshi Gooj=C3=A9 [mailto:vamshi.gooje at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January = 19, 2006 9:31 AM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Cc: = bhandari at fenestration.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] = EnergyPlus - DOE

 


Mahabir,
The extended run time in EPlus could be due to transient analysis vs. = steady state in doe 2.
Vamshi

On 1/18/06, Mahabir Bhandari <bhandari at fenestration.com&g= t; wrote:

Brian,

 

I think one additional difference from uses' point of view, which is not = reported in this report, is simulation run time. It seems EnergyPlus takes 5-10 = times longer to complete a whole year simulations than DOE2. I was running a = simple 5 story building with VAV system and it took me more than 40 minutes for = annual hourly simulations (1 hr time step) in EnergyPlus while eQuest could run = the same building in less than 5 minutes. I am interested in hearing from = others on the run time issue.

 

Mahabir Bhandari

 

 

From: Brian Fountain [mailto:bfountain at greensim.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 18, 2006 12:12 PM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] = EnergyPlus - DOE

 

That is a big = question.

 

For a comparison of current energy = simulation software, you could look at Dru Crawley's paper comparing 20 = tools:

http://www.energytoolsdirectory.gov/pdfs/contrasting_th= e_capabilities_of_building_energy_performance_simulation_programs_v1.0.pd= f

 

Main differences between DOE and EnergyPlus: 

1)=       DOE calculates the space loads for each hour then calculates the system and = plant response for each hour.  EnergyPlus simultaneously solves the loads = the system/plant response for each timestep.

2)=       DOE has a fixed 1 hour timestep, EnergyPlus has a variable timestep (down to = 1 minute?).

3)=       There are also key issues with the weighting factor assumptions, the wall = convective coefficients.

 

I haven't used EnergyPlus much yet.  = What did I miss guys?

 

Brian = Fountain

 

-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Renato Sousa
Sent: January 18, 2006 = 10:56 AM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] = EnergyPlus - DOE

 

Hello everybody.

 

I would like to know if anybody has experience = on using both EnergyPlus and DOE.

Currently I'm using an interface for = EnergyPlus. From the software description I couldn't find out the main differences = between EnergyPlus and DOE. Does anyone know the main differences or where can I = find them?

 

From the description it is said that = EnergyPlus was based on DOE and BLAST so I suppose EnergyPlus has some extra features = but I'm not sure if that is right.

 

Best regards,

Renato Sousa =

Tel: +351 919 316 221 = | E-mail:  = renato.sousa at fluidinova.pt

=  

___________________________________________________ =

FluidInova, Engenharia de Fluidos, = SA

TECMAIA - Parque de Ci=EF=BF=BDncia e Tecnologia da = Maia

Rua Eng=EF=BF=BD Frederico Ulrich, = n=EF=BF=BD 2650 | 4470-605 Moreira da Maia | Portugal     =             =  

Tel: +351 229 408 265 | Fax: +351 229 408 = 266

E-mail:  geral at fluidinova.pt =  | Web:  www.fluidinova.pt/

=

 

 

 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
 
You received this e-mail because you are =
subscribed 
to the 
BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing =
list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message =
to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
You =
received this e-mail because you are subscribed =

to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM
mailing = list.=EF=BF=BD To unsubscribe 
from this =
mailing list send a blank message to =

 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
You received this e-mail because you are =
subscribed 

to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.=C2=A0 To =
unsubscribe 


from this mailing list send a blank message to 

BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM




--
V=C3=A4mshi Gooj=C3=A9


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C61CE1.6903BDB0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: BLAST so I suppose EnergyPlus has some extra features but I'm not sure if that = is right. =20 Best regards, Renato Sousa Tel: +351 919 316 221 | E-mail: renato.sousa at fluidinova.pt =20 ___________________________________________________ FluidInova, Engenharia de Fluidos, SA TECMAIA - Parque de Ci=EAncia e Tecnologia da Maia Rua Eng=BA Frederico Ulrich, n=BA 2650 | 4470-605 Moreira da Maia | = Portugal Tel: +351 229 408 265 | Fax: +351 229 408 266 E-mail: geral at fluidinova.pt | Web: www.fluidinova.pt/ =20 =20 =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C61C34.E0177A70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Brian,

 

I think one additional difference from uses’ point of = view, which is not reported in this report, is simulation run time. It seems = EnergyPlus takes 5-10 times longer to complete a whole year simulations than DOE2. = I was running a simple 5 story building with VAV system and it took me more = than 40 minutes for annual hourly simulations (1 hr time step) in EnergyPlus = while eQuest could run the same building in less than 5 minutes. I am interested in = hearing from others on the run time issue.

 

Mahabir Bhandari

 

 

From: Brian = Fountain [mailto:bfountain at greensim.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January = 18, 2006 12:12 PM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] = EnergyPlus - DOE

 

That is a big = question.

 

=

For a comparison of current energy simulation software, you could look at Dru Crawley’s paper = comparing 20 tools:

http://= www.energytoolsdirectory.gov/pdfs/contrasting_the_capabilities_of_buildin= g_energy_performance_simulation_programs_v1.0.pdf<= /o:p>

 

=

Main differences between DOE and EnergyPlus: 

1)      DOE calculates the space loads for each hour then calculates = the system and plant response for each hour.  EnergyPlus simultaneously = solves the loads the system/plant response for each = timestep.

2)      DOE has a fixed 1 hour timestep, EnergyPlus has a variable = timestep (down to 1 minute?).

3)      There are also key issues with the weighting factor = assumptions, the wall convective coefficients.

 

=

I haven’t used EnergyPlus = much yet.  What did I miss guys?

 

=

Brian = Fountain

 

=

-----Original = Message-----
From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf = Of Renato Sousa
Sent: January 18, 2006 = 10:56 AM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] = EnergyPlus - DOE

 

Hello = everybody.

 

I would like to know if = anybody has experience on using both EnergyPlus and = DOE.

Currently I'm using an = interface for EnergyPlus. From the software description I couldn't find out the main differences between EnergyPlus and DOE. Does anyone know the main = differences or where can I find them?

 

From the description it is = said that EnergyPlus was based on DOE and BLAST so I suppose EnergyPlus has some = extra features but I'm not sure if that is right.

 

Best = regards,

 

 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are =
subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  =
To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message =
to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
You =
received this e-mail because you are subscribed =

to the =
BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.=A0 To unsubscribe =

from this =
mailing list send a blank message to =

BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C61C34.E0177A70-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: BLAST so I suppose EnergyPlus has some extra features but I'm not sure if that is right. =20 Best regards, Renato Sousa Tel: +351 919 316 221 | E-mail: renato.sousa at fluidinova.pt =20 ___________________________________________________ FluidInova, Engenharia de Fluidos, SA TECMAIA - Parque de Ci=EAncia e Tecnologia da Maia Rua Eng=BA Frederico Ulrich, n=BA 2650 | 4470-605 Moreira da Maia | Portugal =20 Tel: +351 229 408 265 | Fax: +351 229 408 266 E-mail: geral at fluidinova.pt | Web: www.fluidinova.pt/ =20 =20 =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C61C28.82DCDD20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That is a big = question.

 

For a comparison of current energy simulation software, you could look at Dru Crawley’s paper = comparing 20 tools:

http://= www.energytoolsdirectory.gov/pdfs/contrasting_the_capabilities_of_buildin= g_energy_performance_simulation_programs_v1.0.pdf

 

Main differences between DOE and EnergyPlus:=A0

1)      DOE calculates = the space loads for each hour then calculates the system and plant response for = each hour. =A0EnergyPlus simultaneously solves the loads the system/plant = response for each timestep.

2)      DOE has a fixed = 1 hour timestep, EnergyPlus has a variable timestep (down to 1 = minute?).

3)      There are also = key issues with the weighting factor assumptions, the wall convective = coefficients.

 

I haven’t used EnergyPlus = much yet.=A0 What did I miss guys?

 

Brian Fountain

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: bldg-sim at gard.com = [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Renato Sousa
Sent: January 18, 2006 = 10:56 AM
To: bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] = EnergyPlus - DOE

 

Hello = everybody.

 

I would like to know if = anybody has experience on using both EnergyPlus and DOE.

Currently I'm using an = interface for EnergyPlus. From the software description I couldn't find out the main differences between EnergyPlus and DOE. Does anyone know the main = differences or where can I find them?

 

From the description it is = said that EnergyPlus was based on DOE and BLAST so I suppose EnergyPlus has some = extra features but I'm not sure if that is right.

 

Best = regards,

 

 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are =
subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.=A0 To =
unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message =
to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C61C28.82DCDD20-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: AST so I suppose EnergyPlus has some extra features but I'm not sure if tha= t is right. Best regards, Renato Sousa Tel: +351 919 316 221 | E-mail: renato.sousa at fluidinova.pt ___________________________________________________ FluidInova, Engenharia de Fluidos, SA TECMAIA - Parque de Ci=EAncia e Tecnologia da Maia Rua Eng=BA Frederico Ulrich, n=BA 2650 | 4470-605 Moreira da Maia | Por= tugal Tel: +351 229 408 265 | Fax: +351 229 408 266 E-mail: geral at fluidinova.pt | Web: www.fluidinova.pt/ =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3DYou received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM = ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: BLAST so I suppose EnergyPlus has some extra features but I'm not sure if that = is right. =20 Best regards, Renato Sousa Tel: +351 919 316 221 | E-mail: renato.sousa at fluidinova.pt =20 ___________________________________________________ FluidInova, Engenharia de Fluidos, SA TECMAIA - Parque de Ci=EAncia e Tecnologia da Maia Rua Eng=BA Frederico Ulrich, n=BA 2650 | 4470-605 Moreira da Maia | = Portugal Tel: +351 229 408 265 | Fax: +351 229 408 266 E-mail: geral at fluidinova.pt | Web: www.fluidinova.pt/ =20 =20 ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C61C47.B25D1BE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello=20 everybody.
 
I = would like to know=20 if anybody has experience on using both EnergyPlus and = DOE.
Currently I'm using=20 an interface for EnergyPlus. From the software description I couldn't = find out=20 the main differences between EnergyPlus and DOE. Does anyone know the = main=20 differences or where can I find them?
 
From = the description=20 it is said that EnergyPlus was based on DOE and BLAST so I suppose = EnergyPlus=20 has some extra features but I'm not sure if that is = right.
 
Best=20 regards,

Renato=20 Sousa

Tel:=20 +351 919 316 221 | E-mail: renato.sousa at fluidinova.pt=

 

___________________________________________________=

FluidInova,=20 Engenharia de Fluidos, SA

TECMAIA=20 - Parque de Ci=EAncia e Tecnologia da Maia

Rua=20 Eng=BA Frederico Ulrich, n=BA 2650 | 4470-605 Moreira da Maia = |=20 Portugal              =   =20  

Tel:=20 +351 229 408 265 | Fax: +351 229 408 266

E-mail: geral at fluidinova.pt<= /A> | Web: www.fluidinova.pt/

 

 

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C61C47.B25D1BE0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: I am from Vienna / Austria and PE for the design of computer rooms. We design computer rooms with a host and storage or server farms(meaning several racks with blade servers not only a single server). It starts with redundancy for infrastructure like AC, UPS or generator = and also fire detection and extinguisher systems, access control, even = special cells which are tight against water, smoke, dust, etc. =20 Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen / best regards =20 Horst Pichlm=FCller _________________________________ =20 osiris=20 Management & Consulting GmbH =20 -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] Im Auftrag von = Kirchhoff, Eric Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2006 04:04 An: bldg-sim at gard.com Betreff: [bldg-sim] "computer rooms" not what they used to be Having worked in design, I certainly do not concur. My experience does not indicate 115F commonality. Where I worked, the standard practice was to work with the owners and the people responsible for the electronic equipment (whether it is computers or telephone switchers). On top of the interviews, we built in a 2- to 3-times factor of safety to allow for the ever advancing electronics technology which can pack more and more Wattage into the same small box. From talking with other designers from other firms, this appeared to be standard protocol. Remember, the market will dictate the poor designers from the good ones, and the last thing you want to do is anger a customer from a sector that is continually expanding. I believe your experience is either witnessing computer rooms that the owner performed ad hoc in an old storage room or closet, or possibly is perhaps a decade old, and the owner had exceeded the FS put into the design. My experience indicates that in some cases, a FS of 3 can be surpassed in as little as 5 years. This is an extreme example where the owner changed the functionality of the site. Something the designer can not allow for, or else the price would skyrocket. I am not sure what ASHRAE says to do in this case, but it is an irresponsible designer who cannot assess the job at hand and use the most appropriate resources to provide for the scope of work. -----Original Message----- From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Kollars Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:14 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] "computer rooms" not what they used to be It seems to me that HVAC professionals and IT professionals don't at all mean the same thing when they talk about a "computer room." A couple decades ago computer rooms still had interior glassed windows, one locked door, a raised floor, held a "mainframe" computer, and had their own A/C. But computers have gotten a whole lot smaller and "big iron" is rare now. Nowadays when an elevation plan says "computer room," that room will commonly have few or no windows, no special doors, no hollow floor, hold a whole bunch of "minicomputers" and "PC"s and "network hubs" and "UPS"s on shelves or racks, and rely on the building A/C. Unfortunately the computer equipment still generates a _huge_ amount of heat (even more than the "mainframe" it replaced), which must be carried away (or neutralized) immediately. Overheated computer equipment becomes unreliable and has its lifespan shortened significantly. But it seldom fails right away, so both HVAC professionals and facility managers can easily be completely unaware of the problem. It's all too common for a computer technician to arrive at the office Monday morning only to find the "computer room" is 115 degrees; costly equipment had its life shortened before anyone even knew there was a problem. There should at minimum be a temperature alarm in the "computer room." After complaining about the difference between common sense and what building simulation programs recommend, I was told this disconnect is due to "standard ASHRAE methodology" and not a flaw in any particular building simulation tool. I feel it's time for the heating and cooling profession to catch up with the reality of current "computer rooms." This is just my two cents; what do other people think? -- Chuck Kollars - principal Kollars Informatics =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: =20 "Note: eQUEST 3.6 is NOT YET approved by the California Energy Commission as a 2005 Title 24 non-residential ACM; this release will be submitted to the CEC for certification during August 2006." =20 Does anyone know the status of the Title 24 certification process for eQuest 3.6 ? =20 =20 Brandon Nichols, PE Mechanical HARGIS ENGINEERS 600 Stewart St Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98101 d | 206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707 o | 206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450 www.hargis.biz ________________________________ From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Aulbach, John Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:41 AM To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM Subject: [BLDG-SIM] California Title 24 http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/2005_computer_prog_list.h tml =20 Try this page. The CEC web site is a mouse habit trail sometimes to find information. ________________________________ From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Joel Londenberg Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:16 AM To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM Subject: [BLDG-SIM] California Title 24 I would like to know if there is a complete, up-to-date list of software that the CEC has approved for either or both residential and non-residential Title 24 compliance. The only list I found on California's web site only refers to the 2001 standards. =20 http://energy.ca.gov/efficiency/computer_prog_list.html =20 Joel Londenberg >> Project Manager DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING 1845 Business Center Drive, Suite 215 San Bernardino, CA 92408 voice (909) 890-3700 ext: 204 | fax (909) 890-3770 jlondenberg at designwesteng.com =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6E980.C6B07040 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Ask jeff.hirsch at doe2.com for a = precise=20 status. I DO know it has been formally submitted as promised in August. = My guess=20 is that will be "blessed' by the end of the year.  Keep an eye on = the CEC=20 Meeting docket. That is where you will see the action on eQUEST happen. = Nothing=20 as of this week's meetings.
 
Hope springs eternal.

From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM=20 [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Brandon = Nichols
Sent:=20 Friday, October 06, 2006 12:00 PM
To:=20 BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] California Title 24 = &=20 eQuest

From DOE2 website:
 
"Note: eQUEST 3.6 is NOT YET approved = by the=20 California Energy Commission as a 2005 Title 24 non-residential ACM; = this=20 release will be submitted to the CEC for certification during August = 2006."
 
Does anyone know the status of the Title=20 24 certification process for eQuest 3.6 ?
 
 
Brandon Nichols, PE
Mechanical
HARGIS=20 ENGINEERS
600 Stewart St
Suite 1000
Seattle, WA 98101
d |=20 206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707
o | 206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450
www.hargis.biz
=
From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM=20 [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Aulbach, = John
Sent:=20 Friday, October 06, 2006 11:41 AM
To:=20 BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] California Title=20 24

http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/2005_computer_= prog_list.html
 
Try this page. The CEC web site is a mouse = habit trail=20 sometimes to find information.

From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM=20 [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Joel = Londenberg
Sent:=20 Friday, October 06, 2006 11:16 AM
To:=20 BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] California Title=20 24

I = would like to know=20 if there is a complete, up-to-date list of software that the CEC has = approved=20 for either or both residential and non-residential Title 24 = compliance. =20 The only list I found on California's web site only refers to the 2001=20 standards.
 
http://e= nergy.ca.gov/efficiency/computer_prog_list.html
 
Joel=20 Londenberg >>Project ManagerDESIGN = WEST=20 ENGINEERING1845 Business=20 Center Drive, Suite 215
San Bernardino, CA  92408
voice (909) = 890-3700 ext: 204 | fax (909) 890-3770
jlondenberg at designwesteng.com
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6E980.C6B07040-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: =20 "Note: eQUEST 3.6 is NOT YET approved by the California Energy Commission as a 2005 Title 24 non-residential ACM; this release will be submitted to the CEC for certification during August 2006." =20 Does anyone know the status of the Title 24 certification process for eQuest 3.6 ? =20 =20 Brandon Nichols, PE Mechanical HARGIS ENGINEERS 600 Stewart St Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98101 d | 206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707 o | 206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450 www.hargis.biz _____ =20 From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Aulbach, John Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:41 AM To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM Subject: [BLDG-SIM] California Title 24 http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/2005_computer_prog_list.h tml =20 Try this page. The CEC web site is a mouse habit trail sometimes to find information. _____ =20 From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Joel Londenberg Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:16 AM To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM Subject: [BLDG-SIM] California Title 24 I would like to know if there is a complete, up-to-date list of software that the CEC has approved for either or both residential and non-residential Title 24 compliance. The only list I found on California's web site only refers to the 2001 standards. =20 http://energy.ca.gov/efficiency/computer_prog_list.html =20 Joel Londenberg >> Project Manager DESIGN WEST ENGINEERING 1845 Business Center Drive, Suite 215 San Bernardino, CA 92408 voice (909) 890-3700 ext: 204 | fax (909) 890-3770 jlondenberg at designwesteng.com =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6E979.970C9DD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
From DOE2 website:
 
"Note: eQUEST 3.6 is NOT YET approved = by the=20 California Energy Commission as a 2005 Title 24 non-residential ACM; = this=20 release will be submitted to the CEC for certification during August = 2006."
 
Does anyone know the status of the Title=20 24 certification process for eQuest 3.6 ?
 
 
Brandon Nichols, PE
Mechanical
HARGIS=20 ENGINEERS
600 Stewart St
Suite 1000
Seattle, WA 98101
d |=20 206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707
o | 206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450
www.hargis.biz
=
From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM=20 [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Aulbach, = John
Sent:=20 Friday, October 06, 2006 11:41 AM
To:=20 BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] California Title=20 24

http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2005standards/2005_computer_= prog_list.html
 
Try this page. The CEC web site is a mouse = habit trail=20 sometimes to find information.

From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM=20 [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Joel = Londenberg
Sent:=20 Friday, October 06, 2006 11:16 AM
To:=20 BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] California Title=20 24

I = would like to know=20 if there is a complete, up-to-date list of software that the CEC has = approved=20 for either or both residential and non-residential Title 24 = compliance. =20 The only list I found on California's web site only refers to the 2001=20 standards.
 
http://e= nergy.ca.gov/efficiency/computer_prog_list.html
 
Joel=20 Londenberg >>Project ManagerDESIGN = WEST=20 ENGINEERING1845 Business=20 Center Drive, Suite 215
San Bernardino, CA  92408
voice (909) = 890-3700 ext: 204 | fax (909) 890-3770
jlondenberg at designwesteng.com
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6E979.970C9DD0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: is how eQUEST recommends the modeling of door infiltration =20 =20 Infiltration Coefficient (Door) =20 Used to compute infiltration of outside air due to cracks around the = door frame. =20 Required if the Infiltration Method is Crack, unused otherwise. =20 DOE-2 uses the following equation to calculate the infiltration: =20 infiltration air flow (cfm) =3D (Infiltration Coefficient) =B4 =D6P =B4 = L =20 where: =20 P =3D The pressure differential between the inside and outside air = (inches of water) =20 L =3D crack length (ft) =20 The table below lists typical values for the Infiltration Coefficient, = based on the size of the crack. See Infiltration and Natural Ventilation. =20 DOE-2 Command: DOOR =20 DOE-2 Keyword: INF-COEF;I-C =20 Type of Door Infiltration Coefficient (cfm/ft =D6inches of water ) Residential Door (3 ft by 7 ft)=20 closed, with weather stripping 2.4 average use without weather stripping 12 average use with weather stripping 9.8 Office Door (3.5 ft by 7 ft)=20 closed 3.1 open 10% of the time 13.5 open 25% of the time 55 open 50% of the time 153 open 10% of the time, vestibule 9.3 Revolving Door=20 average use 12 Garage or Shipping Room Door=20 no use 6 average use 60 Note: This table is based on a wind speed of 7.5 mph (which corresponds = to approximately 0.5 inches of water), in a direction normal to the = wall. =20 =20 Vikram Sami, LEED AP=20 Direct Phone 404-253-1466 | Direct Fax 404-253-1366=20 LORD, AECK & SARGENT ARCHITECTURE Responsive Design * Technological Expertise * Exceptional Service=20 www.lordaecksargent.com=20 =20 ________________________________ From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Dillon, = Mike Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:44 PM To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM Subject: [BLDG-SIM] eQuest Question Has anyone ever modeled roll up doors in eQuest, and possibly know the = best way to compare an insulated door with an uninsulated door?=20 Thanks in advance for the help,=20 Mike=20 Mike Dillon E.I.T.=20 DSM Engineering Technician=20 Avista Utilities=20 1411 E. Mission Avenue - MSC 15=20 Spokane, Washington 99202=20 Phone: 509.495.4260=20 Mobile: 509.270.6453=20 Fax: 509.777.6136=20 www.avistautilities.com =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6D1EC.4F0069E5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable eQuest Question
Mike,
From the eQUEST Help Topics. = I'm not sure=20 how accurate it is, but this is how eQUEST recommends the modeling of = door=20 infiltration
&nbs= p;
&nbs= p;
Infiltration=20 Coefficient (Door)
 
Used to compute=20 infiltration of outside air due to cracks around the door = frame.
 
Required if the=20 Infiltration Method is Crack, unused otherwise.
 
DOE-2 uses the=20 following equation to calculate the infiltration:
 
infiltration air=20 flow (cfm) =3D (Infiltration Coefficient) =B4 =D6P =B4 L
 
where:
 
P =3D The pressure=20 differential between the inside and outside air (inches of = water)
 
L =3D crack length=20 (ft)
 
The table below=20 lists typical values for the Infiltration Coefficient, based on the size = of the=20 crack.
See Infiltration and Natural Ventilation.
 
DOE-2 Command:=20 DOOR
 
DOE-2 Keyword:=20 INF-COEF;I-C
 
Type of=20 Door Infiltration Coefficient (cfm/ft =D6inches of water = )
Residential=20 Door (3 ft by 7 ft) 
closed, with weather = stripping 2.4
average=20 use without weather stripping 12
average use with weather=20 stripping 9.8
Office Door (3.5 ft by 7=20 ft) 
closed 3.1
open 10% of the time 13.5
open = 25% of=20 the time 55
open 50% of the time 153
open 10% of the = time,=20 vestibule 9.3
Revolving Door 
average = use 12
Garage or=20 Shipping Room Door 
no use 6
average = use 60
Note: This=20 table is based on a wind speed of 7.5 mph (which corresponds to = approximately=20 0.5 inches of water), in a direction normal to the wall.
 
 

Vikram Sami, = LEED AP
Direct Phone 404-253-1466 | Direct Fax = 404-253-1366

LORD, AECK=20 & SARGENT ARCHITECTURE
Responsive=20 Design =B7=20 Technological Expertise =B7 Exceptional Service
www.lordaecksargent.com

 

From: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM=20 [mailto:BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM] On Behalf Of Dillon, = Mike
Sent:=20 Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:44 PM
To:=20 BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] eQuest=20 Question

Has anyone ever modeled roll up doors in = eQuest, and=20 possibly know the best way to compare an insulated door with an = uninsulated=20 door?

Thanks in advance for the help, =
Mike

Mike = Dillon=20 E.I.T.
DSM=20 Engineering Technician
Avista Utilities
1411 E. Mission Avenue - MSC 15
Spokane, Washington 99202
Phone: = 509.495.4260=20
Mobile:=20 509.270.6453
Fax:=20 509.777.6136
www.avistautilities.com 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6D1EC.4F0069E5-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: as compared to an air conditioner that has an economizer, is this correct? There would not be any additional compressor savings, is this correct? Thanks, Jon McHugh -----Original Message----- From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Michael Rosenberg Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:03 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Modeling buildings with natural ventilation forAppendix G Marcus, I am on the ASHRAE 90.1 ECB subcommittee. I do not think at this point that we are working on any additional methodology to credit natural ventilation. Addendum AG already changed the following: In the proposed building. HVAC Fan Schedules. Schedules for HVAC fans that provide outdoor air for ventilation shall run continuously whenever spaces are occupied and shall be cycled on and off to meet heating and cooling loads during unoccupied hours. This implies that HVAC fans that are only meeting thermal load may cycle on and off, and was meant to allow fan credit for natural ventilation system (as simple as operable windows). The proposed building still calls for cooling as a requirement, but the thought is, that if model simulates natural ventilation and the cooling load is met that way, the fan and cooling coil will not operate to meet load and the design will be credited. The problem is that most LEED models are done using DOE2, which has severe limitations when it comes to modeling natural ventilation. It is my understanding that other programs do a better job of this. The subcommittee also thought that an exceptional calculation method might be used if the natural ventilation simulation was be done in a stand alone program and then an appropriate infiltration schedule was input into a program like DOE2, reducing the use of mechanical cooling. Mike Michael Rosenberg Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion St. N.E. Salem, OR 97301-3742 Phone : (503) 373-7809 Fax: (503) 373-7806 >>> "Marcus Sheffer" 12/21/06 11:58AM >>> Mike, The exception calculation method you describe is absolutely correct. Obtaining savings for natural ventilation within LEED however is another story. I am one of the certification reviewers and also vice-chair of the EA TAG. My understanding is that to date the USGBC has not allowed natural ventilation to fully count under EAc1 even if submitted as an exceptional calculation method. The TAG is awaiting the work of the 90.1 subcommittee you mention to develop a uniform methodology. Perhaps your submission will be the one to set the precedent. Thanks to all for helping to blaze the trail. Marcus Sheffer Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com www.sevengroup.com _____ From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Mike Tillou Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:03 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Modeling buildings with natural ventilation for Appendix G Not yet...I have a project with natural ventilation using this method that will be submitted for final review in Feb-Mar 2007. MMT Michael Tillou, PE ETC Group, Inc - Energy Engineering for a Sustainable Future Ph:413-458-9870 -----Original Message----- From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Peter Alspach Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:34 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Modeling buildings with natural ventilation for Appendix G Mike, Have you succeeded in getting a naturally ventilated building through the USGBC with this method? If so, I am sure all would be glad to hear it. Peter _____ From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Mike Tillou Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:18 AM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Modeling buildings with natural ventilation for Appendix G Ramana, The ASHRAE 90.1 ECB sub-committee is working on a methodology for simulating natural ventilation within the framework of Appendix G but I don't think its finished yet. In the meantime here is what I would recommend. Appendix G / 90.1 ECB allows you to use an exception calculation method to simulate hybrid systems or unique efficiency measures to demonstrate above-standard performance. I think this would certainly apply in your case. Here's what I have done on projects requiring an exception calculation method. 1. Establish your energy cost budget and your design energy case following the Appendix G guidelines. 2. Create a second model using the Design Energy Case as the baseline and make the necessary modifications to simulate radiant heating / no cooling via natural ventilation. 3. Report the energy savings from your exception calculation as a line item at the end of your LEED EA-1 summary table (similar to how renewable energy is reported). 4. Include a seperate summary table for the exception calculation showing the energy end-use breakdown and how you arrived at the cost savings. Show both the baseline and proposed energy use. 5. Make sure the savings are reasonable and prudent for the system you are proposing. 6. Document any changes to the model especially changes to schedules that were necessary to properly simulate your system. 7. Make it easy for someone to review your assumptions and the methodology you used to estimate the savings I hope this helps. Good luck. Mike Michael Tillou, PE ETC Group, Inc - Energy Engineering for a Sustainable Future Ph:413-458-9870 -----Original Message----- From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Ramana Koti Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 4:53 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Modeling buildings with natural ventilation for Appendix G Dear all, Is ignoring natural ventilation in both proposed and baseline designs an accepted/fair way of modeling based on Appendix G (ASHRAE 90.1-2004)? Part of the proposed design has (radiant heating + natural ventilation) with no cooling which was modeled as a radiant slab, no cooling, natural ventilation ignored. But the Baseline HVAC system based on Appendix G is System 5: Packaged VAV w/Reheat. (Natural ventilation can be modeled based on Air Change method or Sherman Grimsrud method though I do not know how to do it). I cannot decide how to make the baseline and proposed comparable with respect to Natural Ventilation (in a manner acceptable to LEED review), suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks, Ramana Koti, Sustainable Building Analyst LEED AP ELEMENTS | a division of berkebile nelson immenschuh mcdowell architects 106 W. 14th Street Suite 200 Kansas City, Missouri 64105 p 816.783.1635 f 816.783.1501 www.bnim.com| elements.bnim.com ================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ____________________________________________________________ Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses ================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: compared to an air conditioner that has an economizer, is this correct? There would not be any additional compressor savings, is this correct? Thanks, Jon McHugh =20 -----Original Message----- From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Michael Rosenberg Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:03 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Modeling buildings with natural ventilation forAppendix G Marcus, I am on the ASHRAE 90.1 ECB subcommittee. I do not think at this point that we are working on any additional methodology to credit natural ventilation. Addendum AG already changed the following: In the proposed building. HVAC Fan Schedules. Schedules for HVAC fans that provide outdoor air for ventilation shall run continuously whenever spaces are occupied and shall be cycled on and off to meet heating and cooling loads during unoccupied hours.=20 This implies that HVAC fans that are only meeting thermal load may cycle on and off, and was meant to allow fan credit for natural ventilation system (as simple as operable windows). The proposed building still calls for cooling as a requirement, but the thought is, that if model simulates natural ventilation and the cooling load is met that way, the fan and cooling coil will not operate to meet load and the design will be credited. The problem is that most LEED models are done using DOE2, which has severe limitations when it comes to modeling natural ventilation. It is my understanding that other programs do a better job of this. =20 The subcommittee also thought that an exceptional calculation method might be used if the natural ventilation simulation was be done in a stand alone program and then an appropriate infiltration schedule was input into a program like DOE2, reducing the use of mechanical cooling. Mike Michael Rosenberg Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion St. N.E. Salem, OR 97301-3742 Phone : (503) 373-7809 Fax: (503) 373-7806 >>> "Marcus Sheffer" 12/21/06 11:58AM >>> Mike, =20 The exception calculation method you describe is absolutely correct. =20 Obtaining savings for natural ventilation within LEED however is another story. I am one of the certification reviewers and also vice-chair of the EA TAG. My understanding is that to date the USGBC has not allowed natural ventilation to fully count under EAc1 even if submitted as an exceptional calculation method. The TAG is awaiting the work of the 90.1 subcommittee you mention to develop a uniform methodology. =20 Perhaps your submission will be the one to set the precedent. Thanks to all for helping to blaze the trail.=20 =20 Marcus Sheffer Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com=20 www.sevengroup.com=20 =20 _____ =20 From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Mike Tillou Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:03 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Modeling buildings with natural ventilation for Appendix G =20 Not yet...I have a project with natural ventilation using this method that will be submitted for final review in Feb-Mar 2007. =20 =20 MMT Michael Tillou, PE ETC Group, Inc - Energy Engineering for a Sustainable Future Ph:413-458-9870=20 -----Original Message----- From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Peter Alspach Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:34 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Modeling buildings with natural ventilation for Appendix G Mike, =20 Have you succeeded in getting a naturally ventilated building through the USGBC with this method? =20 If so, I am sure all would be glad to hear it. =20 Peter =20 _____ =20 From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Mike Tillou Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:18 AM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Modeling buildings with natural ventilation for Appendix G Ramana, =20 The ASHRAE 90.1 ECB sub-committee is working on a methodology for simulating natural ventilation within the framework of Appendix G but I don't think its finished yet. In the meantime here is what I would recommend. =20 Appendix G / 90.1 ECB allows you to use an exception calculation method to simulate hybrid systems or unique efficiency measures to demonstrate above-standard performance. I think this would certainly apply in your case. =20 =20 Here's what I have done on projects requiring an exception calculation method. =20 1. Establish your energy cost budget and your design energy case following the Appendix G guidelines. =20 2. Create a second model using the Design Energy Case as the baseline and make the necessary modifications to simulate radiant heating / no cooling via natural ventilation. =20 3. Report the energy savings from your exception calculation as a line item at the end of your LEED EA-1 summary table (similar to how renewable energy is reported).=20 4. Include a seperate summary table for the exception calculation showing the energy end-use breakdown and how you arrived at the cost savings.=20 Show both the baseline and proposed energy use. =20 5. Make sure the savings are reasonable and prudent for the system you are proposing. =20 6. Document any changes to the model especially changes to schedules that were necessary to properly simulate your system.=20 7. Make it easy for someone to review your assumptions and the methodology you used to estimate the savings =20 I hope this helps. Good luck. =20 Mike =20 Michael Tillou, PE ETC Group, Inc - Energy Engineering for a Sustainable Future Ph:413-458-9870=20 -----Original Message----- From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of Ramana Koti Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 4:53 PM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] Modeling buildings with natural ventilation for Appendix G Dear all, Is ignoring natural ventilation in both proposed and baseline designs an accepted/fair way of modeling based on Appendix G (ASHRAE 90.1-2004)? Part of the proposed design has (radiant heating + natural ventilation) with no cooling which was modeled as a radiant slab, no cooling, natural ventilation ignored.=20 But the Baseline HVAC system based on Appendix G is System 5: Packaged VAV w/Reheat. (Natural ventilation can be modeled based on Air Change method or Sherman Grimsrud method though I do not know how to do it). I cannot decide how to make the baseline and proposed comparable with respect to Natural Ventilation (in a manner acceptable to LEED review), suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks, Ramana Koti, Sustainable Building Analyst LEED AP ELEMENTS | a division of berkebile nelson immenschuh mcdowell architects 106 W. 14th Street Suite 200 Kansas City, Missouri 64105 p 816.783.1635 f 816.783.1501 www.bnim.com| elements.bnim.com =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ____________________________________________________________ Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM=20 =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: IES=20 both from the point of view of time taken to carry out a project, initial learning and picking up projects again months down the line. COST DesignBuilder initial purchase cost is much lower than IES . One = should=20 also bear in mind total cost of ownership rather than just initial = purchase cost when making the decision, including consideration of time taken to learn software and the time it takes to create a building model.=20 HVAC MODELING IES has a flexible modular HVAC modeling capability, but it takes a relatively long time to learn and set up a particular model. It does not model water side. DesignBuilder has compact HVAC which allows typical HVAC systems to be=20 modeled quickly and easily, but is currently lacking in flexibility. DesignBuilder version 1.3 (to be released end May) will be a significant improvement with almost full implementation of EnergyPlus compact HVAC=20 systems. Many advanced DesignBuilder users use the software for = exporting EnergyPlus IDF building descriptions for more detailed modeling in the EnergyPlus editor.=A0=A0DesignBuilder version 2 (to be released early = 2008) will have a full diagrammatic modular HVAC UI providing access to most of the EnergyPlus HVAC systems. OTHER CAPABILITIES IES has a much wider range of other applications linked into the virtual environment including pipe and duct sizing, radiance, CFD, 3-D = CAD=20 interoperability through gbXML. DesignBuilder is a more focused building energy simulation, thermal = design and visualization product. DesignBuilder version 2 will have = high-quality CFD simulations and 3-D CAD interoperability through gbXML (as well as = the=20 above-mentioned diagrammatic EnergyPlus HVAC editor). Best regards, Mahabir _______________________________________________ Mahabir Bhandari, Ph.D. LEED=AE Accredited Professional DesignBuilder Software=20 18 Tanglewood Rd. Amherst, MA 01002 Tel: (413) 256-4647 Fax: (413) 256-4823 cell: (413) 575-6825 email: bhandari at designbuildersoftware.com web: http://www.designbuildersoftware.com ________________________________________ From: Josh K [mailto:jeemang at gmail.com ] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:58 PM To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com Subject: [BLDG-SIM] IES vs DesignBuilder I work for an architectural firm that hired me to gain building energy=20 modeling capabilities. As they've never done this before, the first = order of business is selecting an application to carry out said building energy modeling. Taking a preliminary survey of the available applications and comparing = them with our criteria yielded two "finalists": DesignBuilder and the IES = . I've been demoing each of them for a little while and reading the documentation, and although I've definitely been able to identify some = pros=20 and cons for each, I feel I lack the experience/knowledge to make a definitive decision. If anyone uses or has used either of these programs, has any opinion of them, or has even heard rumours about them circulating about the grape = vine, any insights they could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Josh Josh Kjenner, EIT Manasc Isaac Architects Ltd. 10225 100 Ave :: Edmonton, AB T5J OA1 780.429.3977 You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.=A0=A0To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: initial learning and picking up projects again months down the line. COST DesignBuilder initial purchase cost is much lower than IES . One should also bear in mind total cost of ownership rather than just initial purchase cost when making the decision, including consideration of time taken to learn software and the time it takes to create a building model. HVAC MODELING IES has a flexible modular HVAC modeling capability, but it takes a relatively long time to learn and set up a particular model. It does not model water side. DesignBuilder has compact HVAC which allows typical HVAC systems to be modeled quickly and easily, but is currently lacking in flexibility. DesignBuilder version 1.3 (to be released end May) will be a significant improvement with almost full implementation of EnergyPlus compact HVAC systems. Many advanced DesignBuilder users use the software for exporting EnergyPlus IDF building descriptions for more detailed modeling in the EnergyPlus editor. DesignBuilder version 2 (to be released early 2008) will have a full diagrammatic modular HVAC UI providing access to most of the EnergyPlus HVAC systems. OTHER CAPABILITIES IES has a much wider range of other applications linked into the virtual environment including pipe and duct sizing, radiance, CFD, 3-D CAD interoperability through gbXML. DesignBuilder is a more focused building energy simulation, thermal design and visualization product. DesignBuilder version 2 will have high-quality CFD simulations and 3-D CAD interoperability through gbXML (as well as the above-mentioned diagrammatic EnergyPlus HVAC editor). Best regards, Mahabir _______________________________________________ Mahabir Bhandari, Ph.D. LEED? Accredited Professional DesignBuilder Software 18 Tanglewood Rd. Amherst, MA 01002 Tel: (413) 256-4647 Fax: (413) 256-4823 cell: (413) 575-6825 email: bhandari at designbuildersoftware.com web: http://www.designbuildersoftware.com ________________________________________ From: Josh K [mailto:jeemang at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:58 PM To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com Subject: [BLDG-SIM] IES vs DesignBuilder I work for an architectural firm that hired me to gain building energy modeling capabilities. As they've never done this before, the first order of business is selecting an application to carry out said building energy modeling. Taking a preliminary survey of the available applications and comparing them with our criteria yielded two "finalists": DesignBuilder and the IES . I've been demoing each of them for a little while and reading the documentation, and although I've definitely been able to identify some pros and cons for each, I feel I lack the experience/knowledge to make a definitive decision. If anyone uses or has used either of these programs, has any opinion of them, or has even heard rumours about them circulating about the grape vine, any insights they could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Josh Josh Kjenner, EIT Manasc Isaac Architects Ltd. 10225 100 Ave :: Edmonton, AB T5J OA1 780.429.3977 =====================================================You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM Pongsak Chaisuparasmikul Ph.D, DOE 2.1E Consultant 3140 South Michigan Avenue, #604 Chicago, IL 60616-3807 U.S.A. Phone: +1 312 225 4610 Fax: +1 775 368 3267 pongsak_archenergy at sbcglobal.net Model ideas and experience of the sustainability design, and simulate energy efficient building in the virtual environment first before construction is ever created in the real world to avoid mistake, time consuming, and unneccessary cost. ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM --0-1264199668-1179628308=:25330 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mahabir,

I think you forgot to mention one of the most important comparison between DesignBuilder and IES : is that IES has the modeling capabilities through BIM and DesignBuilder through CAD,which make a much difference in term of accuracy,quality,speed,coordination,and linked to the other applications.

Pongsak

PS As an independent DOE-2 consultant and researcher,one of my job is to unbiased test,examine,verify the software and offer truthful public information to the best of my knowledge.Every software has its own capabilities and users should know before they invest their money,time and effort.


Mahabir Bhandari <Bhandari at DesignBuildersoftware.com> wrote:
Josh,

In my opinion, here are some points of comparison between DesignBuilder and
IES :


GENERAL BUILDING SIMULATION CAPABILITIES
DesignBuilder and IES have quite similar capabilities for modeling
fabric, solar shading, internal gains, daylighting, natural ventilation etc.
DesignBuilder simulation is carried out using DOE EnergyPlus simulation
engine and the IES simulations use the Apache simulator.

EASE OF USE
From the feedback we have had, DesignBuilder is much easier to use than IES
both from the point of view of time taken to carry out a project,
initial learning and picking up projects again months down the line.

COST
DesignBuilder initial purchase cost is much lower than IES . One should
also bear in mind total cost of ownership rather than just initial purchase
cost when making the decision, including consideration of time taken to
learn software and the time it takes to create a building model.

HVAC MODELING
IES has a flexible modular HVAC modeling capability, but it takes a
relatively long time to learn and set up a particular model. It does not
model water side.

DesignBuilder has compact HVAC which allows typical HVAC systems to be
modeled quickly and easily, but is currently lacking in flexibility.
DesignBuilder version 1.3 (to be released end May) will be a significant
improvement with almost full implementation of EnergyPlus compact HVAC
systems. Many advanced DesignBuilder users use the software for exporting
EnergyPlus IDF building descriptions for more detailed modeling in the
EnergyPlus editor. DesignBuilder version 2 (to be released early 2008) will
have a full diagrammatic modular HVAC UI providing access to most of the
EnergyPlus HVAC systems.

OTHER CAPABILITIES
IES has a much wider range of other applications linked into the
virtual environment including pipe and duct sizing, radiance, CFD, 3-D CAD
interoperability through gbXML.

DesignBuilder is a more focused building energy simulation, thermal design
and visualization product. DesignBuilder version 2 will have high-quality
CFD simulations and 3-D CAD interoperability through gbXML (as well as the
above-mentioned diagrammatic EnergyPlus HVAC editor).


Best regards,

Mahabir

_______________________________________________
Mahabir Bhandari, Ph.D.
LEED? Accredited Professional
DesignBuilder Software
18 Tanglewood Rd.
Amherst, MA 01002

Tel: (413) 256-4647
Fax: (413) 256-4823
cell: (413) 575-6825
email: bhandari at designbuildersoftware.com
web: http://www.designbuildersoftware.com



________________________________________
From: Josh K [mailto:jeemang at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:58 PM
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] IES vs DesignBuilder

I work for an architectural firm that hired me to gain building energy
modeling capabilities. As they've never done this before, the first order of
business is selecting an application to carry out said building energy
modeling.

Taking a preliminary survey of the available applications and comparing them
with our criteria yielded two "finalists":  DesignBuilder and the IES .
I've been demoing each of them for a little while and reading the
documentation, and although I've definitely been able to identify some pros
and cons for each, I feel I lack the experience/knowledge to make a
definitive decision.

If anyone uses or has used either of these programs, has any opinion of
them, or has even heard rumours about them circulating about the grape vine,
any insights they could offer would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Josh



Josh Kjenner, EIT
Manasc Isaac Architects Ltd.
10225 100 Ave :: Edmonton, AB T5J OA1
780.429.3977


=====================================================You received this e-mail because you are subscribed
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe
from this mailing list send a blank message to
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM




Pongsak Chaisuparasmikul Ph.D, DOE 2.1E Consultant
3140 South Michigan Avenue, #604
Chicago, IL 60616-3807 U.S.A.
Phone: +1 312 225 4610
Fax: +1 775 368 3267

Model ideas and experience of the sustainability design, and simulate energy efficient building in the virtual environment first before construction is ever created in the real world to avoid mistake, time consuming, and unneccessary cost.
--0-1264199668-1179628308=:25330-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: IES both from the point of view of time taken to carry out a project, initial learning and picking up projects again months down the line. =20 COST DesignBuilder initial purchase cost is much lower than IES . One = should also bear in mind total cost of ownership rather than just initial = purchase cost when making the decision, including consideration of time taken to learn software and the time it takes to create a building model. =20 HVAC MODELING IES has a flexible modular HVAC modeling capability, but it takes a relatively long time to learn and set up a particular model. It does not model water side. =20 DesignBuilder has compact HVAC which allows typical HVAC systems to be modeled quickly and easily, but is currently lacking in flexibility. DesignBuilder version 1.3 (to be released end May) will be a significant improvement with almost full implementation of EnergyPlus compact HVAC systems. Many advanced DesignBuilder users use the software for = exporting EnergyPlus IDF building descriptions for more detailed modeling in the EnergyPlus editor. DesignBuilder version 2 (to be released early 2008) = will have a full diagrammatic modular HVAC UI providing access to most of the EnergyPlus HVAC systems. =20 OTHER CAPABILITIES IES has a much wider range of other applications linked into the virtual environment including pipe and duct sizing, radiance, CFD, 3-D = CAD interoperability through gbXML.=20 =20 DesignBuilder is a more focused building energy simulation, thermal = design and visualization product. DesignBuilder version 2 will have = high-quality CFD simulations and 3-D CAD interoperability through gbXML (as well as = the above-mentioned diagrammatic EnergyPlus HVAC editor).=20 Best regards, Mahabir=20 _______________________________________________ Mahabir Bhandari, Ph.D. LEED=AE Accredited Professional DesignBuilder Software 18 Tanglewood Rd. Amherst, MA 01002 =20 Tel: (413) 256-4647 Fax: (413) 256-4823 cell: (413) 575-6825 email: bhandari at designbuildersoftware.com web: http://www.designbuildersoftware.com =20 =20 ________________________________________ From: Josh K [mailto:jeemang at gmail.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:58 PM To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com Subject: [BLDG-SIM] IES vs DesignBuilder I work for an architectural firm that hired me to gain building energy modeling capabilities. As they've never done this before, the first = order of business is selecting an application to carry out said building energy modeling.=20 Taking a preliminary survey of the available applications and comparing = them with our criteria yielded two "finalists":=A0 DesignBuilder and the IES = . I've been demoing each of them for a little while and reading the documentation, and although I've definitely been able to identify some = pros and cons for each, I feel I lack the experience/knowledge to make a definitive decision.=20 If anyone uses or has used either of these programs, has any opinion of them, or has even heard rumours about them circulating about the grape = vine, any insights they could offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Josh Josh Kjenner, EIT Manasc Isaac Architects Ltd. 10225 100 Ave :: Edmonton, AB T5J OA1 780.429.3977 ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Please click on the link below for more information and online payment http://www.iit.edu/~archdoc/energyseminar2.html ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM --Boundary_(ID_6ygw9O21HysVsMDx0nTjcg) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
 
The Ph.D. = program of the College=20 of Architecture at the
Illinois = Institute of Technology=20 is proud to sponsor its second
Building Energy Analysis = Seminar=20 Series
 

eQUEST=AE and=20 VisualDOE

 
From May 21st to May = 24th,=20 2007
 
 
Please click on the link = below for=20 more information and online payment
 
http://www.iit.edu/~archdoc/energyseminar2.html<= /A>
 
 

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
--Boundary_(ID_6ygw9O21HysVsMDx0nTjcg)-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Please click on the link below for more information http://www.iit.edu/~archdoc/energyseminar2.html ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM --Boundary_(ID_dP6nMTI5SoqsUnLguevePQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
The Ph.D. program of the College of Architecture at the
Illinois Institute of Technology is proud to sponsor its second
Building Energy Analysis Seminar Series
 
eQuest and VisualDOE
 
From May 21st to May 24th, 2007
 
 
Please click on the link below for more information
 
 

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
--Boundary_(ID_dP6nMTI5SoqsUnLguevePQ)-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: thermal efficiency can be used to isolate the small jacket losses for a given boiler. However this doesn't translate directly into DOE2.2. STANDBY-TIME is used to account for these losses.=20 =20 When setting up a boiler in DOE-2 or eQuest, what are realistic values you users have applied for STANDBY-TIME? =20 The DOE2.2 manual volume 2 defines STANDBY-TIME as "The number of hours of equivalent full-load time required to maintain a boiler at temperature, when the heating load is zero. When operating below the MIN-RATIO, the boiler is assumed to be cycling. When cycled on, the boiler will operate at the MIN-RATIO. When off, losses and energy are determined using this keyword. The program interpolates between energy consumed at the MIN-RATIO, and energy in full standby mode; based on the fraction of the time the boiler is cycled on."=20 =20 Is the DOE-2 default of 0.016 hours realistic? =20 S.P. Henry Interface Engineering=20 Portland OR =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C761D4.54A3EFDE Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Standby losses

"About 1.5%–2.0% of the = rated boiler=20 fuel input is lost to the engine room. While this loss is small when = boilers=20 operate at or near their rated capacity, it can be significant where = boilers=20 operate frequently at low loads. For example, imagine a boiler rated at = 10 GJ/hr=20 fuel input, but operating at a 2 GJ/hr level. The standby loss of 2% of = 10 GJ/hr=20 is 200 megajoules per hour. This is the reason why plants with large = seasonal=20 variations in steam-use install small boilers to operate during the = summer=20 rather than operate large boilers year round. "

This from the State of Victoria's sustainability web = site...=20 Google "firetube standby losses boiler optimisation" and the article = should be=20 at the top of the list.  So 1.6% standby loss for a firetube boiler = sounds=20 right in the ballpark, and jibes with everyday experience...to me, = STANDBY-TIME=20 as defined translates directly to standby losses as a percentage of full = load=20 capacity. 
 
Condensing boilers on = the other=20 hand, should have near-zero standby losses since they don't need to = stay=20 warm to avoid thermal shock.  It was tough to quickly find = manufactures=20 documentation confirming this, but a call to our local Cleaver-Brooks = rep who in=20 turn called the factory came back with an estimate of about 0.25%, i.e. = 0.0025,=20 that he will attempt back up with a published reference tomorrow. =20
 
Thanks for bringing up this = topic Sean,=20 the default standby time in my eQuest simulations is 0.027 for = firetubes...=20 a number that definitely needs to be changed when running a condensing = boiler as=20 the parametric comparative.
 
Brandon Nichols, PE
Mechanical
HARGIS ENGINEERS
600 = Stewart=20 St
Suite 1000
Seattle, WA 98101
d | 206.436.0400 c | = 206.228.8707
o=20 | 206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450
www.hargis.biz
=
 
 
 

 
From: BLDG-SIM at gard.com=20 [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Be I. can youhalf Of Sean=20 Henry
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:56 AM
To:=20 BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Boiler Standby Loss and = Cycling=20 Times

Dear BLDG-SIM = users:

In modeling boilers, standby losses obviously = need to be=20 accounted for. From a practical standpoint the difference in combustion=20 efficiency and thermal efficiency can be used to isolate the small = jacket losses=20 for a given boiler. However this doesn’t translate directly into = DOE2.2.=20 STANDBY-TIME is used to account for these losses. =

 

When setting up a boiler in DOE-2 or eQuest, = what are=20 realistic values you users have applied for=20 STANDBY-TIME?

 

The DOE2.2 manual volume 2 defines = STANDBY-TIME as “The=20 number of hours of equivalent full-load time required to maintain a = boiler at=20 temperature, when the heating load is zero.  When operating below = the=20 MIN-RATIO, the boiler is assumed to be cycling.  When cycled on, = the boiler=20 will operate at the MIN-RATIO.  When off, losses and energy are = determined=20 using this keyword.  The program interpolates between energy = consumed at=20 the MIN-RATIO, and energy in full standby mode; based on the fraction of = the=20 time the boiler is cycled on.”

 

Is the DOE-2 default of 0.016 hours=20 realistic?

 

S.P. Henry

Interface Engineering =

Portland OR

 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C761D4.54A3EFDE-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: thermal efficiency can be used to isolate the small jacket losses for a given boiler. However this doesn't translate directly into DOE2.2. STANDBY-TIME is used to account for these losses.=20 =20 When setting up a boiler in DOE-2 or eQuest, what are realistic values you users have applied for STANDBY-TIME? =20 The DOE2.2 manual volume 2 defines STANDBY-TIME as "The number of hours of equivalent full-load time required to maintain a boiler at temperature, when the heating load is zero. When operating below the MIN-RATIO, the boiler is assumed to be cycling. When cycled on, the boiler will operate at the MIN-RATIO. When off, losses and energy are determined using this keyword. The program interpolates between energy consumed at the MIN-RATIO, and energy in full standby mode; based on the fraction of the time the boiler is cycled on."=20 =20 Is the DOE-2 default of 0.016 hours realistic? =20 S.P. Henry Interface Engineering=20 Portland OR =20 ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C761BB.D7A67912 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear BLDG-SIM users:

In modeling boilers, standby losses obviously need to be = accounted for. From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: thermal efficiency can be used to isolate the small jacket losses for a given = boiler. However this doesn’t translate directly into DOE2.2. STANDBY-TIME = is used to account for these losses.

 

When setting up a boiler in DOE-2 or eQuest, what are realistic = values you users have applied for STANDBY-TIME?

 

The DOE2.2 manual volume 2 defines STANDBY-TIME as “The = number of hours of equivalent full-load time required to maintain a boiler at temperature, when the heating load is zero.  When operating below = the MIN-RATIO, the boiler is assumed to be cycling.  When cycled on, = the boiler will operate at the MIN-RATIO.  When off, losses and energy = are determined using this keyword.  The program interpolates between = energy consumed at the MIN-RATIO, and energy in full standby mode; based on the fraction of the time the boiler is cycled on.” =

 

Is the DOE-2 default of 0.016 hours = realistic?

 

S.P. Henry

Interface Engineering

Portland OR

 


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C761BB.D7A67912-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: thermal efficiency can be used to isolate the small jacket losses for a given boiler. However this doesn't translate directly into DOE2.2. STANDBY-TIME is used to account for these losses.=20 =20 When setting up a boiler in DOE-2 or eQuest, what are realistic values you users have applied for STANDBY-TIME? =20 The DOE2.2 manual volume 2 defines STANDBY-TIME as "The number of hours of equivalent full-load time required to maintain a boiler at temperature, when the heating load is zero. When operating below the MIN-RATIO, the boiler is assumed to be cycling. When cycled on, the boiler will operate at the MIN-RATIO. When off, losses and energy are determined using this keyword. The program interpolates between energy consumed at the MIN-RATIO, and energy in full standby mode; based on the fraction of the time the boiler is cycled on."=20 =20 Is the DOE-2 default of 0.016 hours realistic? =20 S.P. Henry Interface Engineering=20 Portland OR =20 ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C761BB.D7A67912 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear BLDG-SIM users:

In modeling boilers, standby losses obviously need to be = accounted for. From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: thermal efficiency can be used to isolate the small jacket losses for a given = boiler. However this doesn’t translate directly into DOE2.2. STANDBY-TIME = is used to account for these losses.

 

When setting up a boiler in DOE-2 or eQuest, what are realistic = values you users have applied for STANDBY-TIME?

 

The DOE2.2 manual volume 2 defines STANDBY-TIME as “The = number of hours of equivalent full-load time required to maintain a boiler at temperature, when the heating load is zero.  When operating below = the MIN-RATIO, the boiler is assumed to be cycling.  When cycled on, = the boiler will operate at the MIN-RATIO.  When off, losses and energy = are determined using this keyword.  The program interpolates between = energy consumed at the MIN-RATIO, and energy in full standby mode; based on the fraction of the time the boiler is cycled on.” =

 

Is the DOE-2 default of 0.016 hours = realistic?

 

S.P. Henry

Interface Engineering

Portland OR

 


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C761BB.D7A67912-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: horizontal bands are no longer required. You can place the windows = as-designed and run the baseline with the same windows (as long as you = do not exceed 40% window-to-wall ratio).=20 -----Original Message----- From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com]On Behalf Of Andy = McNamara Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:39 AM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] eQUEST window baseline Hello, I am creating an energy model for a LEED project. In "baselining" the = building, one of the stipulations of ASHRAE 90.1 2004 is that the = windows must be evenly distributed in horizontal bands on each facet of = the facade. My building has 17 facets due to a somewhat complicated = design and I am wondering if anyone knows a relatively straightforward = way to accomplish that distribution. One of my problems is that in the = Design Development Wizard, there are only 4 areas in which to enter = percentages (N., E., S., W.) which doesn't seem to work on a building = with so many facets. On the other hand, it seems tedious to go into = each window and adjust its percentage. Is there a more elegant way to = adjust window proportions globally? I am thinking a parametric run = might be the best solution. Can anyone provide some insight on this? Thank you! Andrew McNamara =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C75148.3ADC1AD4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
So, I=20 just got off the phone with the EA TAG member, and here are the basic = items he=20 passed on to me:
  • The=20 EA TAG recommended to the LEED steering group to allow all addenda, = and there=20 was no response stating the addenda should not be = allowed
  • A=20 recent CIR was submitted to allow all addenda for ALL ASHRAE = standards, and=20 the response allowing these addenda is not yet on the USGBC web page - = and=20 this could take weeks to months to actually be = online
Additionally, the EA TAG member mentioned that there are other = issues=20 that have not been put on the website, or took longer (than it should = have) to=20 appear on the web page. Examples were the approval of Title-24 and the = Oregon=20 Energy Code being equivalent to ASHRAE 90.1-2004.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim at gard.com=20 [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com]On Behalf Of Mike = Tillou
Sent:=20 Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:47 PM
To:=20 bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] eQUEST window=20 baseline

Mitchell,
 
Is=20 that official or unofficial news from USGBC?  As far as I = understood LEED=20 2.2 is using the version of Appendix G as written in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 = without=20 addenda.  The change in Appendix G allowing you to use the actual = window=20 placement rather than equal banding on each facet was changed via = ASHRAE=20 addendum A in 2006 which means it would NOT apply to LEED = 2.2=20 projects.
 
Here=20 is the email response I got last month when I asked a member of the = EA-TAG=20 whether Addenda to 90.1-2004 applied to LEED 2.2. " = Unfortunately it=20 stops at 90.1-2004 and does not include addenda.  The Reference = Guide=20 explicitly states “90.1-2004 (without = amendments)”."
 
Is=20 there anyone from USGBC that can clarify this?
 
Mike

Michael = Tillou,=20 PE
ETC=20 Group - Energy Engineering for a Sustainable Future =
Ph:413-458-9870=20

-----Original Message-----
From:=20 bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com] On Behalf Of = Mitchell=20 Dec
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:54 = PM
To:=20 bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] eQUEST window=20 baseline

From what I have been told by a member of the EA TAG is = that the=20 horizontal bands are no longer required. You can place the windows=20 as-designed and run the baseline with the same windows (as long as = you do=20 not exceed 40% window-to-wall ratio).
-----Original Message-----
From: = bldg-sim at gard.com=20 [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com]On Behalf Of Andy=20 McNamara
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:39 = AM
To:=20 bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] eQUEST window=20 baseline

Hello,

I am creating an energy = model for a=20 LEED project.  In "baselining" the building, one of the = stipulations=20 of ASHRAE 90.1 2004 is that the windows must be evenly distributed = in=20 horizontal bands on each facet of the facade.  My building = has 17=20 facets due to a somewhat complicated design and I am wondering if = anyone=20 knows a relatively straightforward way to accomplish that=20 distribution.  One of my problems is that in the Design = Development=20 Wizard, there are only 4 areas in which to enter percentages (N., = E., S.,=20 W.) which doesn't seem to work on a building with so many = facets.  On=20 the other hand, it seems tedious to go into each window and adjust = its=20 percentage.  Is there a more elegant way to adjust window = proportions=20 globally?  I am thinking a parametric run might be the best=20 solution.  Can anyone provide some insight on = this?

Thank=20 you!
Andrew McNamara

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C75148.3ADC1AD4-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: horizontal bands are no longer required. You can place the windows = as-designed and run the baseline with the same windows (as long as you = do not exceed 40% window-to-wall ratio).=20 -----Original Message----- From: bldg-sim at gard.com [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com]On Behalf Of Andy = McNamara Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:39 AM To: bldg-sim at gard.com Subject: [bldg-sim] eQUEST window baseline Hello, I am creating an energy model for a LEED project. In "baselining" the = building, one of the stipulations of ASHRAE 90.1 2004 is that the = windows must be evenly distributed in horizontal bands on each facet of = the facade. My building has 17 facets due to a somewhat complicated = design and I am wondering if anyone knows a relatively straightforward = way to accomplish that distribution. One of my problems is that in the = Design Development Wizard, there are only 4 areas in which to enter = percentages (N., E., S., W.) which doesn't seem to work on a building = with so many facets. On the other hand, it seems tedious to go into = each window and adjust its percentage. Is there a more elegant way to = adjust window proportions globally? I am thinking a parametric run = might be the best solution. Can anyone provide some insight on this? Thank you! Andrew McNamara ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7512A.49AD0040 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From=20 what I have been told by a member of the EA TAG is that the horizontal = bands are=20 no longer required. You can place the windows as-designed and run the = baseline=20 with the same windows (as long as you do not exceed 40% window-to-wall = ratio).=20
-----Original Message-----
From: bldg-sim at gard.com=20 [mailto:bldg-sim at gard.com]On Behalf Of Andy = McNamara
Sent:=20 Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:39 AM
To:=20 bldg-sim at gard.com
Subject: [bldg-sim] eQUEST window=20 baseline

Hello,

I am=20 creating an energy model for a LEED project.  In "baselining" the = building, one of the stipulations of ASHRAE 90.1 2004 is that the = windows must=20 be evenly distributed in horizontal bands on each facet of the = facade. =20 My building has 17 facets due to a somewhat complicated design and I = am=20 wondering if anyone knows a relatively straightforward way to = accomplish that=20 distribution.  One of my problems is that in the Design = Development=20 Wizard, there are only 4 areas in which to enter percentages (N., E., = S., W.)=20 which doesn't seem to work on a building with so many facets.  On = the=20 other hand, it seems tedious to go into each window and adjust its=20 percentage.  Is there a more elegant way to adjust window = proportions=20 globally?  I am thinking a parametric run might be the best=20 solution.  Can anyone provide some insight on this?

Thank=20 you!
Andrew McNamara


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C7512A.49AD0040-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Headquarters, Arup's engineering design work is world renowned!=20 =20 Arup is seeking a Senior Mechanical Engineer with superior design and analysis skills, to lead projects, mentor staff and function as a high level technical lead for their Seattle, WA office. (Generous relocation package offered!)=20 =20 The successful candidate will have a passion for sustainability, energy efficiency and complex design. Arup is a leading, 60 year old, international design firm with over 9,000 members worldwide in 86 offices.=20 =20 At Arup, you will be working in a team of talented engineers developing designs and delivering projects in the US and around the world. We design a wide range of project types including the Seattle Public Library, the 2008 Beijing Olympic Stadium, the Air Force Memorial, The Denver Art Museum....for more information, check us out a www.arup.com =20 We have excellent benefits and we work in a collegiate, multi-disciplinary environment where engineers mix and work in teams such that you will experience sustainability in its broadest sense as well as working with talented sustainability consultants, acousticians, fire engineers, facade specialist, energy modellers, lighting specialists and many others. =20 Want to learn more? www.arup.com =20 Send resumes to: susanne.sipola at arup.com =20 Benefits: =20 -Full medical, dental, long term disability and life insurance coverage=20 -Three weeks' vacation in year one=20 -10% of annual compensation contributed by the company to your retirement plan, up to IRS limits=20 -Educational assistance=20 -Health club subsidy=20 -Paid, comprehensive training programs=20 -Team-oriented working environment=20 -Business casual dress=20 =20 Voted "Best AEC Firm to Work For" by Building Design + Construction Magazine, 2007. =20 =20 =20 ________________________________ Susanne Sipola Recruiter Arup=20 901 Market Street, Suite 260, San Francisco CA 94103 tel: 1 415 946 1634 fax: 1 415 957 9096 cell: 1 415 420-3834 susanne.sipola at arup.com =20 www.arup.com =20 ____________________________________________________________ Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8339E.B7CD3C8C Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From the Sydney Opera House, to the Bill & Melind= a Gates=20 Foundation Headquarters, Arup's engineering design work is world=20 renowned!
 
Arup is seeking a Senior Mechanical Engineer with superior design = and=20 analysis skills, to lead projects, mentor staff and function as a high leve= l=20 technical lead for their Seattle, WA offic= e.=20 (Generous relocation package offered!) 
 
The successful candi= date will=20 have a passion for sustainability, energy efficiency and complex=20 design.

Arup is a leading, 60 year old, intern= ational=20 design firm with over 9,000 members worldwide in 86 offices.
 

At Arup, you will be work= ing in a=20 team of talented engineers developing designs and delivering projects in th= e=20 US and around the world. We de= sign a=20 wide range of project types including the = Seattle=20 Public Library, the 2008 Beijing Olympic Stadium, the Air Force Memorial, T= he=20 Denver Art Museum....for more information, check us out a www.arup.com

 

We have excellent benefits and we wo= rk in a=20 collegiate, multi-disciplinary environment where engineers mix and work in = teams=20 such that you will experience sustainability in its broadest sense as well = as=20 working with talented sustainability=20 consultants, acousticians, fire engineers, facade specialist, energy=20 modellers, lighting specialists and many others.

 

Want to learn more?  www.arup.com

 <= /P>

Send resumes=20 to:  susanne.sipola at arup.com<= /o:p>

 <= /P>

Benefits:

 <= /P>

-Full medical, dental, long ter= m=20 disability and life insurance coverage
-Three weeks' vacation in year o= ne=20
-10% of annual compensation contributed by the company to your retireme= nt=20 plan, up to IRS limits
-Educational assistance
-Health club subsidy=20
-Paid, comprehensive training programs
-Team-oriented working=20 environment
-Business casual dress=20

&nbs= p;

 <= /P>

 <= /P>

 

________________________________
Susanne=20 Sipola
Recruiter


Arup 
901 Market Street, Suite 2= 60, San=20 Francisco CA 94103
tel: 1 415 946 1634
fax: 1 415 957 9096
cell: 1= 415=20 420-3834
susanne.sipola at arup.com
www.arup.com

 
__________________=
__________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup  business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8339E.B7CD3C8C-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: "EnergyGauge Summit is a Windows(R) based product with a flexible graphical user interface. EnergyGauge Summit performs Florida energy code compliance for commercial buildings based on the ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) standard 90.1-2001. The premier version adds ASHRAE 90.1-2004, Appendix G ratings tax deduction reports and LEED energy performance reports. An overview of features is provided below." Does anyone have experience or thoughts? Drawbacks? Usability? Accuracy? I'm looking to get a conversation started here, because I didn't find anything in the archive on this program. Best, Andy -- Andrew McNamara, LEED AP Bright Power, Inc. 43 W. 33rd St. Suite 302 New York, NY 10001 p. 212.803.5868 f. 866.379.8026 c. 917.974.4499 amcnamara at brightpower.biz www.brightpower.biz ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------=_Part_10808_9485634.1195669662891 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hello,

Does anyone on the list have experience with the Florida Solar Energy Center's "Energy Gauge" Software? It claims to auto-generate ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G Baselines, LEED EA credit 1 templates, and commercial building tax deduction reports.  This would seem to be a huge benefit over eQUEST and other software.  See below.

From site: http://www.energygauge.com/flacom/features.htm

"EnergyGauge Summit is a Windows® based product with a flexible graphical user interface. EnergyGauge Summit performs Florida energy code compliance for commercial buildings based on the ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) standard 90.1-2001. The premier version adds ASHRAE 90.1-2004, Appendix G ratings tax deduction reports and LEED energy performance reports. An overview of features is provided below."

Does anyone have experience or thoughts?  Drawbacks? Usability? Accuracy?  I'm looking to get a conversation started here, because I didn't find anything in the archive on this program.

Best,
Andy

--
Andrew McNamara, LEED AP
Bright Power, Inc.
43 W. 33rd St.
Suite 302
New York, NY 10001
p. 212.803.5868
f. 866.379.8026
c. 917.974.4499
amcnamara at brightpower.biz
www.brightpower.biz ------=_Part_10808_9485634.1195669662891-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: 1. Lower the Space temperature to 68F.=20 2. Using the FPH system in eQUEST. This doesn't allow for cooling however, and uses no fans (we still have air supply in our building).=20 3. Andrew Craig suggested inputting the capacity of the radiant system as an internal energy source. (This is great because it allows the fans to cycle on/off and maintains the cooling side. It doesn't calculate heating loads on the radiant slab though) What I plan to do is use the FPH system and setback the thermostat to 68F in these spaces. This will allow me to calculate the heating energy on the radiant coil. I then plan to use Andrew's "internal energy source" method to calculate the airside system loads, and add the FPH heat load to that.=20 Does this seem like a reasonable method to model this?=20 Vikram Sami, LEED AP=20 Direct Phone 404-253-1466 | Direct Fax 404-253-1366=20 LORD, AECK & SARGENT ARCHITECTURE 1201 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30361=20 Responsive Design * Technological Expertise * Exceptional Service=20 www.lordaecksargent.com =20 Please don't print this email unless you really have to.=20 One tree makes 16.67 reams of copy paper or 8,333.3 sheets ~Conservatree, September 2002 =20 =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C82AFE.86AE47CC Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Radiant Slabs in eQUEST and LEED

Why not run the system as four = pipe fan coil and remove the fan power. The system should maintain the required = space temperatures. The capacities of the fan coil unit are then the heating and cooling = capacities of the radiant slab. Assuming the slab is only used for convective = heating and cooling. If you want to look at radiation energy exchange you will need = another program.

 

=

Good = luck.

 

=

Peter Simmonds = Ph.D.

Associate
IBE Consulting = Engineers

14130 Riverside Drive Suite = 201

Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
p:   (818) 377-8220
f:    (818) 377-8230
m:  (818) 219-1284
IDEAS FOR THE BUILT = ENVIRONMENT

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of = the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged = information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. = If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply = e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: = BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Behalf Of Vikram = Sami
Sent: Monday, November = 19, 2007 2:31 PM
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] = Radiant Slabs in eQUEST and LEED

 

I'm doing an ECB documentation for a LEED 2.1 project using eQUEST. Around = half of the building uses hydronic radiant floor heating. I am trying to model = this in eQUEST.

From past threads, suggestions I have come across are:
1. Lower the Space temperature to 68F.
2. Using the FPH system in eQUEST. This doesn't allow for cooling however, = and uses no fans (we still have air supply in our building). =

3. Andrew Craig suggested inputting the capacity of the radiant system as = an internal energy source. (This is great because it allows the fans to = cycle on/off and maintains the cooling side. It doesn't calculate heating = loads on the radiant slab though)

What I plan to do is use the FPH system and setback the thermostat to 68F in = these spaces. This will allow me to calculate the heating energy on the = radiant coil. I then plan to use Andrew's "internal energy source" method to calculate the airside system loads, and add the FPH heat load to that. =

Does this seem like a reasonable method to model this? =

Vikram = Sami, LEED AP
Direct Phone 404-253-1466 | Direct Fax 404-253-1366 =

LORD, AECK & = SARGENT ARCHITECTURE
1201 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30361
Responsive Design · Technological = Expertise · Exceptional Service
www.lordaecksargent.com =

Please don't print = this email unless you really have to.
One tree makes 16.67 reams of copy paper = or 8,333.3 sheets
~Conservatree, September 2002

 

 
 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
You =
received this e-mail because you are subscribed =

to the =
BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe =

from this =
mailing list send a blank message to =

BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM

======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C82AFE.86AE47CC-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: 1. Lower the Space temperature to 68F. 2. Using the FPH system in eQUEST. This doesn't allow for cooling however, and uses no fans (we still have air supply in our building).=20 3. Andrew Craig suggested inputting the capacity of the radiant system as an internal energy source. (This is great because it allows the fans to cycle on/off and maintains the cooling side. It doesn't calculate heating loads on the radiant slab though) What I plan to do is use the FPH system and setback the thermostat to 68F in these spaces. This will allow me to calculate the heating energy on the radiant coil. I then plan to use Andrew's "internal energy source" method to calculate the airside system loads, and add the FPH heat load to that.=20 Does this seem like a reasonable method to model this? Vikram Sami, LEED AP Direct Phone 404-253-1466 | Direct Fax 404-253-1366 LORD, AECK & SARGENT ARCHITECTURE 1201 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30361 Responsive Design * Technological Expertise * Exceptional Service www.lordaecksargent.com Please don't print this email unless you really have to. One tree makes 16.67 reams of copy paper or 8,333.3 sheets ~Conservatree, September 2002 ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C82AFB.D0172F20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Radiant Slabs in eQUEST and LEED

I'm doing an ECB documentation for a= LEED 2.1 project using eQUEST. Around half of the building uses hydroni= c radiant floor heating. I am trying to model this in eQUEST.

From past threads, suggestions I have= come across are:
1. Lower the Space temperature to 68F.=
2. Using the FPH system in eQUEST. Thi= s doesn't allow for cooling however, and uses no fans (we still have air= supply in our building).

3. Andrew Craig suggested inputting the= capacity of the radiant system as an internal energy source. (This is= great because it allows the fans to cycle on/off and maintains the cool= ing side. It doesn't calculate heating loads on the radiant slab though)=

What I plan to do is use the FPH system= and setback the thermostat to 68F in these spaces. This will allow me= to calculate the heating energy on the radiant coil. I then plan to use= Andrew's "internal energy source" method to calculate the air= side system loads, and add the FPH heat load to that.

Does this seem like a reasonable method= to model this?

Vikram Sami,= LEED AP
Direct Phone 404-253-1466= | Direct Fax 404-253-1366

LORD, AECK & S<= FONT COLOR=3D"#800000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Garamond">ARGENT ARCHITECTURE
1201 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 300= , Atlanta, GA 30361
Responsive Design · Technological Expertise · Exceptional Service
www.lordaecksargent.com

Please don't print this= email unless you really have to.
One tree makes 16.67= reams of copy paper or 8,333.3 sheets
~Conservatree, September 2002




======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C82AFB.D0172F20-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID:

 

10:45-11:05=A0=A0 Simon Law, Faber Maunsell=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Key sensitivities of the Part L carbon emissions calculations<= /span>

11:05-11:25=A0=A0 David Colley, Uni. of Exeter=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Routes to low energy design

11:25-11:25=A0=A0 Paul Carey, ZED=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Comparisons of results from case study investigations - Part L= , where are we now?

11:45- 12:05=A0 Christopher Yates, = BDP=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Building regulations part C: simulation of the ground-slab fa=E7ade interface=

 

13:20-13:40=A0=A0 Mhairi Mackie, Uni. of Plymouth=A0= =A0 Using lighting and energy simulation in the design studio

13:40-14:00=A0=A0 Charles McGilligan, Plymouth=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0 Assessment of the impact of Article 7 of the EPBD on the UK hou= sehold sector

14:00-14:45=A0=A0 Andy Tindale, DesignBuilder=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 Keynote: Design Builder Software

 

15:15-15:35=A0 Filbert Musau, Uni. of Bath=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Investigating the impact of space planning on energy efficiency in offices

15:35-15:55=A0 John Littlewood, BDP=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A zero-heating two storey earth sheltered house, suitable for the UK climate<= o:p>

15:55-16:15=A0 Yaqub Rafiq, Uni. of Plymouth=A0=A0=A0=A0 A fra= mework for the assessment of climate change on the thermal performance of buildings

16:15-16:35=A0=A0 Mike Phillips, Un= i. of Plymouth=A0=A0=A0=A0 The Arch-OS system

16:35-16:45=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 Closure

&= nbsp;

For details, registration, or for more information abo= ut IBPSA-England, please visit www.ib= psa-england.org.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Pieter de Wilde

 

 

Dr.Ir. P.J.= C.J. de Wilde

Lecturer in= Building Technology, Building Physics

& Build= ing Performance Simulation

 =

Secretary o= f IBPSA-England

 =

University of Plymouth, School of Engineering

Plymouth, PL4 8AA, Devon, United Kingdom

 

 

 

 


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
--_000_D316C48934DDC340AEC96EF223BC53C90FA2B33AE4ILS130uopnetp_-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: you started... =20 =20 Brandon Nichols, PE, LEED(r) AP Mechanical HARGIS ENGINEERS 600 Stewart Street Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98101 www.hargis.biz =20 d | 206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707 o | 206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450 =20 =20 _____ =20 From: BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Behalf Of McCready, Jessica Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 2:35 PM To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com Subject: [BLDG-SIM] eQuest: macro for extracting data from a sim file I need to extract data from a sim file. I have over 1600 runs to make and need only one piece of data from the SIM file. Has anyone put together a macro like this before? Examples... Thanks, Jessica=20 Jessica E. McCready=20 Energy Engineer=20 KEMA Services Inc.=20 492 Ninth Street, Suite 220=20 Oakland, CA 94607=20 T 510-891-0446=20 F 510-891-0440=20 jessica.mccready at kema.com=20 Please visit our website www.kema.com =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C81D9A.83190330 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable eQuest: macro for extracting data from a sim = file
Jessica,
 
I would use SED, which uses regular expressions = to operate=20 on text files.  By coincidence, I just completed a post today on regular=20 expressions using MultiEdit to operate on .inp files.  Have = used SED=20 for many utilitarian tasks similar to what you describe -- can you = e-mail me the=20 part of the sim file containing the data you want to extract? =20
 
From that I could whip up an example = commandline syntax=20 with SED to get you started...
 
 
Brandon Nichols,=20 PE, LEED®=20 AP
Mechanical
HARGIS ENGINEERS

600 Stewart Street

Suite 1000

Seattle, WA 98101

www.hargis.biz

 

d=20 |=20 206.436.0400  c | 206.228.8707

o=20 |=20 206.448.3376  f  |=20 206.448.4450

 
 

From: BLDG-SIM at gard.com=20 [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Behalf Of McCready, = Jessica
Sent:=20 Friday, November 02, 2007 2:35 PM
To:=20 BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] eQuest: macro for = extracting=20 data from a sim file

I need to extract data from a sim = file. I have=20 over 1600 runs to make and need only one piece of data from the SIM = file. Has=20 anyone put together a macro like this before? Examples...

Thanks, Jessica


Jessica E. McCready
Energy Engineer
KEMA = Services=20 Inc.
492 Ninth Street, Suite = 220=20
Oakland, CA 94607=20
T 510-891-0446
F 510-891-0440
jessica.mccready at kema.com
Please visit=20 our website www.kema.com 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C81D9A.83190330-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: HTH... =20 Brandon Nichols, PE, LEED=AE AP Mechanical HARGIS ENGINEERS 600 Stewart Street Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98101 www.hargis.biz d | 206.436.0400 c | 206.228.8707 o | 206.448.3376 f | 206.448.4450 =20 -----Original Message----- From: BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Behalf Of Michael = Tillou Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:56 PM To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com Subject: [BLDG-SIM] eQuest Default f(PLR) Skepticism Steve, A great DOE2.2 feature would be the ability to create boilers and = chillers that could be put into the library. That way you can recall = specific combinations of keywords without having to recreate from = scratch. Mike -----Original Message----- From: BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Behalf Of Steven = Gates Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:48 PM To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com Subject: [BLDG-SIM] eQuest Default f(PLR) Skepticism A few more comments regarding boilers: We based the default curve for atmospheric boilers on information = received from a Northern California manufacturer's representative. The = default atmospheric boiler consumes 45% fuel at 40% part load, so = efficiency does deteriorate. At full load, the efficiency is 80%; = calculated as (PLR=3D1.) / (HIR=3D1.25). At 40% load, the default curve = yields an efficiency of 71%; calculated as (PLR=3D0.40) / (HIR=3D1.25 * = HIRfPLR=3D0.45).=20 We believe that a 71% efficiency at 40% load is reasonable for a modern = atmospheric boiler. The default was based on a packaged water-tube = boiler with internal convective recirculation, but performance for other = types is expected to be similar.=20 The default atmospheric boiler unloads to 40% part-load ratio, and then = starts to cycle on/off; the HIRfPLR curve is valid only for part-load = ratios above 40%. The loss during the off-cycle is characterized by the = "standby time", which is the equivalent full-load time in hours required = to keep the boiler hot, if the boiler has no load at all. The default is = 0.027 hours, meaning that, at no load, the boiler would have to run = about 2 minutes/hour at full load to offset the jacket and flue losses. = The documentation describes the use of the standby-time vs. the = part-load curve in further detail. At very low loads, efficiency is = seriously degraded; by definition the efficiency at 0% load is 0%. You = can observe this if you set up an hourly report for the boiler and = observe it at very low loads.=20 Our experience to date is that manufacturer's part-load data for boiler = performance is quite difficult to obtain. If any of you have = well-documented data that deviates significantly from the defaults, we = would appreciate hearing from you. As eQUEST/DOE-2 supports a library of = equipment, it would be possible to add performance data for various = types of boilers to the library. For chillers, let me further clarify Kevin's comment regarding the EIRf(PLR,dT) curve. As Kevin explained, the dT term need be developed = only for variable-speed centrifugal chillers; it is of quite limited = value for constant-speed centrifugals, and of extremely limited value = for positive-displacement machines.=20 The discharge/suction temperature differential is closely associated = with the discharge/suction pressure differential. If the cooling tower = is controlled to a fixed, high setpoint such as 85F, then the chiller = impeller may not be able to slow down much at all, even at low loads; = the majority of capacity modulation will then be via the inlet vanes = rather than speed. This is because the maximum possible pressure rise = across the impeller drops off as the square of the impeller speed. = Chiller impellers are typically closely matched to the design pressure = rise specified by the engineer. If the required pressure rise does not = drop off substantially as the load drops, then the impeller must = maintain speed to avoid surge. Data commonly published by manufacturers (and implicit in the IPLV) = ASSUMES the condensing temperature drops with load; thereby allowing the = impeller speed to drop off. That may not actually be the case in real = life! Nor is it true in eQUEST unless you specify a low tower setpoint, = or utilize a tower reset scheme.=20 The default EIRf(PLR,dT) curve for variable-speed centrifugals was = developed using a manufacturer's proprietary software package that was = loaned to us; it password-expired after a short time. To our knowledge, = these data cannot be developed from software available to the general = engineering community. (You need to be able to vary the chilled-water and condensing = temperatures independently of the part-load ratio. This is also why IPLV = data is worthless for an hourly simulation program; the "condenser = relief" is built into the part-load performance.) Let me know if you are = aware of any centrifugal chiller manufacturers that make this data = generally available. This brings to mind another interesting point that perhaps others can = respond to. Over the years I have heard unsubstantiated rumors that a = multi-impeller chiller, such as a Trane, may have significantly = different part-load performance compared to a single-impeller chiller, = such as a Carrier. Does anybody have information regarding = multi-impeller vs. single-impeller part-load performance? Regards, Steven Gates eQUEST Development Team -----Original Message----- From: BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Behalf Of Kevin = Madison Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:45 AM To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com Cc: BLDG-SIM at gard.com Subject: [BLDG-SIM] eQuest Default f(PLR) Skepticism You are too generous Mike. I should heed my own advice on the = documentation. Thanks for clarifying this. I also thought and consulted a colleague (thanks Steve) on Taylor's = chiller question: For chillers, the second term in EIRf(PLR,dT) is important only for = variable-speed centrifugal chillers. It is of negligible importance in = other types of chillers. It is important in variable-speed, because the = temperature differential is strongly correlated with the required speed = of the impeller. If the dT is high enough, then the impeller may have to = run at full speed even at low loads. The DOE-2 default curves are just = that, defaults. Some folks find it necessary to create new curves to = reflect their specific equipment. Cautions offered * verify the conditions (condenser/evaprator) for efficiencies at lower = part loads are the same as for above 50% * make sure the points are normalized around the rating condition Sorry for my hasty response. Kevin Madison Michael Tillou wrote: > Actually Kevin didn't get the boiler hourly energy equation quite=20 > right. The actual equation is: > Hourly Boiler Energy =3D DesignCapacity * HIR * HIRf(plr) The part of=20 > this that Kevin didn't explain is that the boiler > HIRf(PLR) curve includes the PLR which explains why the curve is=20 > nearly linear. The value that the performance curve returns is=20 > actually > (HIRadj) * PLR > HIRadj =3D the multiplier that indicates how the full load HIR changes = > with respect to part load. If the boiler efficiency at a given part=20 > load goes down, HIRadj > 1. If the boiler efficiency goes up at a=20 > given part load HIRadj<1. HIRadj is really the ratio HIR-partload over = > HIR-fullload. > PLR =3D hourly load on the boiler / total capacity of the boiler To=20 > create a curve that describes boiler HIR at various part loads you=20 > will need to divide the performance curve output at each part load=20 > point by the part load value and then multiply by the full load HIR. > Taylor - You should double check your "custom" chiller curves I'm=20 > pretty sure from what you describe they are not correct. The Vol6 -New = > Features user manual does a good job describing how the chiller curves = > work. I suggest you review this. You can use the Excel function=20 > "LINEST" to create the necessary coefficients for a bi-quadratic curve = > from manufacturers chiller data. Typically you will need to request=20 > data for a specific chiller from the chiller rep. The hardest data to=20 > get is the chiller capacity data at various CHW/CW temperatures. > Remember total chiller capacity is different than the rated 100% part=20 > load point, most chillers can provide 10-20% extra capacity. > I have had good experience creating custom chiller curves for DOE2.2=20 > and I think the default curves in eQuest are representative of the=20 > various chiller types. Obviously if you are evaluating a specific=20 > chiller you should try to create custom curves. > Mike > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > *From:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] *On Behalf Of=20 > *Kevin Madison > *Sent:* Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:46 PM > *To:* BLDG-SIM at gard.com > *Subject:* [BLDG-SIM] eQuest Default f(PLR) Skepticism > > Perhaps it would help to clarify how DOE-2.2 (the simulation engine=20 > behind eQUEST) calculates hourly energy input for boilers and = chillers. > > For boilers, the hourly energy input is: > Hourly Energy =3D Cap(hour) * HIR * HIRf(plr) > > So while the HIRf(plr) may increase as part load decreases, which is=20 > not uncommon for standard atmospheric boilers, the energy use will=20 > certainly decrease with plr because the required output of the boiler=20 > for the hour decreases. > > For chillers, DOE-2 uses the following relationship to calculate the=20 > electricity input to the chiller each hour: > > Caphour =3D Capacity * CAPf(t1,t2) > PLR =3D Load / Caphour > dT =3D t2 - t1 > Elechour =3D Caphour * EIR * EIRf(t1,t2) * EIRf(PLR,dT) / 3413 Btu/kW > > where > > Caphour hourly capacity, Btuh (this is dependent on condenser and=20 > evaporator conditions for that hour) Capacity rated capacity, Btuh > CAPf(t1,t2) correction to capacity for temperatures, curve CAP-FT > t1 leaving chilled-water temperature, =B0F > t2 condenser temperature, =B0F > PLR Part load ratio > Load Hourly load, Btuh > dT Temperature differential across chiller, =B0F Elechour electric = input=20 > to the chiller, kW EIR rated electric input ratio > EIRf(t1,t2) correction to EIR for temperatures, curve EIR-FT > EIRf(PLR,dT) correction to EIR for part-load ratio and dT, curve=20 > EIR-FPLR > > Again, the primary factor affecting chiller energy use is the cooling=20 > capacity needed for that hour. Just because you don't have access to=20 > the dual function information doesn't mean you shouldn't be accounting = > for it in the simulation. Chiller performance is dependent on all=20 > operating conditions including load, condenser conditions and=20 > evaporator conditions. > > For a more complete discussion on these simulation concepts, refer to=20 > the DOE-2 documentation included with the eQUEST installation. Look in = > Dictionary:HVAC Components:Boiler:Boiler Energy Consumption and=20 > Dictionary:HVAC Components:Chiller:Chiller Energy Consumption. > > Kevin Madison > Madison Engineering PS > Seattle WA > USA > > Taylor Keep wrote: >> >> eQuest models boiler and chiller plants with default part load curves = >> that I think may be incorrect. As I understand it, the f(PLR) curves=20 >> are used as a direct multiplier on the HIR for boilers and EIR for=20 >> chillers, with full load (1.0 PLR) corresponding to a 1.0 multiplier. >> If this is true, the f(PLR) curve should increase at part load for=20 >> atmospheric boilers (atmospheric boilers become somewhat less=20 >> efficient at part load). The default atmospheric boiler curve=20 >> decreases almost linearly down to zero! I am having a tough time=20 >> wrapping my head around this. >> >> On the chiller side, the default f(PLR) is a bi-quadratic function=20 >> using both dT and PLR as variables, so it is f(PLR,dT). Since I never = >> have this dual function information in my general chiller selections, = >> I have been using a standard f(PLR) function quoted at a fixed dT=20 >> from the manufacturer. The curve I get from a McQuay 400-ton chiller=20 >> selection is quadratic, with decreasing EIR down to 50% load and=20 >> increasing EIR below 50% load. I seriously doubt that the eQuest=20 >> default corresponds with this entry because changing the function=20 >> produces a huge change in performance. >> >> Do any of you have any thoughts or suggestions about the accuracy of=20 >> default f(PLR) curves? Should I scrap my "improved," real curves -=20 >> they are drastically changing the model performance?!?! >> >> Taylor >> >> >> ________________________________________________________ >> Taylor Keep >> Mechanical, LEED=AE AP >> _ _ >> Arup >> 901 Market Street Suite 260 >> San Francisco, CA 94103 >> tel: 415 946 0279 >> fax: 415 957 9096 >> taylor.keep at arup.com >> _www.arup.com_ >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems=20 >> are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses >> =20 >> = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D >> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the=20 >> BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing=20 >> list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM >> =20 > = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D > You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the=20 > BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list = > send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM > =20 > = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D > You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the=20 > BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list = > send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM > =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the = BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list = send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the = BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list = send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the = BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list = send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: which is from the cooling of the outside air. Third, I subtract the first model's chiller cooling load by the second model's chiller cooling load to obtain what would be the cooling load taken up by radiant ceiling cooling panels.=20 =20 In theory, the radiant cooling panels' load would be much larger than the outside air cooling load. However, my calculations are telling me that the outdoor air load is larger than the radiant cooling panels' load. Also, in the second simulation, I have reduced the amount of supply air by 80% because only outdoor air is being supplied to the building. Therefore, my fan power consumption should decrease by 80% as well. My results tell me however that the fans' energy consumption has only decreased by 10%. =20 Would anyone know of a reason why my results don't make any sense?? The majority of my inputs for the two simulations are the same except for where it is necessary to vary them.=20 =20 Thanks, =20 Jeremy Plitt Mechanical Engineer =20 Setty & Associates, Ltd. 3040 Williams Drive Suite 600 Fairfax, VA 22031-4618 PH: 703-691-2115 Ext. 123 FX: 703-691-8084 ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C80509.E41808B9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello = everyone,

 

=

I’m attempting to model = radiant cooling with eQuest 3-6. You cannot actually model it in eQuest (to my knowledge) so I’m trying to “trick” the program. =

 

=

First, I’m simulating a VAV = system with a chilled water loop for cooling and then obtain the cooling load = on the chiller. Second, I simulate a VAV system with only outside air = ventilation to meet code. There are exhaust fans in each room to replace the return fan = which I removed. From the second simulation I obtain the cooling load on the = chiller which is from the cooling of the outside air. Third, I subtract the = first model’s chiller cooling load by the second model’s chiller cooling load to = obtain what would be the cooling load taken up by radiant ceiling cooling = panels.

 

=

In theory, the radiant cooling = panels’ load would be much larger than the outside air cooling load. However, my calculations are telling me that the outdoor air load is larger than the radiant cooling panels’ load. Also, in the second simulation, I = have reduced the amount of supply air by 80% because only outdoor air is = being supplied to the building. Therefore, my fan power consumption should decrease by = 80% as well. My results tell me however that the fans’ energy consumption = has only decreased by 10%.

 

=

Would anyone know of a reason why = my results don’t make any sense?? The majority of my inputs for the = two simulations are the same except for where it is necessary to vary them. =

 

=

Thanks,

 

Jeremy = Plitt

Mechanical = Engineer

 

=

Setty & Associates, = Ltd.

3040 Williams Drive Suite 600

Fairfax, VA 22031-4618

PH: 703-691-2115 Ext. = 123

FX: = 703-691-8084


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C80509.E41808B9-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: the most reliable results. Have you tried performing the analysis using the Radiance Plug-in which is seemingly far more realistic? For further information regarding this you should refer to the the www.squ1.com forums where there are plenty of posts concerning daylighting accuracy and approaches to be taken. =20 Kind Regards =20 =20 Paul Barton=20 Senior Sustainability Consultant=20 =20 =09 Wallace Whittle Ltd, 18 Buckingham Gate, London, SW1E 6LB=09 Tel: (020) 7821 0800 Fax: (020) 7821 0820=09 Email: london at wallacewhittle.com http://www.wallacewhittle.com =09 =09 Registered Office: 8 Elmbank Gardens, Glasgow, G2 4NQ Registered in Scotland No. 111930=09 =09 =09 =09 P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended only for the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or take any action or reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender. Any unauthorised disclosure of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. =20 =20 ________________________________ From: BLDG-SIM at gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Behalf Of Leonard Sciarra Sent: 29 August 2007 16:19 To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Exterior shades / daylight on floor surface - ECOTECT I may be expanding the forum somewhat, but, does anyone have experience modeling exterior shades / fins to optimize day lighting using Ecotect? =20 I am modeling some exterior shades and it seems that the impact on internal light levels is not being reflected to the degree I would expect. Now I know the algorithm used uses a diffuse sky rather than direct radiation, but still the effect of the shades does not seem to reduce the internal light levels. I ran a check using insolation and direct radiation so I know the model "sees" the shades, but the daylight is acting funny. =20 Thanks. =20 Leonard Sciarra, AIA, LEED ap 312.577.6580 (Dir) G E N S L E R | Architecture & Design Worldwide 30 West Monroe Street Chicago IL, 60603 312.456.0123 leonard_sciarra at gensler.com=20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20 to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe=20 from this mailing list send a blank message to=20 BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7EA55.54ED80A5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From my experience the daylight simulation tool = in Ecotect=20 does not give the most reliable results. Have you tried performing the = analysis=20 using the Radiance Plug-in which is seemingly far more realistic? For = further=20 information regarding this you should refer to the the www.squ1.com forums where there are = plenty of=20 posts concerning daylighting accuracy and approaches to be=20 taken.
 
Kind Regards
 

Paul Barton=20

Senior = Sustainability=20 Consultant=20

 

 
Wallace Whittle Ltd, 18 Buckingham = Gate,=20 London, SW1E 6LB
Tel: (020) 7821 0800  Fax: = (020) 7821=20 0820
Email: london@wallacewhittle.com  = http://www.wallacewhittle.com=20
 
Registered Office: 8 Elmbank Gardens, = Glasgow, G2=20 4NQ  Registered in Scotland No.=20 111930
 

P=20 Please=20 consider the environment before printing this=20 e-mail

The=20 information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is = intended only=20 for the named recipient(s).   If you are not the = intended=20 recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or take any action or = reliance=20 on it.   If you have received this e-mail in error, = please=20 notify the sender.   Any unauthorised disclosure of the=20 information contained in this e-mail is strictly=20 prohibited.

 

 

From: BLDG-SIM at gard.com=20 [mailto:BLDG-SIM at gard.com] On Behalf Of Leonard = Sciarra
Sent:=20 29 August 2007 16:19
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject:=20 [BLDG-SIM] Exterior shades / daylight on floor surface -=20 ECOTECT

I may = be expanding=20 the forum somewhat, but, does anyone have experience modeling exterior = shades /=20 fins to optimize day lighting using Ecotect?   =
 
I am = modeling some=20 exterior shades and it seems that the impact on internal light levels is = not=20 being reflected to the degree I would expect.  Now I know the = algorithm=20 used uses a diffuse sky rather than direct radiation, but still the = effect of=20 the shades does not seem to reduce the internal light levels.  I = ran a=20 check using insolation and direct radiation so I know the model "sees" = the=20 shades, but the daylight is acting funny.
 
Thanks.
 

Leonard Sciarra, AIA, LEED ap

312.577.6580 (Dir)

G E N S L E R | Architecture & Design = Worldwide

30 West Monroe Street

Chicago IL, 60603

312.456.0123

leonard_sciarra at gensler.com

 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed=20
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe=20
from this mailing list send a blank message to=20
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM


======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
------_=_NextPart_001_01C7EA55.54ED80A5-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Mar 16 13:13:09 2011 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:13:09 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: work in design and infrastructure is world renowned. =20 We are seeking Energy Analysts and Energy Analysts, Lighting/Electrical for our Los Angeles office. =20 Arup is a leading international design firm with over 9,000 members worldwide in 86 offices. We are involved in the design of some of the most prestigious projects locally and worldwide. Our North America practice, established more than 20 years ago, now includes over 700 employees in 10 offices.=20 =20 Check us out at www.arup.com . =20 =20 To apply, send resumes to: susanne.sipola at arup.com =20 In California, energy consulting is a rapidly growing focus of our business, Within Los Angeles, Arup has developed a Strategic Energy Consulting group that brings together a diverse array of engineering and financial skills. The LA Energy group focuses on developing solutions that reduce energy consumption and risk by conceiving and implementing intelligent, financially viable and environmentally sustainable projects for our clients. Our current energy clients range from major pharmaceutical companies to large college campuses.=20 Energy Analyst: To continue expanding the Los Angeles energy consulting group, we are seeking an experienced engineer to fill the position of Energy Analyst. This individual will be required to run energy modeling and undertake life cycle analyses to assist the Energy Team Project Manager to deliver quality energy studies. In addition, this individual will be required to prepare drawings, specifications and reports to deliver energy reduction implementation projects.=20 Expertise Required:=20 * Technical ability in energy systems analysis=20 * Knowledge of energy saving and renewable energy technologies =20 Qualifications: * 2 years industry experience=20 * Knowledge of energy systems design and energy analysis techniques =20 =20 =20 Energy Analyst, Lighting/Electrical: =20 To continue expanding the Los Angeles energy consulting group, we are seeking an experienced Electrical/Lighting Engineer. This individual will be required to join the energy team as the lighting/lighting controls/electrical specialist. Activities will include assessment of existing installations to identify energy savings and the subsequent implementation of energy reduction technologies. Expertise Required:=20 * Technical knowledge of lighting, lighting controls, electrical systems and associated costs=20 * Ability to work within a team with minimal supervision=20 * Ability to undertake analyses, prepare reports deliver and client presentations =20 Qualifications: =20 * 5 years industry experience=20 * PE or CEM preferred=20 * Knowledge of lighting and electrical systems =20 Benefits: * Full medical, dental, long term disability and life insurance coverage=20 * Three weeks' vacation in year one=20 * 10% of annual compensation contributed by the company to your retirement plan, up to IRS limits=20 * Educational assistance=20 * Health club subsidy=20 * Paid, comprehensive training programs=20 * Team-oriented working environment=20 * Business casual dress =20 ________________________________ Susanne Sipola Recruiter Arup=20 901 Market Street, Suite 260, San Francisco CA 94103 tel: 1 415 946 1634 fax: 1 415 957 9096 cell: 1 415 420-3834 susanne.sipola at arup.com =20 www.arup.com =20 =20 =20 ____________________________________________________________ Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses ====================================================== You received this e-mail because you are subscribed to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7DBA7.31CB5B4D Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From the Sydne= y Opera=20 House to the Beijing 2008 Olympic Stadium, Arup's work in design and=20 infrastructure is world renowned.
 
We are=20 seeking Energy Analysts and Energy Analysts, Lighting/Electrical for=20 our Los Angeles office.
 
Arup is=20 a leading international design firm with over 9,000 members worldwide in 86=20 offices. We are involved in the design of some of the most prestigious proj= ects=20 locally and worldwide. Our North America practice, established more than 20=20 years ago, now includes over 700 employees in 10 offices.=20
 =
Check us out at www.arup.com. 
 
To apply, send resumes to: =20 susanne.sipola at arup.com
 
In California, energy consul= ting is a=20 rapidly growing focus of our business, Within Los Angeles, Arup has develop= ed a=20 Strategic Energy Consulting group that brings together a diverse array of=20 engineering and financial skills. The LA Energy group focuses on developing=20 solutions that reduce energy consumption and risk by conceiving and impleme= nting=20 intelligent, financially viable and environmentally sustainable projects fo= r our=20 clients. Our current energy clients range from major pharmaceutical compani= es to=20 large college campuses.

Ene= rgy=20 Analyst:

To continue expanding the Los Angeles energy=20 consulting group, we are seeking an experienced engineer to fill the positi= on of=20 Energy Analyst. This individual will be required to run energy modeling and=20 undertake life cycle analyses to assist the Energy Team Project Manager to=20 deliver quality energy studies. In addition, this individual will be requir= ed to=20 prepare drawings, specifications and reports to deliver energy reduction=20 implementation projects.

Expertise Required:

  • Technical ability in energy systems analysi= s
  • Knowledge of energy saving and renewable en= ergy=20 technologies
    •  
    Qualifications:
  • 2 years industry experience
  • Knowledge of energy systems design and ener= gy=20 analysis techniques  
    •  
     
    Energy Analyst,=20 Lighting/Electrical:
     
    To contin= ue=20 expanding the Los Angeles energy consulting group, we are seeking an experi= enced=20 Electrical/Lighting Engineer. This individual will be required to join the=20 energy team as the lighting/lighting controls/electrical specialist. Activi= ties=20 will include assessment of existing installations to identify energy saving= s and=20 the subsequent implementation of energy reduction technologies.

     Expertise Required:

  • Technical knowledge of lighting, lighting c= ontrols,=20 electrical systems and associated costs
  • Ability to work within a team with minimal=20 supervision
  • Ability to undertake analyses, prepare repo= rts=20 deliver and client presentations
    •  
    Qualifications:
     =20
  • 5 years industry experience
  • PE or CEM preferred
  • Knowledge of lighting and electrical=20 systems
    •  
    Benefits:
    • Full medical, dental, long term disabilit= y and=20 life insurance coverage
    • Three weeks' vacation in year one
    • 10% of annual compensation contributed by= the=20 company to your retirement plan, up to IRS limits
    • Educational assistance
    • Health club subsidy
    • Paid, comprehensive training programs
    • Team-oriented working environment
    • Business casual=20 dress
     

    ________________________________
    Susanne=20 Sipola
    Recruiter


    Arup 
    901 Market Street, Suite 2= 60, San=20 Francisco CA 94103
    tel: 1 415 946 1634
    fax: 1 415 957 9096
    cell: 1= 415=20 420-3834
    susanne.sipola at arup.com
    www.arup.com

     
     
    __________________=
__________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup  business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses

    
======================================================
You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 
to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 
from this mailing list send a blank message to 
BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
    ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7DBA7.31CB5B4D-- From ncaton at smithboucher.com Tue Mar 1 08:03:04 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:03:04 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] modeling baseboard in 90.1-2007 In-Reply-To: <016401cbd78d$dae914e0$90bb3ea0$@net> References: <88DC4C3C646DD5119B0D0002A537FD6818558EF7@madison.corp.epstein-isi.com><015601cbd78c$5ad08780$10719680$@net><88DC4C3C646DD5119B0D0002A537FD6818558F49@madison.corp.epstein-isi.com> <016401cbd78d$dae914e0$90bb3ea0$@net> Message-ID: Ditto, for what it's worth! I had a project with a 2-story entry/atrium space with a glass exterior in a very cold climate... actual design used a heavy amount of baseboards along the perimeter in addition to FPVAV's with reheat. The baseline system serving that space was a fan-powered box (System 6) that had to autosize pretty big to keep up with the heating loads. ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James V Dirkes II, PE Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:24 PM To: 'Will Mak'; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] modeling baseboard in 90.1-2007 That is exactly my understanding. The Building Performance Team James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP 1631 Acacia Drive NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 616 450 8653 From: Will Mak [mailto:wmak at epsteinglobal.com] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 4:15 PM To: James V Dirkes II, PE; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] modeling baseboard in 90.1-2007 So the interpretation would be that we must model the baseboard system with whatever HVAC system is associated with the design while the baseline model only has to include the system type spelled out in the guidelines? William Mak, LEED Green Associate Mechanical Design Engineer EPSTEIN Architecture Interiors Engineering Construction 600 West Fulton Street Chicago, Illinois 60661-1259 D: (312) 429-8116 F: (312) 559-1217 E: wmak at epsteinglobal.com W: www.epsteinglobal.com ? Epstein is a firm believer in sustainability. We ask that you please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: James V Dirkes II, PE [mailto:jvd2pe at tds.net] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:14 PM To: Will Mak; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] modeling baseboard in 90.1-2007 Dear Will, All baseline systems have some sort of (non-baseboard) heating as part of the system. Baseboard would only be used for a Proposed system. The Building Performance Team James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP 1631 Acacia Drive NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 616 450 8653 From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Will Mak Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:48 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] modeling baseboard in 90.1-2007 Hello all, I was trying to find some guidance on how we are suppose to model baseboard systems on the baseline model for LEED submission. Are they treated like preheat systems where we must simulate them to be the same on both the proposed and baseline or is there some rule I'm not seeing in ASHRAE 90.1-2007? Thanks! William Mak, LEED Green Associate Mechanical Design Engineer EPSTEIN Architecture Interiors Engineering Construction 600 West Fulton Street Chicago, Illinois 60661-1259 D: (312) 429-8116 F: (312) 559-1217 E: wmak at epsteinglobal.com W: www.epsteinglobal.com ? Epstein is a firm believer in sustainability. We ask that you please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From arpanbakshi at gmail.com Tue Mar 1 08:17:12 2011 From: arpanbakshi at gmail.com (Arpan Bakshi) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:17:12 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] TAS 2d Ambiens Message-ID: Recently, I've seen some examples of internal CFD using TAS 2D Ambiens. Do others on this list have good experiences with this tool in their projects? How does it compare with DesignBuilder or IES internal CFD? Thanks_ -- Arpan Bakshi 646/704-2880 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JHANSEN at ghtltd.com Tue Mar 1 09:46:12 2011 From: JHANSEN at ghtltd.com (James Hansen) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:46:12 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] aluminum window frame U-values Message-ID: <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD202@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> I was wondering if anyone would be willing to share thermally broken aluminum frame conductance values that they've been using in recent Windows5 center-of-glass calculations. I don't have information on the particular aluminum frames for my current project, so I don't really want to try and learn THERM quite yet. Most of the older documentation online that I've found shows that thermally broken aluminum frames typically have a U-value of about 1.0. This jives with one of DOE-2s window entries for a PPG glass with a frame conductance of 0.94. Almost every commercial building constructed these days is made with aluminum framed windows...I just have a hard time believing that manufacturers haven't figured out better ways to insulate the frames. With vinyl and wood having U-values < 0.4, I have to think that aluminum frames should be able to at least approach 0.5, if not lower. Unfortunately not a lot of manufacturers of aluminum frames post their thermal characteristics. What are people using? Thanks in advance! GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akrickx at seriousmaterials.com Tue Mar 1 12:00:46 2011 From: akrickx at seriousmaterials.com (Alex Krickx) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:00:46 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] aluminum window frame U-values In-Reply-To: <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD202@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> References: <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD202@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> Message-ID: Hi James, As you said, Window5 does offer a default value for Thermally Broken AL (U-1.0 BTU/h?ft??F). I've seen some thermally broken frames with much worse performance (U-1.5). I'm currently looking at modeling a YKK frame right now with our glass, and the frame performance is around U-0.9. I haven't seen anything near U-0.5. I believe that the U-value of the frame will vary based on the glass package that it is modeled with, but I'm not sure by how much. I know SeriousMaterials now has a fiberglass framed window that are Heavy Commercial (CW) rated - link. Fiberglass has comparable thermal properties to wood and vinyl - I believe these windows have as high as U-0.19 (frame+glass performance). The frame conductance is around U-0.5. Although I think using THERM is a good approach (I just learned how using this 17 minute video by LBNL - link) you can create a new generic frame material in WINDOW5 and assign the frame conductivity. I would say U-0.8 or 0.9 is the best you'll do with thermally broken AL and U-0.5 is where fiberglass is. Regards, Alex Krickx Alex Krickx, LEED AP Building Energy Specialist [cid:image001.jpg at 01CBD808.4C57C6B0] 1250 Elko Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 (t) 408.541.8124 Warning: The information contained in this e-mail may be privileged attorney-client communications or attorney work product and/or proprietary and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient then you have received it in error and any review, distribution or copying of this message is prohibited and you are to notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete the original message immediately. From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:46 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] aluminum window frame U-values I was wondering if anyone would be willing to share thermally broken aluminum frame conductance values that they've been using in recent Windows5 center-of-glass calculations. I don't have information on the particular aluminum frames for my current project, so I don't really want to try and learn THERM quite yet. Most of the older documentation online that I've found shows that thermally broken aluminum frames typically have a U-value of about 1.0. This jives with one of DOE-2s window entries for a PPG glass with a frame conductance of 0.94. Almost every commercial building constructed these days is made with aluminum framed windows...I just have a hard time believing that manufacturers haven't figured out better ways to insulate the frames. With vinyl and wood having U-values < 0.4, I have to think that aluminum frames should be able to at least approach 0.5, if not lower. Unfortunately not a lot of manufacturers of aluminum frames post their thermal characteristics. What are people using? Thanks in advance! GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5602 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From ajackson at klingstubbins.com Tue Mar 1 13:14:09 2011 From: ajackson at klingstubbins.com (Jackson, Alan) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:14:09 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection In-Reply-To: <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0ABF1@email.kling.us> References: <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0A68A@email.kling.us><7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0AA00@email.kling.us> <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0ABF1@email.kling.us> Message-ID: <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15AF606D@email.kling.us> One additional piece of information I am interested in is the handling of Section G3.1.2.10 Exhaust Air Energy Recovery. In the actual design a 10,000 CFM ERV will be serving all the corridor spaces (9 in total). This unit will be 100% OA with energy recovery. Section G3.1.2.10 states that systems over 5,000 CFM require modeling energy recovery in the baseline. So it would seem I need to model energy recovery on the PTAC serving the corridor(s). Right? To do this I would actually be modeling a Packaged Rooftop Unit with the efficiencies of a PTAC because it's not easy to implement heat recovery on a PTAC in Energyplus. The one twist to this is that in the 90.1 2007 Addendum w it states: G3.1.2.10 Exhaust Air Energy Recovery ... Exceptions: If any of these exceptions apply, exhaust air energy recovery shall not be included in the baseline building design. ... i. Systems serving dwelling units in multifamily buildings. The corridor is not a dwelling unit, but it was worth pointing that addendum note out. Alan Jackson, LEED AP KlingStubbins From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jackson, Alan Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:54 AM To: Nick Caton Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection Nick, Yes, it is well below 20,000 ft2 so I believe you are correct. Thanks for the help. I will proceed under the residential building system type. Alan Jackson, LEED AP KlingStubbins From: Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:32 AM To: Jackson, Alan; Cheney Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection So far as system type goes, consider that your building is first either Residential or Nonresidential, and your building type determines your baseline system. The only reason you'd have both building types (and thus 2 baseline system types) is if you have non-predominant conditions per exceptions to G3.1.1. If you've got >20,000SF of egress/back-of-house spaces, you might pursue a second baseline system type declaring non-predominant conditions, but for simplicity I'd be inclined to lump it all under one baseline type as part of a residential building, unless told otherwise. NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jackson, Alan Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:19 AM To: Cheney Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection Cheney Hey, thanks for the response. I agree, I think hybrid is the way to go in this scenario. One other issue I came across, since I not as familiar modeling residential buildings, is the way that egress areas are treated. ASHRAE list residential spaces as only including "guest rooms, living quarters, private living space and sleeping quarters." Does this mean the residential corridors and stairs need to be System 7, and not PTAC, since the building is greater than 5 stories? Thanks again, Alan Jackson, LEED AP KlingStubbins From: Cheney [mailto:chenyu73 at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:31 PM To: Jackson, Alan Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection Hi Jason, I will choose Fossil/Elec. Hybrid and PTAC for your design. Regards, Cheney LinkedIN @ http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/yu-cheney-chen/27/637/72b On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jackson, Alan < ajackson at klingstubbins.com> wrote: Hello, yes it's another Appendix G Baseline question. Typical Residential Tower system with water-cooled heat pumps for the dwelling units. Tower Loop is closed system with a heat injection boiler for the winters (northeast climate). Heat injection boiler is natural gas fired. Is the Baseline "Electric and Other"? or "Fossil/Electric Hybrid" I have seen many postings about WSHP being modeled as "all electric" heating, but I am getting push back on this in the office because of the heat injection component. Any CIRs on this one? System is obviously very common. Thanks Alan Jackson, LEED AP HVAC Project Engineer / BIM Team Leader KlingStubbins _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Tue Mar 1 15:51:54 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:51:54 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection In-Reply-To: <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15AF606D@email.kling.us> References: <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0A68A@email.kling.us><7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0AA00@email.kling.us> <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0ABF1@email.kling.us> <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15AF606D@email.kling.us> Message-ID: I'm inclined to suggest you capitalize on that exception. >From your description, it sounds like a reasonable reviewer would agree the proposed 100% OA ERV unit is serving ventilation air to the dwelling units, albeit via the corridors (unless your corridors need a bunch of ventilation air?). I think the only hangup that could make this exception not apply would be whether your building is a "multifamily building" in 90.1's terms. This exception should simplify your baseline and, provided ERV makes sense for your proposed case and is well-designed, should better your relative performance. ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: Jackson, Alan [mailto:ajackson at klingstubbins.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:14 PM To: Nick Caton Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection One additional piece of information I am interested in is the handling of Section G3.1.2.10 Exhaust Air Energy Recovery. In the actual design a 10,000 CFM ERV will be serving all the corridor spaces (9 in total). This unit will be 100% OA with energy recovery. Section G3.1.2.10 states that systems over 5,000 CFM require modeling energy recovery in the baseline. So it would seem I need to model energy recovery on the PTAC serving the corridor(s). Right? To do this I would actually be modeling a Packaged Rooftop Unit with the efficiencies of a PTAC because it's not easy to implement heat recovery on a PTAC in Energyplus. The one twist to this is that in the 90.1 2007 Addendum w it states: G3.1.2.10 Exhaust Air Energy Recovery ... Exceptions: If any of these exceptions apply, exhaust air energy recovery shall not be included in the baseline building design. ... i. Systems serving dwelling units in multifamily buildings. The corridor is not a dwelling unit, but it was worth pointing that addendum note out. Alan Jackson, LEED AP KlingStubbins From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jackson, Alan Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:54 AM To: Nick Caton Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection Nick, Yes, it is well below 20,000 ft2 so I believe you are correct. Thanks for the help. I will proceed under the residential building system type. Alan Jackson, LEED AP KlingStubbins From: Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 9:32 AM To: Jackson, Alan; Cheney Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection So far as system type goes, consider that your building is first either Residential or Nonresidential, and your building type determines your baseline system. The only reason you'd have both building types (and thus 2 baseline system types) is if you have non-predominant conditions per exceptions to G3.1.1. If you've got >20,000SF of egress/back-of-house spaces, you might pursue a second baseline system type declaring non-predominant conditions, but for simplicity I'd be inclined to lump it all under one baseline type as part of a residential building, unless told otherwise. NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jackson, Alan Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 7:19 AM To: Cheney Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection Cheney Hey, thanks for the response. I agree, I think hybrid is the way to go in this scenario. One other issue I came across, since I not as familiar modeling residential buildings, is the way that egress areas are treated. ASHRAE list residential spaces as only including "guest rooms, living quarters, private living space and sleeping quarters." Does this mean the residential corridors and stairs need to be System 7, and not PTAC, since the building is greater than 5 stories? Thanks again, Alan Jackson, LEED AP KlingStubbins From: Cheney [mailto:chenyu73 at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:31 PM To: Jackson, Alan Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection Hi Jason, I will choose Fossil/Elec. Hybrid and PTAC for your design. Regards, Cheney LinkedIN @ http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/yu-cheney-chen/27/637/72b On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jackson, Alan < ajackson at klingstubbins.com> wrote: Hello, yes it's another Appendix G Baseline question. Typical Residential Tower system with water-cooled heat pumps for the dwelling units. Tower Loop is closed system with a heat injection boiler for the winters (northeast climate). Heat injection boiler is natural gas fired. Is the Baseline "Electric and Other"? or "Fossil/Electric Hybrid" I have seen many postings about WSHP being modeled as "all electric" heating, but I am getting push back on this in the office because of the heat injection component. Any CIRs on this one? System is obviously very common. Thanks Alan Jackson, LEED AP HVAC Project Engineer / BIM Team Leader KlingStubbins _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From arpanbakshi at gmail.com Tue Mar 1 18:32:38 2011 From: arpanbakshi at gmail.com (Arpan Bakshi) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:32:38 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection In-Reply-To: References: <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0A68A@email.kling.us> <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0AA00@email.kling.us> <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0ABF1@email.kling.us> <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15AF606D@email.kling.us> Message-ID: On the eQUEST-side, my understanding has been that coupling energy recovery with the dummy dedicated outdoor air unit creates indigestion in the functioning of the DOAS. Anyone have similar experiences, or ulterior insights? On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Nick Caton wrote: > I?m inclined to suggest you capitalize on that exception. > > > > From your description, it sounds like a reasonable reviewer would agree the > proposed 100% OA ERV unit *is* serving ventilation air to the dwelling > units, albeit via the corridors (unless your corridors need a bunch of > ventilation air?). > > > > I think the only hangup that could make this exception not apply would be > whether your building is a ?multifamily building? in 90.1?s terms. > > > > This exception should simplify your baseline and, provided ERV makes sense > for your proposed case and is well-designed, should better your relative > performance. > > > > ~Nick > > [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]** > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*** > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > Smith & Boucher Engineers > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > www.smithboucher.com* * > > > > *From:* Jackson, Alan [mailto:ajackson at klingstubbins.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:14 PM > *To:* Nick Caton > *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* RE: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection > > > > One additional piece of information I am interested in is the handling of > Section G3.1.2.10 Exhaust Air Energy Recovery. In the actual design a 10,000 > CFM ERV will be serving all the corridor spaces (9 in total). This unit will > be 100% OA with energy recovery. > > > > Section G3.1.2.10 states that systems over 5,000 CFM require modeling > energy recovery in the baseline. So it would seem I need to model energy > recovery on the PTAC serving the corridor(s). Right? To do this I would > actually be modeling a Packaged Rooftop Unit with the efficiencies of a PTAC > because it?s not easy to implement heat recovery on a PTAC in Energyplus. > > > > The one twist to this is that in the 90.1 2007 Addendum w it states: > > > > *G3.1.2.10 Exhaust Air Energy Recovery* > > ? > > *Exceptions: *If any of these exceptions apply, exhaust air > > energy recovery shall not be included in the *baseline* > > *building design.* > > ? > > *i. Systems serving dwelling units in multifamily buildings.* > > * * > > The corridor is not a dwelling unit, but it was worth pointing that > addendum note out.** > > > > Alan Jackson, LEED AP > > KlingStubbins > > > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Jackson, Alan > *Sent:* Monday, February 28, 2011 9:54 AM > *To:* Nick Caton > *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection > > > > Nick, > > > > Yes, it is well below 20,000 ft2 so I believe you are correct. Thanks for > the help. I will proceed under the residential building system type. > > > > Alan Jackson, LEED AP > > KlingStubbins > > > > *From:* Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 28, 2011 9:32 AM > *To:* Jackson, Alan; Cheney > *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* RE: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection > > > > So far as system type goes, consider that your building is first either > Residential or Nonresidential, and your building type determines your > baseline system. > > > > The only reason you?d have both building types (and thus 2 baseline system > types) is if you have non-predominant conditions per exceptions to G3.1.1. > > > > If you?ve got >20,000SF of egress/back-of-house spaces, you might pursue a > second baseline system type declaring non-predominant conditions, but for > simplicity I?d be inclined to lump it all under one baseline type as part of > a residential building, unless told otherwise. > > > > [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]** > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*** > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > Smith & Boucher Engineers > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > www.smithboucher.com* * > > > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Jackson, Alan > *Sent:* Monday, February 28, 2011 7:19 AM > *To:* Cheney > *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection > > > > Cheney > > > > Hey, thanks for the response. I agree, I think hybrid is the way to go in > this scenario. > > > > One other issue I came across, since I not as familiar modeling residential > buildings, is the way that egress areas are treated. ASHRAE list residential > spaces as only including ?guest rooms, living quarters, private living space > and sleeping quarters.? > > > > Does this mean the residential corridors and stairs need to be System 7, > and not PTAC, since the building is greater than 5 stories? > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Alan Jackson, LEED AP > > KlingStubbins > > > > *From:* Cheney [mailto:chenyu73 at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, February 25, 2011 2:31 PM > *To:* Jackson, Alan > *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] App G Baseline WSHP w Boiler Injection > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > I will choose Fossil/Elec. Hybrid and PTAC for your design. > > Regards, > > > > Cheney > > > > LinkedIN @ http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/yu-cheney-chen/27/637/72b > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jackson, Alan < > ajackson at klingstubbins.com> wrote: > > Hello, yes it?s another Appendix G Baseline question. > > > > Typical Residential Tower system with water-cooled heat pumps for the > dwelling units. Tower Loop is closed system with a heat injection boiler for > the winters (northeast climate). Heat injection boiler is natural gas fired. > > > > Is the Baseline ?Electric and Other?? or ?Fossil/Electric Hybrid? > > > > I have seen many postings about WSHP being modeled as ?all electric? > heating, but I am getting push back on this in the office because of the > heat injection component. Any CIRs on this one? System is obviously very > common. > > > > Thanks > > > > Alan Jackson, LEED AP > HVAC Project Engineer / BIM Team Leader > > KlingStubbins > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -- Arpan Bakshi 646/704-2880 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kabirsingh.86 at gmail.com Wed Mar 2 02:35:56 2011 From: kabirsingh.86 at gmail.com (kabir singh) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:05:56 +0530 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Green Websites Message-ID: Dear Friends, I am looking for a website where I can find information related to the green buildings, latest green products and technologies. It would be great help if you can suggest such websites which are also free. Thank you, Kabir. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at jimverzino.com Wed Mar 2 06:12:25 2011 From: jim at jimverzino.com (Jim Verzino) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:12:25 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Green Websites In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Green Building News. The first ever, started in late 80's or early 90's and still considered the top resource. http://www.buildinggreen.com/news/index.cfm Jim Verzino www.jimverzino.com On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:35 AM, kabir singh wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I am looking for a website where I can find information related to the > green buildings, latest green products and technologies. It would be great > help if you can suggest such websites which are also free. > > Thank you, > > Kabir. > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheffer at energyopportunities.com Wed Mar 2 07:24:12 2011 From: sheffer at energyopportunities.com (Marcus Sheffer) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:24:12 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Industrial Energy Efficiency Consultant In-Reply-To: References: <7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0A68A@email.kling.us><7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0AA00@email.kling.us><7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15A0ABF1@email.kling.us><7A93DB67D9AE2741BFF49B33EED6FB3D15AF606D@email.kling.us> Message-ID: <009801cbd8ed$e2b01370$a8103a50$@com> We are seeking a specialist in industrial energy efficiency to assist us with the design of a new bread production plant in Brazil. They are interested in pursuing LEED certification and will need to be able to claim savings for their process loads. The assistance would be focused on helping us to develop strategies for energy saving measures in the production systems. Any suggestions on where to find such a specialist? Anyone who has the expertise please contact me directly. Marcus Sheffer Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com www.sevengroup.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mrzoeteman at FTCH.com Wed Mar 2 08:26:08 2011 From: mrzoeteman at FTCH.com (Zoeteman, Mark R.) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 11:26:08 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Green Websites In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1BAD70CB2933D247903C009D4CEE7D78781EEC1B48@MAILBOXSERVER.corp.ftch.com> Suggested sites: http://www.greenmatrix.net/ http://www.wbdg.org/ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of kabir singh Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 5:36 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Green Websites Dear Friends, I am looking for a website where I can find information related to the green buildings, latest green products and technologies. It would be great help if you can suggest such websites which are also free. Thank you, Kabir. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bcoffey at berkeley.edu Wed Mar 2 17:01:59 2011 From: bcoffey at berkeley.edu (Brian Coffey) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:01:59 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Model Predictive Control Workshop: Reminder - proposals due March 15th Message-ID: This is a reminder to get your proposals in for the Model Predictive Control Workshop that is being held directly before the IBPSA-USA meeting at ASHRAE in Montreal this June. See the announcement at http://www.ibpsa.us/ for details. Proposals are due March 15th to MPCworkshop at gmail.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Shuichi.Hendrickson at erm.com Thu Mar 3 02:18:36 2011 From: Shuichi.Hendrickson at erm.com (Shuichi Hendrickson) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:18:36 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Blind controls in eQuest/ DOE2 Message-ID: <7F375B16C5455542AC9B6247C74FDB8602B68D@grpandmbx01.mail.erm55.com> Hello all, I am attempting to model horizontal blind controls in eQuest / DOE2 in conjunction with daylight dimming controls for lighting in a high rise office tower using eQuest 3.64. In the past I have generally modelled windows using simplified glass type definitions or import from WINDOW 5, but this time around I'm using the window layers commands as this allows controlled horizontal blinds to be simulated (at least in theory). The blind control system is controlled by a sun tracking system located on the roof of the building. The designer has supplied me with detailed scheduled hourly schedules of the blind slat angle per fa?ade orientation. My understanding of the blind control capability in eQuest/ DOE2 is that blinds can be controlled using a SCHEDULE(s) of the type FRACTION for the window coverage and slat angle respectively. As such, I have developed two schedules, 1) for lowering and raising of the blinds [ window coverage] and 2) blind slat angle adjustment. My problem is I'm getting an error (typical eQuest nonsense) stating BDL error: Error in blind control: Adjustment type SCHEDULE for BLIND should be SCHEDULE I don't see what the error is. I have pasted the BDL below *1142 * "Window 71" = WINDOW *1143 * GLASS-TYPE = "GL7" *1144 * WIN-SPEC-METHOD = LAYERS-INPUT *1145 * FRAME-WIDTH = 0 *1146 * X = 31.5 *1147 * Y = {parameter("Window sill ht")} *1148 * HEIGHT = {parameter("Window ht")} *1149 * WIDTH = 5.9 *1150 * LEFT-FIN-D = 1.1 *1151 * RIGHT-FIN-D = 1.1 *1152 * FRAME-CONDUCT = 2.781 *1153 * WINDOW-LAYERS = ( "GL7layer", "Air-6.3mm", "Metal-1in-Lt" ) *1154 * SLAT-SCHEDULE = "E blind slat annual" *1155 * SLAT-ADJ-TYPE = SCHEDULE *1156 * BLIND-SCHEDULE = "E blind deploy annual" *1157 * BLIND-ADJ-TYPE = SCHEDULE *1158 * .. *ERROR**************************************************************************************** *ERROR**************************************************************************************** The DOE2 documentation is sparse on this subject and I'm basically chasing my tail on this. If anyone out there has successfully modelled blind controls and has suggestions or has an alternative way of modelling automatic horizontal blinds with daylight light control dimming, I would be very grateful. Thank in advance, Shuichi Hendrickson Environmental Engineer, LEED AP ERM Japan The Landmark Tower Yokohama 19F 2-2-1-1, Minatomirai, Nishi-ku Yokohama, 220-8119, Japan T:+81(0)45-640-3780 F:+81(0)45-640-3781 shuichi.hendrickson at erm.com www.erm.com Ranked No1 All-Environmental Firm: ENR Magazine (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) Environmental Adviser of the Year: Acquisitions Monthly (2005, 2006, 2008) P Please consider the environment before printing this email ________________________________ This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names herein. If you are not the Addressee (s), or the person responsible for delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. Thank you. Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tiwari.sambhav at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 04:18:36 2011 From: tiwari.sambhav at gmail.com (sambhav tiwari) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:48:36 +0530 Subject: [Bldg-sim] supply air rate Message-ID: Hi All, What is the range for supply air cfm/sqft for conditioned spaces Thanks Sambhav. From cmg750 at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 07:21:39 2011 From: cmg750 at gmail.com (Carol Gardner) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 07:21:39 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] [Equest-users] Blind controls in eQuest/ DOE2 In-Reply-To: <7F375B16C5455542AC9B6247C74FDB8602B68D@grpandmbx01.mail.erm55.com> References: <7F375B16C5455542AC9B6247C74FDB8602B68D@grpandmbx01.mail.erm55.com> Message-ID: Hi Shuichi, I have not actively used this area of eQUEST, but I can pretty much guarantee that there will not be a schedule ever in eQUEST that is just called "SCHEDULE". The reason for that is that there are just too many schedules in eQUEST for any one of them to claim the glorified name of "SCHEDULE". That coupled with the fact that schedules are also, of necessity, split into DAY-SCHEDULE, WEEK-SCHEDULE, AND ANNUAL-SCHEDULE, you can see that when you find yourself typing simply "SCHEDULE" after your command an alarm should go off in your head that says something like "Oh, oh, I'm putting some nonsense into eQUEST that may cause the program to go off in some sort of GI/GO loop, I guess I'd better research the topic a bit more." You sound like a user of some experience so I will just encourage you to dig a little deeper, keeping in mind the schedule structure in eQUEST and the use of the Building Description Language. Cheers, Carol On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Shuichi Hendrickson < Shuichi.Hendrickson at erm.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > > > I am attempting to model horizontal blind controls in eQuest / DOE2 in > conjunction with daylight dimming controls for lighting in a high rise > office tower using eQuest 3.64. > > > > In the past I have generally modelled windows using simplified glass type > definitions or import from WINDOW 5, but this time around I?m using the > window layers commands as this allows controlled horizontal blinds to be > simulated (at least in theory). The blind control system is controlled by a > sun tracking system located on the roof of the building. The designer has > supplied me with detailed scheduled hourly schedules of the blind slat angle > per fa?ade orientation. > > > > My understanding of the blind control capability in eQuest/ DOE2 is that > blinds can be controlled using a SCHEDULE(s) of the type FRACTION for the > window coverage and slat angle respectively. As such, I have developed two > schedules, 1) for lowering and raising of the blinds [ window coverage] and > 2) blind slat angle adjustment. > > > > > > > > My problem is I?m getting an error (typical eQuest nonsense) stating > > > > > > *BDL error: Error in blind control: Adjustment type SCHEDULE for BLIND > should be SCHEDULE* > > * * > > > > I don?t see what the error is. I have pasted the BDL below > > > > *1142 * "Window 71" = WINDOW > > *1143 * GLASS-TYPE = "GL7" > > *1144 * WIN-SPEC-METHOD = LAYERS-INPUT > > *1145 * FRAME-WIDTH = 0 > > *1146 * X = 31.5 > > *1147 * Y = {parameter("Window sill ht")} > > *1148 * HEIGHT = {parameter("Window ht")} > > *1149 * WIDTH = 5.9 > > *1150 * LEFT-FIN-D = 1.1 > > *1151 * RIGHT-FIN-D = 1.1 > > *1152 * FRAME-CONDUCT = 2.781 > > *1153 * WINDOW-LAYERS = ( "GL7layer", "Air-6.3mm", > "Metal-1in-Lt" ) > > **1154 * SLAT-SCHEDULE = "E blind slat annual"* > > * *1155 * SLAT-ADJ-TYPE = SCHEDULE* > > * *1156 * BLIND-SCHEDULE = "E blind deploy annual"* > > * *1157 * BLIND-ADJ-TYPE = SCHEDULE* > > *1158 * .. > > > *ERROR**************************************************************************************** > > > *ERROR**************************************************************************************** > > > > > > The DOE2 documentation is sparse on this subject and I?m basically chasing > my tail on this. If anyone out there has successfully modelled blind > controls and has suggestions or has an alternative way of modelling > automatic horizontal blinds with daylight light control dimming, I would be > very grateful. > > > > > > > > Thank in advance, > > * * > > * * > > *Shuichi Hendrickson* > > Environmental Engineer, LEED AP > > > *ERM Japan* > > The Landmark Tower > > Yokohama 19F > > 2-2-1-1, Minatomirai, Nishi-ku > > Yokohama, 220-8119, Japan > > > T:+81(0)45-640-3780 > F:+81(0)45-640-3781 > shuichi.hendrickson at erm.com > www.erm.com > > *Ranked No1 All-Environmental Firm: ENR Magazine (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) > Environmental Adviser of the Year: Acquisitions Monthly (2005, 2006, 2008) > *** > > P Please consider the environment before printing this email > > > > ------------------------------ > > This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY > PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM > DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names > herein. If you are not the Addressee (s), or the person responsible for > delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, > copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received > this electronic mail message in error, please contact us immediately and > take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer > system. Thank you. > > Please visit ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From kfulcher at ashrae.org Thu Mar 3 07:56:30 2011 From: kfulcher at ashrae.org (Fulcher, Kim) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:56:30 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] (no subject) Message-ID: ________________________________ Kim Fulcher, Marketing Specialist American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc 1791 Tullie Cir. Atlanta, GA 30329 Direct Line: 678-539-1186 Fax: 678-539-2186 eMail: kfulcher at ashrae.org Web: www.ASHRAE.org HVAC Design Essentials Workshop - Practical Tools and Training for HVAC Professionals -- May 18 - 20, 2011. www.ashrae.org/hvacdesign P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LISTserv copy.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 13646 bytes Desc: LISTserv copy.docx URL: From chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 08:44:12 2011 From: chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com (Chris Yates) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:44:12 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] supply air rate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D6FC55C.4060801@gmail.com> That depends on what you're trying to do with the air Shambav. If you are meeting outdoor air requirements to maintain Indoor air quality then refer to ASHRAE 62.1. If you are attempting to condition the space (heat or cool) with the air then volume flow V = Q / rho.Cp.deltaT where Q = Heating / Cooling rate, Rho = density of air, Cp = specific heat, DeltaT = difference in room air temperature and off coil. A VAV system does both of these (supplies outdoor air and room conditioning) and uses a mixing box. If you want to understand VAV get hold of LearnHVAC . Cheers Chris On 03/03/2011 12:18, sambhav tiwari wrote: > Hi All, > What is the range for supply air cfm/sqft for conditioned spaces > Thanks > Sambhav. > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -- Chris Yates C Eng MCIBSE /Building Physics Consultant/ Tel:+447960731576 Email: chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com Skype: christopher.m.yates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thomasv at iit.edu Thu Mar 3 09:14:55 2011 From: thomasv at iit.edu (Varkie C Thomas) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:14:55 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] supply air rate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sambhav, http://bepan.info/class-notes/e1-bldg-shell-environ Click on F15 - Air-Quantities I have also attached the section Varkie ----- Original Message ----- From: sambhav tiwari Date: Thursday, March 3, 2011 6:18 am Subject: [Bldg-sim] supply air rate > Hi All, > What is the range for supply air cfm/sqft for > conditioned spaces > Thanks > Sambhav. > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: F15-Air-Quantities.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 147241 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cmg750 at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 10:42:42 2011 From: cmg750 at gmail.com (Carol Gardner) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 10:42:42 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] supply air rate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Funny how this has expanded from the original question: "what is the range for supply air cfm/sqft for conditioned spaces". I took it to be him asking for OA+RA quantities that get delivered to a space, since I was just talking about that with a colleague recently. Perhaps Sambhav can let us know if we met his needs. Thank you once again, Varkie, for sending us another of you papers. I appreciate all information I get from you and I actually read it!! Good stuff. Cheers, Carol On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Varkie C Thomas wrote: > Sambhav, > http://bepan.info/class-notes/e1-bldg-shell-environ > Click on F15 - Air-Quantities > I have also attached the section > Varkie > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: sambhav tiwari > Date: Thursday, March 3, 2011 6:18 am > Subject: [Bldg-sim] supply air rate > > > Hi All, > > What is the range for supply air cfm/sqft for > > conditioned spaces > > Thanks > > Sambhav. > > _______________________________________________ > > Bldg-sim mailing list > > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -- Carol Gardner PE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kfulcher at ashrae.org Thu Mar 3 11:20:01 2011 From: kfulcher at ashrae.org (Fulcher, Kim) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:20:01 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE Sponsors Energy Modeling Tools Conference, April 4-6, 2011 Message-ID: Registration is limited - register by March 21st! Tools, DOE Roadmap, BEMP Certification Featured at ASHRAE's Energy Modeling Conference April 4-6 ASHRAE's Energy Modeling Conference: Tools for Designing High Performance Buildings, April 4-6, 2011, ASHRAE Headquarters, Atlanta, Ga., will provide hands-on modelers and principals with the information to better harness the power of energy modeling tools. The strength of the conference is its focus on different software tools. The conference addresses: * How things get modeled and the impact of input data on energy models; * What the strengths are of different software products in modeling specific applications; * A comparison on how different tools address specific systems and * Demonstrations, offered in a group session and individually by vendor sponsors, of software tools Some of the software tools to be presented include ArchiCAD, Apache, Autodesk, Bentley, Ecotect, EnergyPlus, EPGUI, eQuest, Graphisoft, IES Virtual Environment, OpenStudio, Revit, Trane TRACE and TRNSYS. Keynote speakers are Lynn G. Bellenger, P.E., ASHRAE president and William J. Worthen, American Institute of Architecture's (AIA) national director and resource architect for sustainability. In addition, on April 6, the U.S. Department of Energy is launching its development roadmap for EnergyPlus, OpenStudio, EPGUI and other tools. See proposed changes and provide feedback on the roadmap and on DOE's general activities in the simulation tools area. Registration is $500 ($450, ASHRAE, AIA and USGBC members). Seating is limited - register today! Advance registration closes March 21. For hotel, technical program, more information and to register, visit the conference website www.ashrae.org/energymodeling ________________________________ Kim Fulcher, Marketing Specialist American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc 1791 Tullie Cir. Atlanta, GA 30329 Direct Line: 678-539-1186 Fax: 678-539-2186 eMail: kfulcher at ashrae.org Web: www.ASHRAE.org HVAC Design Essentials Workshop - Practical Tools and Training for HVAC Professionals -- May 18 - 20, 2011. www.ashrae.org/hvacdesign P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thomasv at iit.edu Thu Mar 3 11:34:38 2011 From: thomasv at iit.edu (Varkie C Thomas) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:34:38 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] supply air rate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carol, You are right. The question was what is the range for supply air in CFM/sqft. SA standards for medical and industrial facilities are in ACH. The minimum value for OA & SA are set by standards but the maximum SA value cannot be anything that CFM = BTUH (cooling) / (1.08 * (Ti - Ts)) produces. The type of space determines the maximum and there is a limit to the SA and after which other cheaper methods (supplying air is expensive) are used for heating and cooling and judgement is also involved. It helps to understand the whole subject. Refer to OSHA for the answer to the question. http://www.osha.gov/ Varkie ----- Original Message ----- From: Carol Gardner Date: Thursday, March 3, 2011 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] supply air rate > Funny how this has expanded from the original question: "what is > the range > for supply air cfm/sqft for conditioned spaces". I took it to be > him asking > for OA+RA quantities that get delivered to a space, since I was > just talking > about that with a colleague recently. Perhaps Sambhav can let us > know if we > met his needs. > > Thank you once again, Varkie, for sending us another of you > papers. I > appreciate all information I get from you and I actually read it!! > Goodstuff. > > Cheers, > > Carol > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Varkie C Thomas > wrote: > > Sambhav, > > http://bepan.info/class-notes/e1-bldg-shell-environ > > Click on F15 - Air-Quantities > > I have also attached the section > > Varkie > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: sambhav tiwari > > Date: Thursday, March 3, 2011 6:18 am > > Subject: [Bldg-sim] supply air rate > > > > > Hi All, > > > What is the range for supply air cfm/sqft for > > > conditioned spaces > > > Thanks > > > Sambhav. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Bldg-sim mailing list > > > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > > > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bldg-sim mailing list > > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > > > > > > -- > Carol Gardner PE > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From XYang at mcw.com Thu Mar 3 13:17:48 2011 From: XYang at mcw.com (Xiangjin Yang) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:17:48 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] How to model water to water HP for MAU in EE4 Message-ID: <4016B1EA0C8DA84D88D1E20A29CD3E792869FD99C2@TOR-SVR-EX5.mcw.com> Hello We got a condo project, with water to water HP providing cooling and heating for central make up air unit, and hot water from boiler and a second heat resource for this make up unit. At zone level, there is ERV providing fresh air to suites. And the HPs in suites provide additional heating and cooling. In EE4 there is no option to set water to water HP for make up unit. So we are thinking three options 1. Put heating capacity of MAU to zone, and break down all the heating from water to water HP and boiler to zone level, combined with HP in suites 2. Put boiler as predominate heating resource for MAU, and break down water to water HP to zone level with HPs in suites. Then the setting of supply air temperature would be very tricky. 3. Add up total capacity of boiler and water to water HP as one hot water heat source. This option ignores the HP heating Which one option is more reasonable? Or there is other better way to model this system? Thank you, Xiangjin Yang Ph.D. Junior Mechanical Designer MCW Consultants Ltd. 156 Front Street West Suite 600 Toronto, ON M5J 2L6 Phone 416-598-2920 Fax 416-598-5394 This e-mail may be privileged and confidential. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender directly. P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mwetter at lbl.gov Thu Mar 3 16:01:34 2011 From: mwetter at lbl.gov (Michael Wetter) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:01:34 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Building Controls Virtual Test Bed 1.0 has been released Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the release of the Building Controls Virtual Test Bed 1.0 The Building Controls Virtual Test Bed (BCVTB) is a freely available open-source software environment that allows expert users to couple different simulation programs for co-simulation, and to couple simulation programs with actual hardware. For example, the BCVTB allows to simulate a building in EnergyPlus and the HVAC and control system in Modelica, while exchanging data between the software as they simulate. The BCVTB is based on the Ptolemy II software environment. The BCVTB allows expert users of simulation to expand the capabilities of individual programs by linking them to other programs. Due to the different programs that may be involved in distributed simulation, familiarity with configuring programs is essential. Programs that are linked to the BCVTB are * the EnergyPlus whole building energy simulation program, * the Modelica modeling and simulation environment Dymola, * the MATLAB and Simulink tools for scientific computing, * the Radiance ray-tracing software for lighting analysis, * the BACnet stack, which allows exchanging data with BACnet compliant Building Automation System (BAS), * the analog/digital interface USB-1208LS from Measurement Computing Corporation that can be connected to a USB port. In addition to using programs that are coupled to Ptolemy II, Ptolemy II's graphical modeling environment can also be used to define models for control systems, for physical devices, for communication systems or for post-processing and real-time visualization. For free download and more information, please visit http://SimulationResearch.lbl.gov/bcvtb Best regards, Michael Wetter Simulation Research Group Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sandeep.kachhawa at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 05:50:29 2011 From: sandeep.kachhawa at gmail.com (Sandeep Kachhawa) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 19:20:29 +0530 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Cooling Load in EnergyPlus Message-ID: Dear All Can we get the individual break-up of cooling load in *EnergyPlus*? Internal loads (People, Equipment & Lighting), Infiltration loads and Window gains are available but the *gians from Walls and Roof is missing. *Surely EnergyPlus does calculate all the above loads to size the Cooling Equipment but there is no such specific output. Regards Sandeep Kachhawa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From p.raftery at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 06:07:42 2011 From: p.raftery at gmail.com (Paul Raftery) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:07:42 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Cooling Load in EnergyPlus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sandeep, A full list of the available output variables are given in the .rdd file (it is one of the files output from the simulation). Simply copy the relevant line from that file into your .idf (or .imf) file, rerun the simulation, and the new variable(s) will be output to the .csv and .eso files. e.g. Adding this line to the input file will give you the convective heat gain from all interior surfaces in your model. Output:Variable,*,Surface Int Convection Heat Rate,hourly; !- Zone Average [W] Regards, Paul On 4 March 2011 13:50, Sandeep Kachhawa wrote: > Dear All > > Can we get the individual break-up of cooling load in *EnergyPlus*? > Internal loads (People, Equipment & Lighting), Infiltration loads and > Window gains are available but the *gians from Walls and Roof is missing. > *Surely EnergyPlus does calculate all the above loads to size the Cooling > Equipment but there is no such specific output. > > Regards > Sandeep Kachhawa > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -- Regards, Paul ===================== Contact Details ===================== Paul Raftery, BEng(Hons) (Mech), Fulbright Fellow, PhD http://www.paulraftery.com/ Postdoctoral Research Engineer Informatics Research Unit for Sustainable Engineering (IRUSE) http://www.iruse.ie/ Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland. Landline: +353 91 49 3086 Mobile: +353 85 125 4999 Skype: praftery -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ery.mailinglist at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 09:26:08 2011 From: ery.mailinglist at gmail.com (Ery Djunaedy) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 10:26:08 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Cooling Load in EnergyPlus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D7120B0.8090308@gmail.com> Sandeep, This is what I call a legacy topic from the DOE2 era. You better search the posts in EnergyPlus support mailing list. Search for "cooling load component", and you will find an interesting discussion. In summary, you will not find a cooling load component report in EnergyPlus nicely formatted a-la LS-C report in eQuest/DOE2. If you try to match the total gains v.s. the cooling load for every time step, then you will be in for a long ride. Take the solar radiation gain, for example. The GAIN for a particular time step is not necessarily converted into cooling LOAD at the next time step. If your building is thermally massive, then the delay plays an important role and it could be hours before the solar radiation GAIN becomes an actual LOAD as seen by the thermostat. Do not forget about this, if you try to match the cooling load report with the total gains. If you are talking about peak cooling load, then you will need to focus on the zone sizing report. Calculating the gains component is easy because the schedule is always 100% on. You just need to quantify the ventilation load. Please note that the report suggested by Paul below is the convection report. I imagine that you would expect a conduction report? EnergyPlus zones technically cannot see conduction through opaque surfaces, in the sense of A*U*DeltaT. They can only see convection and radiation. In fact, if you try to match A*U*DeltaT for external wall with this report (Surface Int Convection Heat Rate) then you will have a hard time explaining. If you keep this in mind, the differences can be easily explained. Cheeers, Ery On 03/04/2011 07:07 AM, Paul Raftery wrote: > Hi Sandeep, > > A full list of the available output variables are given in the .rdd > file (it is one of the files output from the simulation). Simply copy > the relevant line from that file into your .idf (or .imf) file, rerun > the simulation, and the new variable(s) will be output to the .csv and > .eso files. > > e.g. Adding this line to the input file will give you the convective > heat gain from all interior surfaces in your model. > Output:Variable,*,Surface Int Convection Heat Rate,hourly; !- Zone > Average [W] > > Regards, > Paul > > On 4 March 2011 13:50, Sandeep Kachhawa > wrote: > > Dear All > Can we get the individual break-up of cooling load in > *EnergyPlus*? Internal loads (People, Equipment & Lighting), > Infiltration loads and Window gains are available but the *gians > from Walls and Roof is missing. *Surely EnergyPlus does calculate > all the above loads to size the Cooling Equipment but there is no > such specific output. > Regards > Sandeep Kachhawa > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ahussein at spsu.edu Fri Mar 4 10:35:41 2011 From: ahussein at spsu.edu (Hussein Abaza) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 13:35:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Cooling Load in EnergyPlus In-Reply-To: <307491897.9688501299263713415.JavaMail.root@zstore1.spsu.edu> Message-ID: <937439173.9688581299263741653.JavaMail.root@zstore1.spsu.edu> Thank you; I am running the example file Supermarket_Detailed which has a 50m x 50m supermarket but the Electricity:HVAC [J](Monthly) for July in Tampa weather is 1.3 ? 10 9 . To convert this into Kwh I multiplied it by 2.7778 ? 10 ?7 which gives 363Kwh only . I think it should be around 100 times this amount. Am I doing something wrong? Thank you for any help ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ery Djunaedy" To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Sent: Friday, March 4, 2011 12:26:08 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Cooling Load in EnergyPlus Sandeep, This is what I call a legacy topic from the DOE2 era. You better search the posts in EnergyPlus support mailing list. Search for "cooling load component", and you will find an interesting discussion. In summary, you will not find a cooling load component report in EnergyPlus nicely formatted a-la LS-C report in eQuest/DOE2. If you try to match the total gains v.s. the cooling load for every time step, then you will be in for a long ride. Take the solar radiation gain, for example. The GAIN for a particular time step is not necessarily converted into cooling LOAD at the next time step. If your building is thermally massive, then the delay plays an important role and it could be hours before the solar radiation GAIN becomes an actual LOAD as seen by the thermostat. Do not forget about this, if you try to match the cooling load report with the total gains. If you are talking about peak cooling load, then you will need to focus on the zone sizing report. Calculating the gains component is easy because the schedule is always 100% on. You just need to quantify the ventilation load. Please note that the report suggested by Paul below is the convection report. I imagine that you would expect a conduction report? EnergyPlus zones technically cannot see conduction through opaque surfaces, in the sense of A*U*DeltaT. They can only see convection and radiation. In fact, if you try to match A*U*DeltaT for external wall with this report (Surface Int Convection Heat Rate) then you will have a hard time explaining. If you keep this in mind, the differences can be easily explained. Cheeers, Ery On 03/04/2011 07:07 AM, Paul Raftery wrote: Hi Sandeep, A full list of the available output variables are given in the .rdd file (it is one of the files output from the simulation). Simply copy the relevant line from that file into your .idf (or .imf) file, rerun the simulation, and the new variable(s) will be output to the .csv and .eso files. e.g. Adding this line to the input file will give you the convective heat gain from all interior surfaces in your model. Output:Variable,*,Surface Int Convection Heat Rate,hourly; !- Zone Average [W] Regards, Paul On 4 March 2011 13:50, Sandeep Kachhawa < sandeep.kachhawa at gmail.com > wrote: Dear All Can we get the individual break-up of cooling load in EnergyPlus ? Internal loads (People, Equipment & Lighting), Infiltration loads and Window gains are available but the gians from Walls and Roof is missing. Surely EnergyPlus does calculate all the above loads to size the Cooling Equipment but there is no such specific output. Regards Sandeep Kachhawa _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -- Dr. Hussein Abaza, Assistant Professor Construction Management Department SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE ? CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY And CONSTRUCTION 1100 South Marietta Parkway , Marietta , GA 30060-2896 Website: www.spsu.edu/cost Tel: 678-915-3719 Fax: 678-915-4966 E-mail: ahussein at spsu.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kwalkerman at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 11:00:27 2011 From: kwalkerman at gmail.com (Karen Walkerman) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:00:27 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Cooling Load in EnergyPlus In-Reply-To: <4D7120B0.8090308@gmail.com> References: <4D7120B0.8090308@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ery, Thanks for this explanation. I have been struggling with this topic as well as I do more modeling in Energy Plus. However, there is one thing that you did not address above. While DOE2's LS-C report may not match exactly to what systems are seeing as far as loads, it does give an easily readable report which allows you to check your inputs. I review it quite often as a quality control check for my models. It also allows me to target energy saving measures, and helps me explain to clients why certain changes might make sense for their building. For example, one client might be interested in increasing roof insulation, but if they have a multi-story building with a relatively small roof, and lots of wall area, it makes more sense for them to reduce thermal bridging in their wall construction. Having a model-generated report makes this process much faster for me. Do you have any suggestions with regards to Energy Plus of ways to achieve the above goals with the currently available reports? Thanks. -- Karen On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ery Djunaedy wrote: > Sandeep, > > This is what I call a legacy topic from the DOE2 era. You better search the > posts in EnergyPlus support mailing list. Search for "cooling load > component", and you will find an interesting discussion. > > In summary, you will not find a cooling load component report in EnergyPlus > nicely formatted a-la LS-C report in eQuest/DOE2. > > If you try to match the total gains v.s. the cooling load for every time > step, then you will be in for a long ride. Take the solar radiation gain, > for example. The GAIN for a particular time step is not necessarily > converted into cooling LOAD at the next time step. If your building is > thermally massive, then the delay plays an important role and it could be > hours before the solar radiation GAIN becomes an actual LOAD as seen by the > thermostat. Do not forget about this, if you try to match the cooling load > report with the total gains. > > If you are talking about peak cooling load, then you will need to focus on > the zone sizing report. Calculating the gains component is easy because the > schedule is always 100% on. You just need to quantify the ventilation load. > > Please note that the report suggested by Paul below is the convection > report. I imagine that you would expect a conduction report? EnergyPlus > zones technically cannot see conduction through opaque surfaces, in the > sense of A*U*DeltaT. They can only see convection and radiation. In fact, if > you try to match A*U*DeltaT for external wall with this report (Surface Int > Convection Heat Rate) then you will have a hard time explaining. If you keep > this in mind, the differences can be easily explained. > > Cheeers, > > Ery > > > On 03/04/2011 07:07 AM, Paul Raftery wrote: > > Hi Sandeep, > > A full list of the available output variables are given in the .rdd file > (it is one of the files output from the simulation). Simply copy the > relevant line from that file into your .idf (or .imf) file, rerun the > simulation, and the new variable(s) will be output to the .csv and .eso > files. > > e.g. Adding this line to the input file will give you the convective > heat gain from all interior surfaces in your model. > Output:Variable,*,Surface Int Convection Heat Rate,hourly; !- Zone Average > [W] > > Regards, > Paul > > On 4 March 2011 13:50, Sandeep Kachhawa wrote: > >> Dear All >> >> Can we get the individual break-up of cooling load in *EnergyPlus*? >> Internal loads (People, Equipment & Lighting), Infiltration loads and >> Window gains are available but the *gians from Walls and Roof is >> missing. *Surely EnergyPlus does calculate all the above loads to size >> the Cooling Equipment but there is no such specific output. >> >> Regards >> Sandeep Kachhawa >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ery.mailinglist at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 15:52:52 2011 From: ery.mailinglist at gmail.com (Ery Djunaedy) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:52:52 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Cooling Load in EnergyPlus In-Reply-To: References: <4D7120B0.8090308@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D717B54.201@gmail.com> Hi Karen, Same here, I always use LS-C when I use eQuest. Just adding the ventilaton load, then you will have the peak load. Its always fun to compare this number with what the mechanical engineer has. I said earlier, in EnergyPlus it is not nicely formated like LS-C. It does not mean you cannot have it. You can force EPlus to show the numbers. The internal gains are the easy ones, the windows are also relatively easy, the last pieces are the opaque "conduction" and the ventilation load. Which is not difficult. The problem is what peak to report? You will have the peak of the total gains, which will happen at a different timestep then the peak of the cooling load. And these two, in turn is different with the zone sizing report. I personally use the zone sizing reports as the peak loads, and I will get all the details by running the designday run with schedules consistent with the design day schedule. Hope this helps, Ery On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Karen Walkerman > wrote: Hi Ery, Thanks for this explanation. I have been struggling with this topic as well as I do more modeling in Energy Plus. However, there is one thing that you did not address above. While DOE2's LS-C report may not match exactly to what systems are seeing as far as loads, it does give an easily readable report which allows you to check your inputs. I review it quite often as a quality control check for my models. It also allows me to target energy saving measures, and helps me explain to clients why certain changes might make sense for their building. For example, one client might be interested in increasing roof insulation, but if they have a multi-story building with a relatively small roof, and lots of wall area, it makes more sense for them to reduce thermal bridging in their wall construction. Having a model-generated report makes this process much faster for me. Do you have any suggestions with regards to Energy Plus of ways to achieve the above goals with the currently available reports? Thanks. -- Karen On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ery Djunaedy > wrote: Sandeep, This is what I call a legacy topic from the DOE2 era. You better search the posts in EnergyPlus support mailing list. Search for "cooling load component", and you will find an interesting discussion. In summary, you will not find a cooling load component report in EnergyPlus nicely formatted a-la LS-C report in eQuest/DOE2. If you try to match the total gains v.s. the cooling load for every time step, then you will be in for a long ride. Take the solar radiation gain, for example. The GAIN for a particular time step is not necessarily converted into cooling LOAD at the next time step. If your building is thermally massive, then the delay plays an important role and it could be hours before the solar radiation GAIN becomes an actual LOAD as seen by the thermostat. Do not forget about this, if you try to match the cooling load report with the total gains. If you are talking about peak cooling load, then you will need to focus on the zone sizing report. Calculating the gains component is easy because the schedule is always 100% on. You just need to quantify the ventilation load. Please note that the report suggested by Paul below is the convection report. I imagine that you would expect a conduction report? EnergyPlus zones technically cannot see conduction through opaque surfaces, in the sense of A*U*DeltaT. They can only see convection and radiation. In fact, if you try to match A*U*DeltaT for external wall with this report (Surface Int Convection Heat Rate) then you will have a hard time explaining. If you keep this in mind, the differences can be easily explained. Cheeers, Ery On 03/04/2011 07:07 AM, Paul Raftery wrote: > Hi Sandeep, > > A full list of the available output variables are given in the > .rdd file (it is one of the files output from the simulation). > Simply copy the relevant line from that file into your .idf > (or .imf) file, rerun the simulation, and the new variable(s) > will be output to the .csv and .eso files. > > e.g. Adding this line to the input file will give you the > convective heat gain from all interior surfaces in your model. > Output:Variable,*,Surface Int Convection Heat Rate,hourly; !- > Zone Average [W] > > Regards, > Paul > > On 4 March 2011 13:50, Sandeep Kachhawa > > wrote: > > Dear All > Can we get the individual break-up of cooling load in > *EnergyPlus*? Internal loads (People, Equipment & > Lighting), Infiltration loads and Window gains are > available but the *gians from Walls and Roof is missing. > *Surely EnergyPlus does calculate all the above loads to > size the Cooling Equipment but there is no such specific > output. > Regards > Sandeep Kachhawa > _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kwalkerman at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 16:04:31 2011 From: kwalkerman at gmail.com (Karen Walkerman) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 19:04:31 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Cooling Load in EnergyPlus In-Reply-To: <4D717B54.201@gmail.com> References: <4D7120B0.8090308@gmail.com> <4D717B54.201@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Ery. It helps. It's just slow. What I love about LS-C is that it's fast. Do you know of a way to get a grouped report for all walls within a particular zone. So instead of having hourly output for every wall in a space, you would have one for each: exterior walls, interior walls, etc? This would make reviewing these outputs much faster! Thanks! Karen On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Ery Djunaedy wrote: > Hi Karen, > > Same here, I always use LS-C when I use eQuest. Just adding the ventilaton > load, then you will have the peak load. Its always fun to compare this > number with what the mechanical engineer has. > > I said earlier, in EnergyPlus it is not nicely formated like LS-C. It does > not mean you cannot have it. You can force EPlus to show the numbers. The > internal gains are the easy ones, the windows are also relatively easy, the > last pieces are the opaque "conduction" and the ventilation load. Which is > not difficult. > > The problem is what peak to report? You will have the peak of the total > gains, which will happen at a different timestep then the peak of the > cooling load. And these two, in turn is different with the zone sizing > report. > > I personally use the zone sizing reports as the peak loads, and I will get > all the details by running the designday run with schedules consistent with > the design day schedule. > > Hope this helps, > > Ery > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Karen Walkerman wrote: > >> Hi Ery, >> >> Thanks for this explanation. I have been struggling with this topic as >> well as I do more modeling in Energy Plus. However, there is one thing that >> you did not address above. While DOE2's LS-C report may not match exactly >> to what systems are seeing as far as loads, it does give an easily readable >> report which allows you to check your inputs. I review it quite often as a >> quality control check for my models. It also allows me to target energy >> saving measures, and helps me explain to clients why certain changes might >> make sense for their building. For example, one client might be interested >> in increasing roof insulation, but if they have a multi-story building with >> a relatively small roof, and lots of wall area, it makes more sense for them >> to reduce thermal bridging in their wall construction. Having a >> model-generated report makes this process much faster for me. >> >> Do you have any suggestions with regards to Energy Plus of ways to >> achieve the above goals with the currently available reports? >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> Karen >> >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ery Djunaedy < >> ery.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sandeep, >>> >>> This is what I call a legacy topic from the DOE2 era. You better search >>> the posts in EnergyPlus support mailing list. Search for "cooling load >>> component", and you will find an interesting discussion. >>> >>> In summary, you will not find a cooling load component report in >>> EnergyPlus nicely formatted a-la LS-C report in eQuest/DOE2. >>> >>> If you try to match the total gains v.s. the cooling load for every time >>> step, then you will be in for a long ride. Take the solar radiation gain, >>> for example. The GAIN for a particular time step is not necessarily >>> converted into cooling LOAD at the next time step. If your building is >>> thermally massive, then the delay plays an important role and it could be >>> hours before the solar radiation GAIN becomes an actual LOAD as seen by the >>> thermostat. Do not forget about this, if you try to match the cooling load >>> report with the total gains. >>> >>> If you are talking about peak cooling load, then you will need to focus >>> on the zone sizing report. Calculating the gains component is easy because >>> the schedule is always 100% on. You just need to quantify the ventilation >>> load. >>> >>> Please note that the report suggested by Paul below is the convection >>> report. I imagine that you would expect a conduction report? EnergyPlus >>> zones technically cannot see conduction through opaque surfaces, in the >>> sense of A*U*DeltaT. They can only see convection and radiation. In fact, if >>> you try to match A*U*DeltaT for external wall with this report (Surface Int >>> Convection Heat Rate) then you will have a hard time explaining. If you keep >>> this in mind, the differences can be easily explained. >>> >>> Cheeers, >>> >>> Ery >>> >>> >>> On 03/04/2011 07:07 AM, Paul Raftery wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sandeep, >>> >>> A full list of the available output variables are given in the .rdd >>> file (it is one of the files output from the simulation). Simply copy the >>> relevant line from that file into your .idf (or .imf) file, rerun the >>> simulation, and the new variable(s) will be output to the .csv and .eso >>> files. >>> >>> e.g. Adding this line to the input file will give you the convective >>> heat gain from all interior surfaces in your model. >>> Output:Variable,*,Surface Int Convection Heat Rate,hourly; !- Zone >>> Average [W] >>> >>> Regards, >>> Paul >>> >>> On 4 March 2011 13:50, Sandeep Kachhawa wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All >>>> >>>> Can we get the individual break-up of cooling load in *EnergyPlus*? >>>> Internal loads (People, Equipment & Lighting), Infiltration loads and >>>> Window gains are available but the *gians from Walls and Roof is >>>> missing. *Surely EnergyPlus does calculate all the above loads to size >>>> the Cooling Equipment but there is no such specific output. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Sandeep Kachhawa >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bldg-sim mailing list >>> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to >>> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ery.mailinglist at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 16:18:11 2011 From: ery.mailinglist at gmail.com (Ery Djunaedy) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:18:11 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Cooling Load in EnergyPlus In-Reply-To: References: <4D7120B0.8090308@gmail.com> <4D717B54.201@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D718143.4020903@gmail.com> Nope, not that I know of. Before this kind of summaries is implemented in EPlus, I think scripting is the way to get faster results. SQLite is really a powerful result analysis tool. What you describe below can be implemented relatively easily with some SQL statements. We have been trying to come up with a better way to communicate this kind of output to the client. I will share the results to this list once we finalize how to do this in EPlus. Thanks, Ery On 03/04/2011 05:04 PM, Karen Walkerman wrote: > Thanks Ery. > > It helps. It's just slow. What I love about LS-C is that it's fast. > Do you know of a way to get a grouped report for all walls within a > particular zone. So instead of having hourly output for every wall in > a space, you would have one for each: exterior walls, interior walls, > etc? This would make reviewing these outputs much faster! > > Thanks! > > Karen > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Ery Djunaedy > > wrote: > > Hi Karen, > Same here, I always use LS-C when I use eQuest. Just adding the > ventilaton load, then you will have the peak load. Its always fun > to compare this number with what the mechanical engineer has. > I said earlier, in EnergyPlus it is not nicely formated like LS-C. > It does not mean you cannot have it. You can force EPlus to show > the numbers. The internal gains are the easy ones, the windows are > also relatively easy, the last pieces are the opaque "conduction" > and the ventilation load. Which is not difficult. > > The problem is what peak to report? You will have the peak of the > total gains, which will happen at a different timestep then the > peak of the cooling load. And these two, in turn is different with > the zone sizing report. > > I personally use the zone sizing reports as the peak loads, and I > will get all the details by running the designday run with > schedules consistent with the design day schedule. > > Hope this helps, > > Ery > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Karen Walkerman > > wrote: > > Hi Ery, > > Thanks for this explanation. I have been struggling with this > topic as well as I do more modeling in Energy Plus. However, > there is one thing that you did not address above. While > DOE2's LS-C report may not match exactly to what systems are > seeing as far as loads, it does give an easily readable report > which allows you to check your inputs. I review it quite > often as a quality control check for my models. It also > allows me to target energy saving measures, and helps me > explain to clients why certain changes might make sense for > their building. For example, one client might be interested > in increasing roof insulation, but if they have a multi-story > building with a relatively small roof, and lots of wall area, > it makes more sense for them to reduce thermal bridging in > their wall construction. Having a model-generated report > makes this process much faster for me. > > Do you have any suggestions with regards to Energy Plus of > ways to achieve the above goals with the currently available > reports? > > Thanks. > > -- > Karen > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ery Djunaedy > > > wrote: > > Sandeep, > > This is what I call a legacy topic from the DOE2 era. You > better search the posts in EnergyPlus support mailing > list. Search for "cooling load component", and you will > find an interesting discussion. > > In summary, you will not find a cooling load component > report in EnergyPlus nicely formatted a-la LS-C report in > eQuest/DOE2. > > If you try to match the total gains v.s. the cooling load > for every time step, then you will be in for a long ride. > Take the solar radiation gain, for example. The GAIN for a > particular time step is not necessarily converted into > cooling LOAD at the next time step. If your building is > thermally massive, then the delay plays an important role > and it could be hours before the solar radiation GAIN > becomes an actual LOAD as seen by the thermostat. Do not > forget about this, if you try to match the cooling load > report with the total gains. > > If you are talking about peak cooling load, then you will > need to focus on the zone sizing report. Calculating the > gains component is easy because the schedule is always > 100% on. You just need to quantify the ventilation load. > > Please note that the report suggested by Paul below is the > convection report. I imagine that you would expect a > conduction report? EnergyPlus zones technically cannot see > conduction through opaque surfaces, in the sense of > A*U*DeltaT. They can only see convection and radiation. In > fact, if you try to match A*U*DeltaT for external wall > with this report (Surface Int Convection Heat Rate) then > you will have a hard time explaining. If you keep this in > mind, the differences can be easily explained. > > Cheeers, > > Ery > > > On 03/04/2011 07:07 AM, Paul Raftery wrote: >> Hi Sandeep, >> >> A full list of the available output variables are given >> in the .rdd file (it is one of the files output from the >> simulation). Simply copy the relevant line from that file >> into your .idf (or .imf) file, rerun the simulation, and >> the new variable(s) will be output to the .csv and .eso >> files. >> >> e.g. Adding this line to the input file will give you >> the convective heat gain from all interior surfaces in >> your model. >> Output:Variable,*,Surface Int Convection Heat >> Rate,hourly; !- Zone Average [W] >> >> Regards, >> Paul >> >> On 4 March 2011 13:50, Sandeep Kachhawa >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear All >> Can we get the individual break-up of cooling load in >> *EnergyPlus*? Internal loads (People, Equipment & >> Lighting), Infiltration loads and Window gains are >> available but the *gians from Walls and Roof is >> missing. *Surely EnergyPlus does calculate all the >> above loads to size the Cooling Equipment but there >> is no such specific output. >> Regards >> Sandeep Kachhawa >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank > message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ishan.mehtaug08 at students.iiit.ac.in Sat Mar 5 22:27:39 2011 From: ishan.mehtaug08 at students.iiit.ac.in (ishan.mehtaug08) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:57:39 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Print Utility for IDF files Message-ID: <1908.10.6.0.18.1299392859.squirrel@students.iiit.ac.in> Hi, I am an engineering student and I am developing a utility to print IDF files.I would like to know what kind of objects and formats users of IDF files wish to have printed so that I can try to incorporate them into my utility. Regards, Ishan Mehta From ishan.mehtaug08 at students.iiit.ac.in Sat Mar 5 22:27:49 2011 From: ishan.mehtaug08 at students.iiit.ac.in (ishan.mehtaug08) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:57:49 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Print Utility for IDF files Message-ID: <1951.10.6.0.18.1299392869.squirrel@students.iiit.ac.in> Hi, I am an engineering student and I am developing a utility to print IDF files.I would like to know what kind of objects and formats users of IDF files wish to have printed so that I can try to incorporate them into my utility. Regards, Ishan Mehta From sandeep.kachhawa at gmail.com Sun Mar 6 04:21:43 2011 From: sandeep.kachhawa at gmail.com (Sandeep Kachhawa) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 17:51:43 +0530 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Cooling Load in EnergyPlus In-Reply-To: <4D717B54.201@gmail.com> References: <4D7120B0.8090308@gmail.com> <4D717B54.201@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ery I appreciate your suggistions. So its clear that we can't get the complete break-up of coolong load in EnergyPus in terms of energy (joules), but we can get the components of peak load in Watts. You mentioned, "You can force EPlus to show the numbers... the last pieces are the opaque "conduction" and the ventilation load. Which is not difficult". Can you please elaborate, how? Thanks Sandeep Kachhawa On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Ery Djunaedy wrote: > Hi Karen, > > Same here, I always use LS-C when I use eQuest. Just adding the ventilaton > load, then you will have the peak load. Its always fun to compare this > number with what the mechanical engineer has. > > I said earlier, in EnergyPlus it is not nicely formated like LS-C. It does > not mean you cannot have it. You can force EPlus to show the numbers. The > internal gains are the easy ones, the windows are also relatively easy, the > last pieces are the opaque "conduction" and the ventilation load. Which is > not difficult. > > The problem is what peak to report? You will have the peak of the total > gains, which will happen at a different timestep then the peak of the > cooling load. And these two, in turn is different with the zone sizing > report. > > I personally use the zone sizing reports as the peak loads, and I will get > all the details by running the designday run with schedules consistent with > the design day schedule. > > Hope this helps, > > Ery > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Karen Walkerman wrote: > >> Hi Ery, >> >> Thanks for this explanation. I have been struggling with this topic as >> well as I do more modeling in Energy Plus. However, there is one thing that >> you did not address above. While DOE2's LS-C report may not match exactly >> to what systems are seeing as far as loads, it does give an easily readable >> report which allows you to check your inputs. I review it quite often as a >> quality control check for my models. It also allows me to target energy >> saving measures, and helps me explain to clients why certain changes might >> make sense for their building. For example, one client might be interested >> in increasing roof insulation, but if they have a multi-story building with >> a relatively small roof, and lots of wall area, it makes more sense for them >> to reduce thermal bridging in their wall construction. Having a >> model-generated report makes this process much faster for me. >> >> Do you have any suggestions with regards to Energy Plus of ways to achieve >> the above goals with the currently available reports? >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> Karen >> >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ery Djunaedy > > wrote: >> >>> Sandeep, >>> >>> This is what I call a legacy topic from the DOE2 era. You better search >>> the posts in EnergyPlus support mailing list. Search for "cooling load >>> component", and you will find an interesting discussion. >>> >>> In summary, you will not find a cooling load component report in >>> EnergyPlus nicely formatted a-la LS-C report in eQuest/DOE2. >>> >>> If you try to match the total gains v.s. the cooling load for every time >>> step, then you will be in for a long ride. Take the solar radiation gain, >>> for example. The GAIN for a particular time step is not necessarily >>> converted into cooling LOAD at the next time step. If your building is >>> thermally massive, then the delay plays an important role and it could be >>> hours before the solar radiation GAIN becomes an actual LOAD as seen by the >>> thermostat. Do not forget about this, if you try to match the cooling load >>> report with the total gains. >>> >>> If you are talking about peak cooling load, then you will need to focus >>> on the zone sizing report. Calculating the gains component is easy because >>> the schedule is always 100% on. You just need to quantify the ventilation >>> load. >>> >>> Please note that the report suggested by Paul below is the convection >>> report. I imagine that you would expect a conduction report? EnergyPlus >>> zones technically cannot see conduction through opaque surfaces, in the >>> sense of A*U*DeltaT. They can only see convection and radiation. In fact, if >>> you try to match A*U*DeltaT for external wall with this report (Surface Int >>> Convection Heat Rate) then you will have a hard time explaining. If you keep >>> this in mind, the differences can be easily explained. >>> >>> Cheeers, >>> >>> Ery >>> >>> >>> On 03/04/2011 07:07 AM, Paul Raftery wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sandeep, >>> >>> A full list of the available output variables are given in the .rdd file >>> (it is one of the files output from the simulation). Simply copy the >>> relevant line from that file into your .idf (or .imf) file, rerun the >>> simulation, and the new variable(s) will be output to the .csv and .eso >>> files. >>> >>> e.g. Adding this line to the input file will give you the convective >>> heat gain from all interior surfaces in your model. >>> Output:Variable,*,Surface Int Convection Heat Rate,hourly; !- Zone >>> Average [W] >>> >>> Regards, >>> Paul >>> >>> On 4 March 2011 13:50, Sandeep Kachhawa wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All >>>> >>>> Can we get the individual break-up of cooling load in *EnergyPlus*? >>>> Internal loads (People, Equipment & Lighting), Infiltration loads and >>>> Window gains are available but the *gians from Walls and Roof is >>>> missing. *Surely EnergyPlus does calculate all the above loads to size >>>> the Cooling Equipment but there is no such specific output. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Sandeep Kachhawa >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bldg-sim mailing list >>> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to >>> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From feizhao at gatech.edu Sun Mar 6 13:52:37 2011 From: feizhao at gatech.edu (Zhao, Fei) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 16:52:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Benchmark data of energy use for sports facilities Message-ID: <940818433.376180.1299448357094.JavaMail.root@mail4.gatech.edu> Hi all, Does anyone know if there's any public benchmark data of the the energy use for sports facilities (in US or other countries)? I checked the CBECS database as well as the benchmark E+ models, but apparently sports facilities is not one of the building types they selected. If there's no such benchmark data available online, some literature that have surveyed data would also help me tremendously. Thank you very much. Fei Zhao Ph.D. Student, LEED AP College of Architecture Georgia Institute of Technology From jhaberl at tamu.edu Sun Mar 6 18:48:01 2011 From: jhaberl at tamu.edu (Jeff Haberl) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 02:48:01 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Benchmark data of energy use for sports facilities In-Reply-To: <940818433.376180.1299448357094.JavaMail.root@mail4.gatech.edu> References: <940818433.376180.1299448357094.JavaMail.root@mail4.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <9F589FD23AD8AB41A8ED33EE68F2CFC725C4F5@TEESMAIL.tees.tamus.edu> FYI: You'll find some dated, but useful information in the following ASHRAE papers, which talk about work in the 1980s on a Rec Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder: Haberl, J., Claridge, D. 1987. ?An Expert System for Building Energy Consumption Analysis: Prototype Results,? ASHRAE Transactions-Research, Vol. 93, Pt. 1, pp. 979 - 998 (January). Haberl, J., Claridge, D. 1985. ?Retrofit Energy Studies of a Recreation Center,? ASHRAE Transactions-Research, Vol. 91, Pt. 2, pp. 1421 - 1433 (June). There is also a slug of reports and papers that document about 10 yrs of work on the Rec Center, which you can pluck out of my on-line resume at the Lab --> www.esl.tamu.edu., one of which was a DOE-2 simulation of the Rec Center that included the ice rink and swimming pool (as best we could)....if enough folks bug me I'll get them loaded into the digital library at TAMU. We also have sub-metered data on the Rec Center at TAMU, and several models as well... In general, Rec Centers are about as complex as you can imagine, especially if they have a pool, perhaps a Poolpac system, heat reclaim, ice rink, etc., etc. For the Rec Center at CU, we eventually developed an expert system that predicted what was wrong and saved them lots of money on day to day mistakes...this is the topic of the 1987 paper. I seem to recall there was a DOE publication about Rec Centers as well, but I can't seem to recall the citation off the top of my head. Jeff 8=! 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=( 8=) 8=() 8=) 8=| 8=) :=') 8=)8=? Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E., FASHRAE..............jhaberl at tamu.edu Professor............................................................Office Ph: 979-845-6507 Department of Architecture.............................Lab Ph:979-845-6065 Energy Systems Laboratory.............................FAX: 979-862-2457 Texas A&M University.....................................77843-3581 College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..................URL:www.esl.tamu.edu 8=/ 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=() 8=) :=) 8=) 8=! 8=) 8=? 8=)8=0 ________________________________________ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] on behalf of Zhao, Fei [feizhao at gatech.edu] Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 3:52 PM To: Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Benchmark data of energy use for sports facilities Hi all, Does anyone know if there's any public benchmark data of the the energy use for sports facilities (in US or other countries)? I checked the CBECS database as well as the benchmark E+ models, but apparently sports facilities is not one of the building types they selected. If there's no such benchmark data available online, some literature that have surveyed data would also help me tremendously. Thank you very much. Fei Zhao Ph.D. Student, LEED AP College of Architecture Georgia Institute of Technology _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG From jon at esru.strath.ac.uk Sun Mar 6 20:08:05 2011 From: jon at esru.strath.ac.uk (Jon Hand) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 04:08:05 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Print Utility for IDF files Message-ID: <2C3CF455489D6B4F95AFAB84847FA413018BFB2C0E81@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk> If this print utility is as an aide to model quality checking one pattern to follow is that used by the ESP-r simulation suite for its model contents report. It decodes most of the data in the model files into a quazi-human-readable form with various derived attributes added. We find that such model contents documents, which are designed for QA staff, are a good way of detecting patterns in descriptive information which is difficult, if not impossible, to detect on a computer monitor. Just printing the literal contents of an IDF file does not necessarily help - it is formatted for machine reading and does not join together distributed information that eyes are good at making sense of. And model QA reports, if generated at different stages of a model evolution, are great for visual difference checks about 'what has changed' and 'what is still left to do'. Indeed, Lind Lawrie and I discussed the need for an alternative QA process for EnergyPlus models - if you check IDF files regularly there seems to be a correlation with grey hair. And to balance out this QA report there is a chapter in the ESP-r Cookbookthat gives guidance on how to interpret the contents of the report and what key words to look for and patterns to look for and stages when reports are particularly useful. The model report is rather large for inclusion in a Bldg-sim email but if anyone is interested I would be happy to forward some typical reports and the documentation that supports its use. Regards, Jon Hand jon at esru.strath.ac.uk ________________________________________ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of ishan.mehtaug08 [ishan.mehtaug08 at students.iiit.ac.in] Sent: 06 March 2011 06:27 To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Print Utility for IDF files Hi, I am an engineering student and I am developing a utility to print IDF files.I would like to know what kind of objects and formats users of IDF files wish to have printed so that I can try to incorporate them into my utility. Regards, Ishan Mehta From bforsthoffer at fspisearch.com Mon Mar 7 05:08:50 2011 From: bforsthoffer at fspisearch.com (bforsthoffer at fspisearch.com) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:08:50 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Job Opportunities - Energy Modeling/Building Envelope Design Message-ID: <20110307080850.15007@web004.nyc1.bluetie.com> We are working on a search assignments for a Graduate Student/Research Assistant level energy modeler, as well as a Senior Energy Modeling Lead, for a client in Pittsburgh, PA: - Designs and analyzes product components and building envelope systems via mathematical modeling, computer aided engineering, and Building Science Principles - Energy Consumption Modeling as it relates to "parts" and the "whole building envelope" - Experience with energy analysis software/models - Coordinates external research and development programs. - Establishes and manages strategic research programs and grows relationships with university partners to implement building envelope initiatives. - Bachelors or Master?s Degree in Mechanical Engineering or related Building Science/Materials Science degree - LEED certification and other applicable credentials (Energy Star, etc?), would be an asset - Strong analytical skills; ability to apply creative approaches and solutions to complex issues Please contact directly @ (215) 766-2366 or bforsthoffer at fspisearch.com Brian Forsthoffer Forsthoffer Search Partners, Inc. 1098 Washington Crossing Road Suite #4 Washington Crossing PA, 18977 (215) 766-2366 - office (215) 715-2488 - cell (267) 960-5600 - fax www.fspisearch.com From seldomvarun at gmail.com Mon Mar 7 06:38:20 2011 From: seldomvarun at gmail.com (varun kulkarni) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:38:20 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Parallel Units for LEED Message-ID: Hello All, I am trying to model a three floor office building for LEED V3. The first and second floor are served by two chilled water air handlers, both manifolded and running in parallel. Does LEED require to model both the units because the schedules and drawings show two units. For baseline, I know ASHRAE G3.1.1 states I have to have seperate HVAC system for each floor, as I have system 5. -- Thanks and Best Regards, Sincerely, Varun Kulkarni , M.S. , EIT RMF Engineering 5520, Research Park Drive, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD - 21228 Office : 410-576-0505 ext. 5352 Mobile: (+1)405-385-1928 Note: Please do not print, unless required. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jtorres-coto at mbo1.com Mon Mar 7 07:10:55 2011 From: jtorres-coto at mbo1.com (Jorge Torres-Coto) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 07:10:55 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Parallel Units for LEED In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15A7560390AE449490F459FDE7C647AE@MBOJORGE64> You only model them as they are supposed to run (one at a time or both at the same time). You mention they run in parallel, so I assume that the capacity of both may be required at peak load. If they operated lead/lag, then you would only model one (or half AHU capacity per floor). Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 _____ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of varun kulkarni Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:38 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Parallel Units for LEED Hello All, I am trying to model a three floor office building for LEED V3. The first and second floor are served by two chilled water air handlers, both manifolded and running in parallel. Does LEED require to model both the units because the schedules and drawings show two units. For baseline, I know ASHRAE G3.1.1 states I have to have seperate HVAC system for each floor, as I have system 5. -- Thanks and Best Regards, Sincerely, Varun Kulkarni , M.S. , EIT RMF Engineering 5520, Research Park Drive, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD - 21228 Office : 410-576-0505 ext. 5352 Mobile: (+1)405-385-1928 Note: Please do not print, unless required. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jminming at yahoo.com Mon Mar 7 12:44:56 2011 From: jminming at yahoo.com (Jin Minming) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 20:44:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Compare simulation results of benchmark models to actual typical building energy use Message-ID: <779068.25688.qm@web24003.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dear All, DOE has developed commercial building benchmark models using EnergyPlus. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/reference_buildings.html I want to know whether someone have compared simulation results of these reference building models with actual typical USA building energy use (like from CBECS database). If so, would you please tell me where I can find these reports? Thanks a lot, Jim Terry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Michael.Deru at nrel.gov Mon Mar 7 13:10:36 2011 From: Michael.Deru at nrel.gov (Deru, Michael) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:10:36 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Compare simulation results of benchmark models to actual typical building energy use In-Reply-To: <779068.25688.qm@web24003.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <779068.25688.qm@web24003.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C55560C4@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> Jim and all, The DOE reference building models were developed as standard energy simulation models that represent typical building practices. The energy models were developed to form consistent starting points for energy modeling exercises such as evaluating energy standards (they have been used for 90.1 and 189.1) and evaluating new technologies. They are not meant to represent actual energy use of any particular building; however, the results from the models could be used as another reference point for comparing energy performance if the model is close to your building type. Michael Michael Deru, Ph.D. Senior Engineer II Commercial Buildings Research Group National Renewable Energy Laboratory 303-384-7503 (o) 303-725-3528 (c) From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jin Minming Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 1:45 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Compare simulation results of benchmark models to actual typical building energy use Dear All, DOE has developed commercial building benchmark models using EnergyPlus. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/reference_buildings.html I want to know whether someone have compared simulation results of these reference building models with actual typical USA building energy use (like from CBECS database). If so, would you please tell me where I can find these reports? Thanks a lot, Jim Terry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jminming at yahoo.com Mon Mar 7 13:52:35 2011 From: jminming at yahoo.com (Jin Minming) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 21:52:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Compare simulation results of benchmark models to actual typical building energy use In-Reply-To: <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C55560C4@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> References: <779068.25688.qm@web24003.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C55560C4@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> Message-ID: <678931.16280.qm@web24007.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dear Michael, Thanks for your reply. I understand that the main purpose of these benchmark models is to provide consistency in modeling methods and implementation in commercial buildings. There is another report from NREL "methodology for modeling building energy performance across the commercial sector": http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41956.pdf I am not sure whether there is a direct connection between this report and these reference building models. But as said in this report, "For routine or widespread use, we recommend developing smaller sets of benchmark models to represent the commercial sector." So I think it is reasonable to compare the results of thsese reference models to actual typical energy use in different types of commercial buildings although more variations of these models need to be created to represent wide range of actual buildings. Whether they match well or not, it may give some clue how the buildings across the commercial sector perform as a whole in practise. Anyway, the results from these kind of bottom up methods are usually very hard to be consistent with each other. Jim Terry ________________________________ From: "Deru, Michael" To: Jin Minming ; "bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org" Sent: Mon, 7 March, 2011 21:10:36 Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Compare simulation results of benchmark models to actual typical building energy use Jim and all, The DOE reference building models were developed as standard energy simulation models that represent typical building practices. The energy models were developed to form consistent starting points for energy modeling exercises such as evaluating energy standards (they have been used for 90.1 and 189.1) and evaluating new technologies. They are not meant to represent actual energy use of any particular building; however, the results from the models could be used as another reference point for comparing energy performance if the model is close to your building type. Michael Michael Deru, Ph.D. Senior Engineer II Commercial Buildings Research Group National Renewable Energy Laboratory 303-384-7503 (o) 303-725-3528 (c) From:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jin Minming Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 1:45 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Compare simulation results of benchmark models to actual typical building energy use Dear All, DOE has developed commercial building benchmark models using EnergyPlus. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/reference_buildings.html I want to know whether someone have compared simulation results of these reference building models with actual typical USA building energy use (like from CBECS database). If so, would you please tell me where I can find these reports? Thanks a lot, Jim Terry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vaibhav.energyarchitect at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 00:29:12 2011 From: vaibhav.energyarchitect at gmail.com (Vaibhav Jain) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:59:12 +0530 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Impact of change in Thermostat Set-point on energy consumption Message-ID: Hello, Can any one throw some light on effect of change in thermostat set-point on energy consumption. There is one research paper by Jin Woo Moon & Seung-Hoon Han named "Thermostat strategies impact on energy consumption in residential buildings", which shows the amount of heating and cooling energy for different set-point temperature. Does any one knows about any other similar kind of studies. We are trying to- 1.Check, what is the base line for energy consumption at different set-points. and 2.Cross-check, that which of our two models (one is Equest and other in E+, which are consistent in all important inputs) is giving comparable results with similar research studies done hitherto. Looking forward for your valuable insight. Thanks & regards, Vaibhav Vaibhav Jain Architect & Energy Analyst Building Science Research Centre IIIT - Hyderabad, INDIA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shivrajdhaka at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 05:33:21 2011 From: shivrajdhaka at gmail.com (Shivraj Dhaka) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:03:21 +0530 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Percentage energy saving by various systems at different thermostates? Message-ID: Hello Dear all, Can anyone share his/her experience about percentage energy saving at different thermostat settings for different systems like PTAC, CAV and VAV ? It is more useful/interesting, if anyone share % energy saving for consecutive set points (22 to 23C or 23 to 24C) using eQUEST and/or and EnergyPlus. Thanks in advance. __________ Regards- Shivraj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Vikram.Sami at perkinswill.com Tue Mar 8 08:10:43 2011 From: Vikram.Sami at perkinswill.com (Sami, Vikram) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:10:43 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Message-ID: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. [cid:image002.png at 01CBDD81.77B1C5D0] Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 41690 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From wmak at epsteinglobal.com Tue Mar 8 08:27:47 2011 From: wmak at epsteinglobal.com (Will Mak) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:27:47 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> Message-ID: <88DC4C3C646DD5119B0D0002A537FD68185E1EA9@madison.corp.epstein-isi.com> Yes that is correct. Constant Volume Systems (3-4): (CFMS X 0.00094) + A Variable Volume Systems (5-8): (CFMS X 0.0013) + A William Mak, LEED Green Associate Mechanical Design Engineer EPSTEIN Architecture Interiors Engineering Construction 600 West Fulton Street Chicago, Illinois 60661-1259 D: (312) 429-8116 F: (312) 429-8800 E: wmak at epsteinglobal.com W: www.epsteinglobal.com ? Epstein is a firm believer in sustainability. We ask that you please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Sami, Vikram Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:11 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 41690 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From poleary1969 at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 08:27:55 2011 From: poleary1969 at gmail.com (Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:27:55 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> Message-ID: <4D76590B.3080006@gmail.com> yes. the dot means multiplication. it would also be nice if ashrae used parenthesis more, but they don't for some reason. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_MDAS On 3/8/11 9:10 AM, Sami, Vikram wrote: > > Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the > equation read CFM_S X 0.0013 + A? > > The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. > > cid:image001.png at 01CBDD80.E98B1630 > > Thanks in advance > > *We've moved! Please note our new address. *** > > *Vikram Sami*, LEED AP BD+C > > Sustainable Design Analyst > > 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 > > t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com > www.perkinswill.com > > > *Perkins+Will.* Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society > > Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our *2030 Challenge > Estimating + Evaluation* tool for > fossil fuel free buildings > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee > you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 41690 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jtorres-coto at mbo1.com Tue Mar 8 08:28:31 2011 From: jtorres-coto at mbo1.com (Jorge Torres-Coto) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:28:31 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> Message-ID: <591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64> Yes that is correct, the dot means multiplication. The Excel calculator will come in very handy (credit to 7 Group) Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 _____ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Sami, Vikram Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:11 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. cid:image001.png at 01CBDD80.E98B1630 Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 47671 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Appendix_G_Fan_Power_Calculator.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 121344 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JHANSEN at ghtltd.com Tue Mar 8 08:45:47 2011 From: JHANSEN at ghtltd.com (James Hansen) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: <591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64> References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> <591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64> Message-ID: <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD269@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> Keep in mind that calculator is only for 90.1-2004. Calculations have changed substantially for 90.1-2007. Less restrictive for larger systems, more restrictive for smaller systems. GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Torres-Coto Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:29 AM To: 'Sami, Vikram'; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org' Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Yes that is correct, the dot means multiplication. The Excel calculator will come in very handy (credit to 7 Group) Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 ________________________________ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Sami, Vikram Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:11 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 47671 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Tue Mar 8 08:47:54 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:47:54 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Impact of change in Thermostat Set-point on energyconsumption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Vaibhav, I'd like to offer a few cautions: "All important inputs" implies there is a category of inputs which are "not important" in both eQuest and E+. I don't take any issue with the notion, but unless your building(s) involve systems striking at either engine's fundamental limitations, any major differences in your models' reported behavior almost assuredly stems from such inputs that you have not made consistent (i.e. the defaults). You might want to re-characterize your query as trying to: 1. First, determine which set of "not important" defaults (eQuest or E+) is doing a better job of matching existing research applicable to your project. Then, 2. Determine the effects of varying thermostat setpoints. If that's correct, then you should be describing your modeled building(s) further to find appropriate research to reference/validate. If it's a series of residential homes, it won't help you much to find research exploring thermostat settings for industrial manufacturing facilities, for example. It would probably also be worthwhile to specify whether you're looking for thermostat research based on "real-world" measurements/data and/or based on predictive models, based on your personal intents. ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Vaibhav Jain Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:29 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Impact of change in Thermostat Set-point on energyconsumption Hello, Can any one throw some light on effect of change in thermostat set-point on energy consumption. There is one research paper by Jin Woo Moon & Seung-Hoon Han named "Thermostat strategies impact on energy consumption in residential buildings", which shows the amount of heating and cooling energy for different set-point temperature. Does any one knows about any other similar kind of studies. We are trying to- 1.Check, what is the base line for energy consumption at different set-points. and 2.Cross-check, that which of our two models (one is Equest and other in E+, which are consistent in all important inputs) is giving comparable results with similar research studies done hitherto. Looking forward for your valuable insight. Thanks & regards, Vaibhav Vaibhav Jain Architect & Energy Analyst Building Science Research Centre IIIT - Hyderabad, INDIA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From tyler at energyopportunities.com Tue Mar 8 08:56:55 2011 From: tyler at energyopportunities.com (Tyler Thumma) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:56:55 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net><591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64> <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD269@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> Message-ID: There is a second tab in the Excel calculator for 90.1-2007. Tyler Thumma, EIT, LEED AP Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company 1200 E Camping Area Rd, Wellsville, PA 17365 thumma at sevengroup.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:46 AM To: jtorres-coto at mbo1.com; Sami, Vikram; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Keep in mind that calculator is only for 90.1-2004. Calculations have changed substantially for 90.1-2007. Less restrictive for larger systems, more restrictive for smaller systems. GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Torres-Coto Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:29 AM To: 'Sami, Vikram'; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org' Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Yes that is correct, the dot means multiplication. The Excel calculator will come in very handy (credit to 7 Group) Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 ________________________________ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Sami, Vikram Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:11 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1497/3490 - Release Date: 03/08/11 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 47671 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From jtorres-coto at mbo1.com Tue Mar 8 08:57:18 2011 From: jtorres-coto at mbo1.com (Jorge Torres-Coto) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:57:18 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD269@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net><591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64> <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD269@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> Message-ID: <6B1CF9D0FB7B4A029260C3B796FABD6B@MBOJORGE64> Actually the calculator has both the 2004 and the 2007 in separate tabs. Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 _____ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:46 AM To: jtorres-coto at mbo1.com; Sami, Vikram; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Keep in mind that calculator is only for 90.1-2004. Calculations have changed substantially for 90.1-2007. Less restrictive for larger systems, more restrictive for smaller systems. GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Torres-Coto Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:29 AM To: 'Sami, Vikram'; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org' Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Yes that is correct, the dot means multiplication. The Excel calculator will come in very handy (credit to 7 Group) Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 _____ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Sami, Vikram Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:11 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. cid:image001.png at 01CBDD80.E98B1630 Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 47671 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Tue Mar 8 09:30:12 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:30:12 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: <6B1CF9D0FB7B4A029260C3B796FABD6B@MBOJORGE64> References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net><591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64><4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD269@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> <6B1CF9D0FB7B4A029260C3B796FABD6B@MBOJORGE64> Message-ID: Very nifty - don't know if anyone was curious, but this checks out against the math in my personal spreadsheet. Out of pure curiosity, does anybody else combine their baseline system efficiency calcs (i.e. EIR) alongside their fan power calcs, or is it normal to submit that separately... or not at all? ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Torres-Coto Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:57 AM To: 'James Hansen'; 'Sami, Vikram'; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org' Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Actually the calculator has both the 2004 and the 2007 in separate tabs. Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 ________________________________ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:46 AM To: jtorres-coto at mbo1.com; Sami, Vikram; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Keep in mind that calculator is only for 90.1-2004. Calculations have changed substantially for 90.1-2007. Less restrictive for larger systems, more restrictive for smaller systems. GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Torres-Coto Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:29 AM To: 'Sami, Vikram'; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org' Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Yes that is correct, the dot means multiplication. The Excel calculator will come in very handy (credit to 7 Group) Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 ________________________________ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Sami, Vikram Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:11 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: image003.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 47671 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From michael.rosenberg at pnl.gov Tue Mar 8 09:38:18 2011 From: michael.rosenberg at pnl.gov (Rosenberg, Michael I) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:38:18 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: <591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64> References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> <591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64> Message-ID: A word of caution if you are using this 2007 tab of this spreadsheet. The pressure credit is being calculated for the entire supply fan cfm. It should only be calculated for the design airflow through the device. While these two airflows can be the same, often they are not. Mike __________________________ Michael Rosenberg, CEM, LEED AP Senior Research Scientist ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 2032 Todd Street Eugene, OR 97405 (541) 844-1960 michael.rosenberg at pnl.gov www.pnl.gov From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Torres-Coto Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:29 AM To: 'Sami, Vikram'; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org' Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Yes that is correct, the dot means multiplication. The Excel calculator will come in very handy (credit to 7 Group) Jorge E. Torres Coto [cid:image001.jpg at 01CBDD74.8C8AC2C0] 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 [cid:image002.gif at 01CBDD74.8C8AC2C0] ________________________________ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Sami, Vikram Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:11 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. [cid:image003.jpg at 01CBDD74.8C8AC2C0] Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 47671 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From poleary1969 at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 09:40:25 2011 From: poleary1969 at gmail.com (Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:40:25 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net><591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64><4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD269@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> <6B1CF9D0FB7B4A029260C3B796FABD6B@MBOJORGE64> Message-ID: <4D766A09.90107@gmail.com> answer: yes. typically i submit the wizard input screens showing the input efficiencies for packaged units & don't submit the eir unless asked. most reviewers who are familiar with equest realize that equest will break out fan energy when calculating eir. on central plant systems i will show it for the chiller(s) along w/the fan power calculations as there isn't a chiller input in the wizard mode. On 3/8/11 10:30 AM, Nick Caton wrote: > > Very nifty -- don't know if anyone was curious, but this checks out > against the math in my personal spreadsheet. > > Out of pure curiosity, does anybody else combine their baseline system > efficiency calcs (i.e. EIR) alongside their fan power calcs, or is it > normal to submit that separately... or not at all? > > ~Nick > > cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB** > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*** > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > Smith & Boucher Engineers > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > www.smithboucher.com_ _ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shivrajdhaka at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 09:53:15 2011 From: shivrajdhaka at gmail.com (Shivraj Dhaka) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:23:15 +0530 Subject: [Bldg-sim] [EnergyPlus #3916]: Cooling energy consumption by different systems for different thermostats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Dear Bereket, First, actively we are associated with EnergyPlus only but due to unexpected % energy saving (cooling only and heating is off throughout year) for consecutive set point (22 to 23C), I prepared a model in eQUEST with same input parameters including envelope, HVAC, schedule etc and I observed that both tools shows large difference in % energy savings (8 to 10%). Is it possible to shows this much amount of energy saving? Second, this is clear to me that both tools uses different engine so results could not be matched exactly. I hope there should be some nominal differences in outputs. Meanwhile I would like to ask one more question- IS it possible to have difference in cooling energy consumption for *a building *using E+ and eQUEST when building parameters were given exactly same in both tools and if difference is possible then which software shall be reliable to client assurance?. *Regards.* Shivraj Dhaka On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:52 PM, EnergyPlus Support < energyplus-support at gard.com> wrote: > Shiv, > > The output report variable "Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner Electric > Consumption" includes the heating coil energy consumption as well. So it is > not cooling energy consumption only as you reported it. Please search and > read for this output variable in the InputOutput reference document of > EnergyPlus (V6). > > Are you comparing the same outputs from both softwares? > > This helpdesk doesn't explains the differences between EQuest and > EnergyPlus. We can assist you if you have a problem with EnergyPlus only. > In general EnergyPlus and EQuest are not always expected to give similar > results. Equest uses a different engine and there are several differences > in assumptions behind these two engines. Therefore diferences are expected. > > Hope this helps you, > Bereket > ------------------- > Standard EnergyPlus Support is provided free of charge by the U.S. > Department of Energy, as part of the continuing effort to improve this > building simulation tool. Expedited, priority support may be available from > other sources. For a list of EnergyPlus Consultants, see > http://simulationresearch.lbl.gov/EP/ep_consult.html > > Ticket Details > =================== > Ticket ID: 3916 > Department: General > Priority: Medium > Status: Open > > -- ------------------- warm regards Shivraj Dhaka -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Vikram.Sami at perkinswill.com Tue Mar 8 09:53:20 2011 From: Vikram.Sami at perkinswill.com (Sami, Vikram) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:53:20 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net><591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64><4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD269@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> <6B1CF9D0FB7B4A029260C3B796FABD6B@MBOJORGE64> Message-ID: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172511@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> Here's my attempt at doing that - let me know if this makes sense. Basically what I've done is separate out the supply fan energy and the condenser and compressor energy to give you an EER (and EIR for eQUEST) for just the cooling side. We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society From: Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:30 PM To: jtorres-coto at mbo1.com; James Hansen; Sami, Vikram; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Very nifty - don't know if anyone was curious, but this checks out against the math in my personal spreadsheet. Out of pure curiosity, does anybody else combine their baseline system efficiency calcs (i.e. EIR) alongside their fan power calcs, or is it normal to submit that separately... or not at all? ~Nick [cid:image001.jpg at 01CBDD8F.CB7B5330] NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Torres-Coto Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:57 AM To: 'James Hansen'; 'Sami, Vikram'; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org' Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Actually the calculator has both the 2004 and the 2007 in separate tabs. Jorge E. Torres Coto [cid:image002.jpg at 01CBDD8F.CB7B5330] 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 [cid:image003.gif at 01CBDD8F.CB7B5330] ________________________________ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:46 AM To: jtorres-coto at mbo1.com; Sami, Vikram; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Keep in mind that calculator is only for 90.1-2004. Calculations have changed substantially for 90.1-2007. Less restrictive for larger systems, more restrictive for smaller systems. GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Torres-Coto Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:29 AM To: 'Sami, Vikram'; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org' Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Yes that is correct, the dot means multiplication. The Excel calculator will come in very handy (credit to 7 Group) Jorge E. Torres Coto [cid:image002.jpg at 01CBDD8F.CB7B5330] 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 [cid:image003.gif at 01CBDD8F.CB7B5330] ________________________________ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Sami, Vikram Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:11 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. [cid:image004.jpg at 01CBDD8F.CB7B5330] Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: image003.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 47671 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EER Correction.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 14923 bytes Desc: EER Correction.xlsx URL: From tyler at energyopportunities.com Tue Mar 8 10:14:08 2011 From: tyler at energyopportunities.com (Tyler Thumma) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:14:08 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net><591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64> Message-ID: That is correct. This issue has been fixed in the updated spreadsheet attached. Tyler Thumma, EIT, LEED AP Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company 1200 E Camping Area Rd, Wellsville, PA 17365 thumma at sevengroup.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Rosenberg, Michael I Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:38 PM To: jtorres-coto at mbo1.com; 'Sami, Vikram'; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org' Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power A word of caution if you are using this 2007 tab of this spreadsheet. The pressure credit is being calculated for the entire supply fan cfm. It should only be calculated for the design airflow through the device. While these two airflows can be the same, often they are not. Mike __________________________ Michael Rosenberg, CEM, LEED AP Senior Research Scientist ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 2032 Todd Street Eugene, OR 97405 (541) 844-1960 michael.rosenberg at pnl.gov www.pnl.gov From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Torres-Coto Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:29 AM To: 'Sami, Vikram'; 'bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org' Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Yes that is correct, the dot means multiplication. The Excel calculator will come in very handy (credit to 7 Group) Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 ________________________________ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Sami, Vikram Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:11 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1497/3490 - Release Date: 03/08/11 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 47671 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 7group Appendix G Fan Power Calculator.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 130560 bytes Desc: 7group Appendix G Fan Power Calculator.xls URL: From johannes.hopf at dreso.com Tue Mar 8 10:35:44 2011 From: johannes.hopf at dreso.com (Hopf, Johannes) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:35:44 +0100 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> Message-ID: >From time to time we?re asked in LEED-Clarifications to break up the total fan-power into relief, exhaust, supply etc. Can somebody tell us what to do? The calculation in the proposed is totally different and for the baseline we only use the 90.1 equations. Johannes Von: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] Im Auftrag von Sami, Vikram Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. M?rz 2011 17:11 An: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Betreff: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 41690 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From michael.rosenberg at pnl.gov Tue Mar 8 10:44:31 2011 From: michael.rosenberg at pnl.gov (Rosenberg, Michael I) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:44:31 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> Message-ID: The 2010 version of Appendix G provides some good guidance. G3.1.2.10.1 The calculated system fan power shall be distributed to supply, return, exhaust, and relief fans in the same proportion as the proposed design. __________________________ Michael Rosenberg, CEM, LEED AP Senior Research Scientist ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 2032 Todd Street Eugene, OR 97405 (541) 844-1960 michael.rosenberg at pnl.gov www.pnl.gov From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Hopf, Johannes Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:36 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power >From time to time we?re asked in LEED-Clarifications to break up the total fan-power into relief, exhaust, supply etc. Can somebody tell us what to do? The calculation in the proposed is totally different and for the baseline we only use the 90.1 equations. Johannes Von: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] Im Auftrag von Sami, Vikram Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. M?rz 2011 17:11 An: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Betreff: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. [cid:image001.png at 01CBDD7D.CE5CA660] Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 41690 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From AndrewC at InterfaceEng.Com Tue Mar 8 10:48:39 2011 From: AndrewC at InterfaceEng.Com (Andrew Craig) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:48:39 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> Message-ID: This is a good question and isn't specifically addressed in Appendix G 2007. It does specify to match the proposed design's fan arrangement so this can be used as a starting point. On a recent job we did with return fans, the overall fan power was split 70/30 between supply and return. Another job that used power exhaust fans split out to 80/20. As Michael mentioned, Appendix G 2010 says that they should be proportioned out the same as the proposed design although that information often needs to be extracted from the design team. Andrew Craig PE, LEED AP Project Mechanical Engineer INTERFACE ENGINEERING email andrewc at interfaceeng.com direct 503.382.2696 www.interfaceeng.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Hopf, Johannes Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:36 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power >From time to time we?re asked in LEED-Clarifications to break up the total fan-power into relief, exhaust, supply etc. Can somebody tell us what to do? The calculation in the proposed is totally different and for the baseline we only use the 90.1 equations. Johannes Von: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] Im Auftrag von Sami, Vikram Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. M?rz 2011 17:11 An: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Betreff: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 41690 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From wbonafe at moseleyarchitects.com Tue Mar 8 10:53:21 2011 From: wbonafe at moseleyarchitects.com (Bonafe, Wes) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:53:21 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Equest? In-Reply-To: References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net><591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64> Message-ID: <18F4CA284A72F34E90071B35911A673C244917@ric-s-mail.moseleyarch.com> What is the best list to use when looking for information regarding Equest? Thanks; Wes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rdh4176 at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 11:03:44 2011 From: rdh4176 at gmail.com (Rob Hudson) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:03:44 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Equest? In-Reply-To: <18F4CA284A72F34E90071B35911A673C244917@ric-s-mail.moseleyarch.com> References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> <591CDA11FFED402882C76C6DD2859F35@MBOJORGE64> <18F4CA284A72F34E90071B35911A673C244917@ric-s-mail.moseleyarch.com> Message-ID: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Bonafe, Wes wrote: > What is the best list to use when looking for information regarding Equest? > > > > Thanks; > > > > Wes > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -- Rob Hudson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Tue Mar 8 11:35:55 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:35:55 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Fundamentals: SEER/HSPF conversions Message-ID: I understand HSPF is fundamentally the same thing as SEER, only it's representing a heating season instead of a cooling season. When handling SEER, I used the following equation to come up with a seasonally averaged cooling EER: EER = SEER * 0.875 My limited understanding is that 0.875 is a conceptually a constant representing a "part load cycling factor" of sorts for a typical cooling season. I've read multiple times this constant should vary with climate (commonly, "Georgia = 0.8" and "California = 0.9"). While that makes sense to me, I've yet to see a citable climate map or similar reference breaking down what factor to use where... so up to this point I've stuck with 0.875 for simplicity's sake. My root question is: Is there a comparable "part load cycling factor," for one or more climates, for converting HSPF to a seasonally averaged heating COP/EER? Put another way: EER = HSPF * ??? ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From rchang at wrldesign.com Tue Mar 8 11:55:45 2011 From: rchang at wrldesign.com (Roger Chang) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:55:45 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] IBPSA-USA Washington DC Chapter Message-ID: <439BA92548837A4E9EABBCA83F95B8AA01702BD2@wrl-exchange03.vpwa.com> We're pleased to announce the formation of an IBPSA-USA National Capital Region Chapter, serving Washington DC, Virginia, and Maryland. The mission of IBPSA-USA is to advance and promote the science of building simulation in order to improve the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of new and existing buildings in the United States. The regional chapter is looking for members interested in helping shape a regional educational series and bringing together a diverse community of people together to discuss simulation within the context of building design, public policy, and green building rating systems. We invite you to attend the next ASHRAE National Capital Chapter professional development program on March 16, 2011. Dru Crawley, director of building performance products for Bentley Systems, will be giving a talk on Energy Modeling. This program is joint-sponsored by the regional chapters of ASHRAE, USGBC, and IBPSA. For more details on this event, visit: http://www.nccashrae.org/ For more information on the IBPSA chapter, please visit http://ibpsancc.com or contact us by email at info at ibpsancc.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Neal.Kruis at nrel.gov Tue Mar 8 12:01:01 2011 From: Neal.Kruis at nrel.gov (Kruis, Neal) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:01:01 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Fundamentals: SEER/HSPF conversions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F1B98C4BF8D774C93FF336B93F4B2FE2927CF4335@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> Nick, The relationship between SEER and EER is going to vary from system to system and does not depend on the climate. Take a look at the AHRI certified product database: http://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx They report both SEER and EER for all air conditioners and heat pumps that have been tested. There is no way to convert directly between SEER and EER (or HSPF and COP) without having the results from the all of the AHRI tests which are usually kept confidential. The approximation of 0.875 accounts for part load cycling losses, but also how the system performs at other test conditions. It is probably a fair assumption, though you might want to check out the Building America House Simulation Protocol which uses: EER = -0.02*SEER^2 + 1.12*SEER This is based on a thesis written by a student at University of Colorado. The same thesis used: COP_47 = -0.026*HSPF^2 + 0.624*HSPF Here is the reference for the thesis: Wassmer, M. (2003). A Component-Based Model for Residential Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Energy Calculations. Masters Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder. Hope this helps, Neal Kruis Electricity, Resources & Building Systems Integration National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd. MS 5202 Golden, CO 80401 (303) 384-7384 From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:36 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Fundamentals: SEER/HSPF conversions I understand HSPF is fundamentally the same thing as SEER, only it's representing a heating season instead of a cooling season. When handling SEER, I used the following equation to come up with a seasonally averaged cooling EER: EER = SEER * 0.875 My limited understanding is that 0.875 is a conceptually a constant representing a "part load cycling factor" of sorts for a typical cooling season. I've read multiple times this constant should vary with climate (commonly, "Georgia = 0.8" and "California = 0.9"). While that makes sense to me, I've yet to see a citable climate map or similar reference breaking down what factor to use where... so up to this point I've stuck with 0.875 for simplicity's sake. My root question is: Is there a comparable "part load cycling factor," for one or more climates, for converting HSPF to a seasonally averaged heating COP/EER? Put another way: EER = HSPF * ??? ~Nick [cid:image001.jpg at 01CBDD8E.636AF6C0] NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Tue Mar 8 17:13:35 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:13:35 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Fundamentals: SEER/HSPF conversions In-Reply-To: <3F1B98C4BF8D774C93FF336B93F4B2FE2927CF4335@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> References: <3F1B98C4BF8D774C93FF336B93F4B2FE2927CF4335@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> Message-ID: Neal, Thanks very much - this is very helpful and rounds out my understanding much better! Regarding climate, I probably wasn't clear in my intent - I meant that the 0.875 "factor," if correctly understood to account for (among other things) the amount a unit can be expected to cycle during a cooling season, might also vary based on climate. The idea here being that the same condensing unit will cycle on more in Florida than in Maine for the same cooling season. If the goal is to come up with a "seasonally averaged EER," then perhaps varying that factor could do the trick? Some extra google-searching has led me to this article coming out of UCF: http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/FSEC-PF-413-04/ In particular, check out this interesting climate map presented as part of the conclusions showing how location-specific SEER/HSPF efficiencies can vary from ARI ratings: http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/FSEC-PF-413-04/images/Figure5_lg.gif It sounds for the moment like the SEER/HSPF -> EER formulae you've shared below might be what I'm looking for - for my part, I'll see whether I can look up that student's paper =). *** PS: I've only picked up this [EER = 0.875 * SEER] equation from popular hear-say... After some digging I've found what looks like a plausible explanation of its source here: http://www.udarrell.com/airconditioning_eer_ratings_over_seer_ratings_central_systems.html "The SEER of a system is determined by multiplying the steady state energy efficiency ratio (EER) measured at conditions of 82?F outdoor temperature, 80?F dB/ 67?F wb 50% RH indoor entering air temperature by the "Part Load Factor" (PLF) of the system. The PLF is a measure of the cyclic performance (CD) of a system and is calculated as follows: CD is Cyclical Data PLF = 1.00 - (CD X's 0.5) "The cyclic performance (CD) value in the above equation has been determined by the government to be 0.25." The government contends that the PLF should equal: [1.00 - (.25 x .5)] = .125 1.00 - .125 = 0.875, which yields: PLF of 0.875" The same fellow goes on to cite California provides the formula [SEER = EER / 0.90] (is this a Title 24 thing?), and that for Georgia a value of 0.80 might be a better approximation constant considering the climate. *** Thanks again so much! ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: Kruis, Neal [mailto:Neal.Kruis at nrel.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:01 PM To: Nick Caton; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: RE: Fundamentals: SEER/HSPF conversions Nick, The relationship between SEER and EER is going to vary from system to system and does not depend on the climate. Take a look at the AHRI certified product database: http://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx They report both SEER and EER for all air conditioners and heat pumps that have been tested. There is no way to convert directly between SEER and EER (or HSPF and COP) without having the results from the all of the AHRI tests which are usually kept confidential. The approximation of 0.875 accounts for part load cycling losses, but also how the system performs at other test conditions. It is probably a fair assumption, though you might want to check out the Building America House Simulation Protocol which uses: EER = -0.02*SEER^2 + 1.12*SEER This is based on a thesis written by a student at University of Colorado. The same thesis used: COP_47 = -0.026*HSPF^2 + 0.624*HSPF Here is the reference for the thesis: Wassmer, M. (2003). A Component-Based Model for Residential Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Energy Calculations. Masters Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder. Hope this helps, Neal Kruis Electricity, Resources & Building Systems Integration National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd. MS 5202 Golden, CO 80401 (303) 384-7384 From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:36 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Fundamentals: SEER/HSPF conversions I understand HSPF is fundamentally the same thing as SEER, only it's representing a heating season instead of a cooling season. When handling SEER, I used the following equation to come up with a seasonally averaged cooling EER: EER = SEER * 0.875 My limited understanding is that 0.875 is a conceptually a constant representing a "part load cycling factor" of sorts for a typical cooling season. I've read multiple times this constant should vary with climate (commonly, "Georgia = 0.8" and "California = 0.9"). While that makes sense to me, I've yet to see a citable climate map or similar reference breaking down what factor to use where... so up to this point I've stuck with 0.875 for simplicity's sake. My root question is: Is there a comparable "part load cycling factor," for one or more climates, for converting HSPF to a seasonally averaged heating COP/EER? Put another way: EER = HSPF * ??? ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From johannes.hopf at dreso.com Wed Mar 9 10:40:12 2011 From: johannes.hopf at dreso.com (Hopf, Johannes) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 19:40:12 +0100 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In-Reply-To: References: <5CFB01489F62D143B61289AF32DC98B103F6172371@chi01exmb.perkinswill.net> Message-ID: Thanks Vikram for your help. I?m gonna search the archive and post were the answer can be found. Johannes Von: Sami, Vikram [mailto:Vikram.Sami at perkinswill.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. M?rz 2011 19:41 An: Hopf, Johannes Betreff: RE: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power In that case ? for the baseline the Fan power limitation ? is for the ENTIRE building ? supply and return. You calculate your total allowable and then break it down based on the ratio in your designed building. Sop for example if your designed building has a supply to return fan energy ratio of 3:1, you would first calculate your total allowable fan energy, and then separate it by supply and return in the ratio of 4:1. There?s been some extensive discussion on this topic in the past on this list ? you could probably find it in the archives somewhere. We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Von: Andrew Craig [mailto:AndrewC at InterfaceEng.Com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. M?rz 2011 19:49 An: Hopf, Johannes; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Betreff: RE: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power This is a good question and isn?t specifically addressed in Appendix G 2007. It does specify to match the proposed design?s fan arrangement so this can be used as a starting point. On a recent job we did with return fans, the overall fan power was split 70/30 between supply and return. Another job that used power exhaust fans split out to 80/20. As Michael mentioned, Appendix G 2010 says that they should be proportioned out the same as the proposed design although that information often needs to be extracted from the design team. Andrew Craig PE, LEED AP Project Mechanical Engineer INTERFACE ENGINEERING email andrewc at interfaceeng.com direct 503.382.2696 www.interfaceeng.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Hopf, Johannes Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:36 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power From time to time we?re asked in LEED-Clarifications to break up the total fan-power into relief, exhaust, supply etc. Can somebody tell us what to do? The calculation in the proposed is totally different and for the baseline we only use the 90.1 equations. Johannes Von: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] Im Auftrag von Sami, Vikram Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. M?rz 2011 17:11 An: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Betreff: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Does the dot in the equation indicate multiplication? So should the equation read CFMS X 0.0013 + A? The reason I am confused is that they use X in other places. Thanks in advance We've moved! Please note our new address. Vikram Sami, LEED AP BD+C Sustainable Design Analyst 1315 Peachtree St. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309 t: 404-443-7462 f: 404.892.5823 e: vikram.sami at perkinswill.com www.perkinswill.com Perkins+Will. Ideas + buildings that honor the broader goals of society Perkins+Will is carbon neutral. Learn more about our 2030 Challenge Estimating + Evaluation tool for fossil fuel free buildings This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, copy, or alter this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 41690 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From mwetter at lbl.gov Wed Mar 9 11:28:11 2011 From: mwetter at lbl.gov (Michael Wetter) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:28:11 -0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] open positions at LBNL Message-ID: LBNL is seeking strong applicants for job openings in the Simulation Research Group and in the Windows and Daylighting Group. The positions are focused on research and development of - next generation building energy modeling, simulation and analysis tools for design and operation. - energy-efficient facade-related technologies using simulation and field studies. For details, visit Mechanical Research Sci/Engr http://jobs.lbl.gov/details.asp?jid=24931&p=1 Senior Scientific Engineering Associate http://jobs.lbl.gov/details.asp?jid=25549&p=1 Postdoctoral Fellow http://jobs.lbl.gov/details.asp?jid=25041&p=1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil Wed Mar 9 13:12:08 2011 From: John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil (Eurek, John S NWO) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:12:08 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Labeling geothermal piping. (UNCLASSIFIED) In-Reply-To: <4D6FC55C.4060801@gmail.com> References: <4D6FC55C.4060801@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57E9627AE82514439A8F543A61BFDD6807FAF6A2@NWO-ML3OMA.nwo.ds.usace.army.mil> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Sorry, this isn't a modeling question, but I think some people here could answer this question. I have a geothermal well field serving heat pumps. Is there any convention on labeling the pipes? Condenser water supply / return => CWS / CWR Ground water supply / return => GWS / GWR I know I can make up anything I want, but I didn't know if something is starting to become the standard. (Something like HWS / HWR) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE From cgbf_info at yahoo.com Fri Mar 11 07:02:58 2011 From: cgbf_info at yahoo.com (Meera Parthasarathy) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:02:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bldg-sim] eQuest workshop rescheduled to May 18-20th! Message-ID: <633347.71032.qm@web121408.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Good morning! The workshop for Intermediate to Advanced workshop on eQuest will be held on May 18-20th in Columbus, Ohio. ? Attached below is the full program details (note the venue change to OSU Campus). If you have any questions, please?email me back at: meera at cgbf.org Look forward to seeing you at the workshop! Meera ? Meera Parthasarathy, AIA, NCARB Founder, Columbus Green Building Forum PO Box 196, New Albany, Ohio 43054 P: (614) 855-8085 E:?meera at cgbf.org ? ? Intermediate - Advanced eQuest Workshop: Whole Building Analysis using eQUEST May 18th: 10am - 5:00pm; May 19-20th:?8am ? 5pm Eastman Room; Nationwide and Ohio Farm Bureau 4-H Center; Ohio State University Campus; Building 191, 2201 Fred Taylor Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43210 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Instructor: Marlin S. Addison, Principal, M.S. Addison & Associates, Tempe, Arizona, and Clinical Assistant Professor, College of Design, Arizona State University. Mr. Addison is a nationally recognized expert in building energy analysis and eQuest. ? Engineers note that 20?PDU credits are offered for the three-day program (partial credits are not available) ? Registration fees: $399; If you would like to register please email meera at cgbf.org for details Lunch included (please email any dietary preference to meera at cgbf.org) ? Topics covered include: Wizard versus Detailed Interface, Strategies and Issues Detailed Interface Basics: create, copy, rename, delete components, user defaults & linked components Detailed Interface Essentials: Opaque Constructions, Schedules (including priorities among HVAC related schedules), Glass Types, Geometry, Shading, Parameters, Expressions, Parametric Processing Additional LEED Analysis issues using eQUEST DOE-2 simulation methodology basics Daylighting Utility Tariffs, Meters Life-Cycle Costing in eQUEST Quality Control Procedures and eQUEST/DOE-2.2 Results Reporting, Hourly Reports Modeling Air-side and Water-Side HVAC HVAC Sizing Issues (air-side and water-side, design days) OA and Exhaust, Demand Control Ventilation Ground Source Heat Pumps Heat Recovery Approximations to : Displacement Ventilation Dedicated OA Systems Chilled Beams Variable Flow Refrigerant Systems Plant Equipment Control and Load Management Equipment Performance Curves ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From s.zhukovskiy at cundall.com.au Fri Mar 11 16:35:41 2011 From: s.zhukovskiy at cundall.com.au (Zhukovskiy, Sergey) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:35:41 +1100 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Does anyone have experience using ICE for energy modelling? Message-ID: Dear colleagues Does anyone have experience using ICE for energy modelling? Cheers Sergey Zhukovskiy ESD Consultant Together we create change in the world CUNDALL Level 3, 66 Wyatt Street Adelaide SA 5000 direct: +61 (0)4 5163 1482 fax: +61 (0)8 8232 0282 www.cundall.com.au Cundall Johnston & Partners Pty Limited ACN 104 924 370. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Use of this email and any attachments is subject to the terms on www.cundall.com.au . Please read that notice before proceeding. If you cannot access these terms please telephone (02) 8424 7000 or reply to this email and we will send you a copy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 11219 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From ashraf at mecsd.com Sun Mar 13 06:47:05 2011 From: ashraf at mecsd.com (Ashraf Khan) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:47:05 +0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Fan Power calculations in ASHRAE User Manual Message-ID: <20110313094837.GA80806@mail19h.g19.rapidsite.net> Recently Fan power calculations topic have discussed. I have a question regarding the breaking power in to components. According to Section G3.1.2.1 requires that ??where efficiency ratings, such as EER and COP, include fan energy, the descriptor shall be broken down into its components so that supply fan energy can be modeled separately.?? Since the efficiency ratings are calculated at ARI?\rated conditions, the fans should also be broken out at ARI?\rated conditions. Kindly guide me where can I find calculations in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 User??s Manual showing that the calculation has been performed at ARI rated conditions or any other reference. Regards, Ashraf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Sun Mar 13 08:24:41 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 10:24:41 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Fan Power calculations in ASHRAE User Manual Message-ID: <00d201cbe192$cb5be851$0a0a0a0a@sbi.smithboucher.com> Hi Ashraf, I'm not sure about 2004, but the 2007 users manual includes an example showing how to "back out" fan energy from a fan-inclusive efficiency rating. I will be sharing a guide of sorts in the near future touching on this topic, with eQuest/DOE2 procedures defined explicitly. Keep your eyes open for that! For now, let me offer an extra caution to your assertion regarding "fan power should be broken out at ARI conditions:" in the case of proposed systems, I'd agree that fan power entered may be entered as calculated (or ideally, documented) at ARI testing conditions. In the case of baseline systems however, 90.1 is very explicit in setting a procedure independent of the prescribed efficiency to determine fan power for the system. I'm pretty sure that calculated quantity (Pfan) takes precedence. ~ Nick Ashraf Khan wrote: Recently Fan power calculations topic have discussed. I have a question regarding the breaking power in to components. According to Section G3.1.2.1 requires that ?where efficiency ratings, such as EER and COP, include fan energy, the descriptor shall be broken down into its components so that supply fan energy can be modeled separately.? Since the efficiency ratings are calculated at ARI?rated conditions, the fans should also be broken out at ARI?rated conditions. Kindly guide me where can I find calculations in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 User?s Manual showing that the calculation has been performed at ARI rated conditions or any other reference. Regards, Ashraf From tiwari.sambhav at gmail.com Mon Mar 14 04:51:26 2011 From: tiwari.sambhav at gmail.com (sambhav tiwari) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:21:26 +0530 Subject: [Bldg-sim] U value Message-ID: Hi All, I was looking for U value of GGBS cement (Ground Granulated blast furnace slag) i am unable to find this in material library if any one of you can share details regarding U value of this material for 100mm thickness. Thanks Sambhav. From maria.karpman at karpmanconsulting.net Mon Mar 14 07:57:24 2011 From: maria.karpman at karpmanconsulting.net (Maria Karpman) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Fan Power calculations in ASHRAE User Manual In-Reply-To: <00d201cbe192$cb5be851$0a0a0a0a@sbi.smithboucher.com> References: <00d201cbe192$cb5be851$0a0a0a0a@sbi.smithboucher.com> Message-ID: <4d7e2cdd.858fd80a.75f9.6c2e@mx.google.com> Nick, I don't see contradictions in fan-related baseline system requirements in App G. Procedure for determining baseline system parameters involves two steps: Step 1: Determine COOLING-EIR of baseline system following the equation in the attached document, which is based on physical meaning and definition of rated EER. EER for the calculation must be taken from Table 6.8.1A based on the size and type of baseline system. Result of the calculation is entered as cooling EIR on Unitary Power tab in detailed mode. This step is independent of baseline fan power requirements in Appendix G, and captures inherent efficiency of the system at ARI conditions. Step 2: Determine fan power of the baseline system based on G3.1.2.9. Examples G-J and G-K in 90.1 User Manual is a good reference for that. Result is then entered on Fan Power and Control tab in Detailed Mode as Design kW/cfm. For the proposed system, equipment efficiency and fan power may be calculated based on Example G-G in the User Manual. Does anyone have different perspective on that? Thanks, Maria -----Original Message----- From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:25 AM To: Ashraf Khan; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Fan Power calculations in ASHRAE User Manual Hi Ashraf, I'm not sure about 2004, but the 2007 users manual includes an example showing how to "back out" fan energy from a fan-inclusive efficiency rating. I will be sharing a guide of sorts in the near future touching on this topic, with eQuest/DOE2 procedures defined explicitly. Keep your eyes open for that! For now, let me offer an extra caution to your assertion regarding "fan power should be broken out at ARI conditions:" in the case of proposed systems, I'd agree that fan power entered may be entered as calculated (or ideally, documented) at ARI testing conditions. In the case of baseline systems however, 90.1 is very explicit in setting a procedure independent of the prescribed efficiency to determine fan power for the system. I'm pretty sure that calculated quantity (Pfan) takes precedence. ~ Nick Ashraf Khan wrote: Recently Fan power calculations topic have discussed. I have a question regarding the breaking power in to components. According to Section G3.1.2.1 requires that ?where efficiency ratings, such as EER and COP, include fan energy, the descriptor shall be broken down into its components so that supply fan energy can be modeled separately.? Since the efficiency ratings are calculated at ARI?rated conditions, the fans should also be broken out at ARI?rated conditions. Kindly guide me where can I find calculations in ASHRAE 90.1-2004 User?s Manual showing that the calculation has been performed at ARI rated conditions or any other reference. Regards, Ashraf _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Converting EER and SEER to Cooing EIR.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 92460 bytes Desc: not available URL: From BTysoe at mcw.com Mon Mar 14 08:22:10 2011 From: BTysoe at mcw.com (Brian Tysoe) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:22:10 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Mechanical Penthouses Message-ID: <89B4FB2D5DE7614EB31CD320ED5249581E82498DA8@TOR-SVR-EX5.mcw.com> Hi, I am just wondering if it is necessary to include minimally heated mechanical penthouses in LEED 2009 energy models if there is just enough heating provided to prevent pipes from bursting, etc. Thanks, Brian Tysoe M.A.Sc., P.Eng., LEED AP Mechanical Engineer MCW Consultants Ltd. 600-156 Front Street West Toronto, ON M5J 2L6 Phone 416-598-2920 Fax 416-598-5394 This e-mail may be privileged and confidential. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender directly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From slv3sat at gmail.com Mon Mar 14 08:05:31 2011 From: slv3sat at gmail.com (R B) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:05:31 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Manufacturing plant - process load Message-ID: I looked through the archives but did not reach any conclusion - how do folks deal with manufacturing equipment loads - are they included as part of process load? This is for LEED 2.2. Thanks for any insights. - Rohini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy.Poling at transwestern.net Mon Mar 14 09:02:54 2011 From: Jeremy.Poling at transwestern.net (Jeremy Poling) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Manufacturing plant - process load In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, manufacturing equipment must be included in process load. Using G2.5 you can submit exceptional calculations showing process load reduction to claim savings there. Jeremy R. Poling, PE, LEED AP+BDC From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of R B Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 10:06 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Manufacturing plant - process load I looked through the archives but did not reach any conclusion - how do folks deal with manufacturing equipment loads - are they included as part of process load? This is for LEED 2.2. Thanks for any insights. - Rohini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smartin at shaunmartinconsulting.com Mon Mar 14 10:06:04 2011 From: smartin at shaunmartinconsulting.com (Shaun Martin) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:06:04 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Mechanical Penthouses In-Reply-To: <89B4FB2D5DE7614EB31CD320ED5249581E82498DA8@TOR-SVR-EX5.mcw.com> References: <89B4FB2D5DE7614EB31CD320ED5249581E82498DA8@TOR-SVR-EX5.mcw.com> Message-ID: <3F53C932755345C0936FACC7198C97CE@SM> Yes, it's considered conditioned space. Shaun Martin LEED AP Principal Shaun Martin Consulting Suite 200 - 420 West Hastings Street Vancouver BC V6B 1L1 604-789-1095 smartin at shaunmartinconsulting.com member CAGBC, ASHRAE _____ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Brian Tysoe Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 8:22 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Mechanical Penthouses Hi, I am just wondering if it is necessary to include minimally heated mechanical penthouses in LEED 2009 energy models if there is just enough heating provided to prevent pipes from bursting, etc. Thanks, Brian Tysoe M.A.Sc., P.Eng., LEED AP Mechanical Engineer MCW Consultants Ltd. 600-156 Front Street West Toronto, ON M5J 2L6 Phone 416-598-2920 Fax 416-598-5394 This e-mail may be privileged and confidential. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender directly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LMatutinovic at halsall.com Mon Mar 14 10:21:17 2011 From: LMatutinovic at halsall.com (Matutinovic, Luka) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:21:17 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Mechanical Penthouses In-Reply-To: <89B4FB2D5DE7614EB31CD320ED5249581E82498DA8@TOR-SVR-EX5.mcw.com> References: <89B4FB2D5DE7614EB31CD320ED5249581E82498DA8@TOR-SVR-EX5.mcw.com> Message-ID: Hi Brian, I think this question is easier to answer for LEED 2009 than v1.0. In short, yes. Since all energy used in the building has to be accounted for, I think it's pretty clear that this should include even minimally heated mechanical spaces. Cheers, Luka Matutinovic, B.A.Sc., LEED(r) AP Halsall Associates Limited www.halsall.com Vancouver * Calgary * Sudbury * Burlington * Toronto * Ottawa * Dubai Best Workplaces in Canada Globe & Mail 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 ___________________________ A Parsons Brinckerhoff Company P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Brian Tysoe Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:22 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Mechanical Penthouses Hi, I am just wondering if it is necessary to include minimally heated mechanical penthouses in LEED 2009 energy models if there is just enough heating provided to prevent pipes from bursting, etc. Thanks, Brian Tysoe M.A.Sc., P.Eng., LEED AP Mechanical Engineer MCW Consultants Ltd. 600-156 Front Street West Toronto, ON M5J 2L6 Phone 416-598-2920 Fax 416-598-5394 This e-mail may be privileged and confidential. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender directly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From d.bradley at tess-inc.com Mon Mar 14 14:07:17 2011 From: d.bradley at tess-inc.com (David BRADLEY) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:07:17 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] california climate zone weather data Message-ID: <4D7E8385.3050807@tess-inc.com> colleagues, I have a set of the 16 CA climate zone data files in EnergyPlus format that is tagged with "V2" (version 2, I assume). I also have the same data set in *.csv format but tagged with V3. Does anyone know whether the version 3 data has been converted to the *.epw format and if so, from where it can be obtained? Best, David -- *************************** David BRADLEY Principal Thermal Energy Systems Specialists, LLC 22 North Carroll Street - suite 370 Madison, WI 53703 USA P:+1.608.274.2577 F:+1.608.278.1475 d.bradley at tess-inc.com http://www.tess-inc.com http://www.trnsys.com From jglazer at gard.com Mon Mar 14 14:15:13 2011 From: jglazer at gard.com (Jason Glazer) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:15:13 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] ADMIN - New Mailing List Posting Guidelines Message-ID: <4D7E8561.6090708@gard.com> I just posted a revised set of guidelines. http://onebuilding.org/guidelines.html They are also copied below. Thanks for everyone that helped with drafting these revisions. Jason ======================================== Guidelines Any subscriber can post a message to the mailing lists.The host and owner of the lists is not moderating, filtering or editing any message sent to the lists. The mailing lists are being archived and postings will be made available on the onebuilding.org web site under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License Subscribers to the list should follow these simple guidelines: * Be courteous. * No discussion outside of the topic of the list. * On BLDG-SIM please indicate in the subject line what simulation program you are asking about. * On BLDG-RATE please indicate in the subject line what building rating system you are asking about. * Please check the simulation software documentation before posting. * Please check the mailing list archive before posting. * On eQUEST-users when asking about specific issues is often helpful to attach a ZIP compressed file containing the INP and PD2 files. * Announcements of building simulation products or building performance rating methods are welcome and encouraged on the mailing lists. These are restricted to your choice of a single onebuilding.org mailing list and no more often than once per month. * Do not try to sell any other products on any of the mailing lists (no spam is tolerated). * Job announcements are welcome on the mailing lists but are restricted to one posting per month on your choice of a single onebuilding.org mailing list. The subject line must start with the words HELP WANTED. Announcements must be for a specific jobs available at time of posting. * Specific training classes may be announced but are restricted to three postings per class on your choice of one onebuilding.org mailing list. The subject line must start with the word TRAINING. * New sources of weather data may be announced but are restricted to two postings per year on your choice of one onebuilding.org mailing list. The subject line must start with the word WEATHER. * If you are fully answering a question but also provide fee based support for future questions, you may include a single line in your signature block explaining services offered. * No other services may be offered on the mailing lists. * No resumes or help-available or looking-for-work postings are allowed on the mailing lists. * If your question is on a specific building energy simulaton program that already has a onebuilding.org mailing list, please post to your questions to that mailing list first. If no answer is received within a few days, posting to BLDG-SIM on the same topic is welcome. * Do not post the same message on multiple mailing lists within 24 hours. * Do not attach copywritten materials without the permission of the copywrite owner although short quotes are welcome. * And remember ... be courteous. The owner of this list may remove anyone from the list that violates these rules. -- Jason Glazer, P.E., GARD Analytics, 90.1 ECB chair Admin for onebuilding.org building performance mailing lists From hzirnhelt at hotmail.com Mon Mar 14 19:25:39 2011 From: hzirnhelt at hotmail.com (Hayes Zirnhelt) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:25:39 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Optimizing Thermal Mass in Design Builder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi,I am looking for some feedback on thermal mass optimization for passive solar in DesignBuilder/ EnergyPlus. I attempted a basic sensitivity analysis for thermal mass optimization for a very basic passive solar design (one south facing window, lots of insulation, all assemblies with interior concrete thermal mass). I modelled this concept using DesignBuilder with various concrete thicknesses (5cm to 50cm) but keeping the envelope U value, and all other parameters constant. I used the CTF algorithm. The annual simulation results indicate that increasing thermal mass past 20cm continues to decrease heating energy consumption, in a somewhat linear fashion. Even more unusual, was that the savings from going with 30cm compared to 20, was much greater than that achieved by the change from 10cm to 20cm. This does not match with the literature I have read, which suggest that this relationship should be a negative exponential decay (continuous diminishing energy savings with each added thickness). Many guidelines suggest that savings plateau at 20cm of thermal mass (as concrete). Is this a problem with EnergyPlus? Or DesignBuilder? Any suggestions? Thanks for your time, Hayes Zirnhelt M.A.Sc Candidate, RU Building Science B.A.Sc Integrated Engineering -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max.tillberg at bengtdahlgren.se Tue Mar 15 00:43:11 2011 From: max.tillberg at bengtdahlgren.se (Max Tillberg) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:43:11 +0100 Subject: [Bldg-sim] IDA ICE for energy simulations Message-ID: I have used IDA ICE in a number of projects, mostly offices and public buildings from about 1000 to 55000 m? and found that the tool is extremely efficient and easy to use. The greatest concern is that it lack some of the more advanced HVAC models found in Energy Plus and that the larger models take a very long time to simulate (it took 11 h to run a yearly simulation with VAV and 80 thermal zones). Sincerely Max Tillberg Direkt tel: 031-720 26 12 E-post: max.tillberg at bengtdahlgren.se Bengt Dahlgren G?teborg AB Kroksl?tts Fabriker 52, 431 37 M?LNDAL Tel: 031-720 25 00 Fax: 031-720 25 01 www.bengtdahlgren.se Vinnare av Sweden GreenBuilding Award Vinnare av European GreenBuilding Award Vi har flyttat! I december flyttade vi in i nybyggda lokaler vid Kroksl?tts fabriker i M?lndal. V?lkommen att bes?ka oss! Klicka h?r f?r att l?sa om v?rt nya energisn?la kontor. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hzirnhelt at hotmail.com Tue Mar 15 09:04:42 2011 From: hzirnhelt at hotmail.com (Hayes Zirnhelt) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:04:42 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Optimizing Thermal Mass in Design Builder In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi David, Thanks for your help. I've attached the sensitivity results for the six simulations in the excel file, which shows the trend, and the input files. Do you know of any good references for thermal mass behavior? Thanks, Hayes Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Optimizing Thermal Mass in Design Builder From: david at d-n-a-design.com Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:01:56 -0700 To: hzirnhelt at hotmail.com Depends on you model, climate, many many things. Can you post your model? I've found energyplus to be very good at mass modeling with appropriate results. A highy insulated south facing zone in a heating climate will like a lot more mass than other models. Mass with direct solar acts very differently than other conditions. To check designbuilder, export your model and review in detail using openstudio and text editor. David On Mar 14, 2011, at 19:25, Hayes Zirnhelt wrote: Hi,I am looking for some feedback on thermal mass optimization for passive solar in DesignBuilder/ EnergyPlus. I attempted a basic sensitivity analysis for thermal mass optimization for a very basic passive solar design (one south facing window, lots of insulation, all assemblies with interior concrete thermal mass). I modelled this concept using DesignBuilder with various concrete thicknesses (5cm to 50cm) but keeping the envelope U value, and all other parameters constant. I used the CTF algorithm. The annual simulation results indicate that increasing thermal mass past 20cm continues to decrease heating energy consumption, in a somewhat linear fashion. Even more unusual, was that the savings from going with 30cm compared to 20, was much greater than that achieved by the change from 10cm to 20cm. This does not match with the literature I have read, which suggest that this relationship should be a negative exponential decay (continuous diminishing energy savings with each added thickness). Many guidelines suggest that savings plateau at 20cm of thermal mass (as concrete). Is this a problem with EnergyPlus? Or DesignBuilder? Any suggestions? Thanks for your time, Hayes Zirnhelt M.A.Sc Candidate, RU Building Science B.A.Sc Integrated Engineering _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0.5m thermal mass PS house.idf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 155842 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Thermal Mass DB sensitivity.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 15360 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: house conceptual w heater, 0.5m mass.dsb Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1322825 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JHANSEN at ghtltd.com Tue Mar 15 12:05:15 2011 From: JHANSEN at ghtltd.com (James Hansen) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:05:15 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? Message-ID: <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD2E2@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> App G says that if the proposed building has return fans, the baseline building is to be modeled with them as well, sized either at the minimum required to ensure ventilation, or 90% of the supply volume, whichever is greater. And the fan power calculations show that the KW allowance is for all supply, return, exhaust and relief fans combined. How do you generally pro-rate the fan power between supply and return fans in the baseline model? Ultimately it probably doesn't make too much difference, but is there an actual ruling that tells you how to do this? Thanks, GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Tue Mar 15 14:00:17 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? In-Reply-To: <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD2E2@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> References: <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD2E2@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> Message-ID: Last time I did this, I entered 0.00 kW/CFM for the return fans, and all of the calculated kW/CFM for the supply fans - better to keep it in one place imho to avoid the headache of explaining it. Just got news that project wrapped up review with a silver rating this week =). If you wanted to distribute the power regardless, I'd do it by weighting with the airflow amounts. Generally, I don't think it matters, so long as you can backtrack your steps if asked to explain yourself ;). ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:05 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? App G says that if the proposed building has return fans, the baseline building is to be modeled with them as well, sized either at the minimum required to ensure ventilation, or 90% of the supply volume, whichever is greater. And the fan power calculations show that the KW allowance is for all supply, return, exhaust and relief fans combined. How do you generally pro-rate the fan power between supply and return fans in the baseline model? Ultimately it probably doesn't make too much difference, but is there an actual ruling that tells you how to do this? Thanks, GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From AndrewC at InterfaceEng.Com Tue Mar 15 14:24:07 2011 From: AndrewC at InterfaceEng.Com (Andrew Craig) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:24:07 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? Message-ID: James--- This was discussed recently in the posts. See the attached response from last Tuesday. Mike Rosenberg commented that this is being addressed in the upcoming 90.1-2010 as such: G3.1.2.10.1 The calculated system fan power shall be distributed to supply, return, exhaust, and relief fans in the same proportion as the proposed design. Regards, Andrew Craig PE, LEED AP Project Mechanical Engineer INTERFACE ENGINEERING email andrewc at interfaceeng.com direct 503.382.2696 www.interfaceeng.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:05 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? App G says that if the proposed building has return fans, the baseline building is to be modeled with them as well, sized either at the minimum required to ensure ventilation, or 90% of the supply volume, whichever is greater. And the fan power calculations show that the KW allowance is for all supply, return, exhaust and relief fans combined. How do you generally pro-rate the fan power between supply and return fans in the baseline model? Ultimately it probably doesn't make too much difference, but is there an actual ruling that tells you how to do this? Thanks, GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Andrew Craig" Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Appendix G - Fan power Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 11:48:39 -0700 Size: 77781 URL: From Paul.Riemer at dunhameng.com Tue Mar 15 14:54:03 2011 From: Paul.Riemer at dunhameng.com (Paul Riemer) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:54:03 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <057EF46662FE994F8119F0A903BCD0F88F0D0FCAA9@eml1.dunham.corp> Mike Rosenberg's section is a welcome improvement but it is still a challenging aspect. You could be proportioning power (kW) across fans with different operation. For example: - CAV exhaust fan vs. VFD driven supply & return fans - "Powered exhaust" fans that only operate to provide relief during economizer mode vs. normal supply fans In some instances, applying a bit of professional judgment will get better results in terms of fan energy (kWh) and fan heat (DT and resultant heating and cooling loads). Paul Riemer, PE, LEED AP DUNHAM Celebrating 50 Years of Service From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Craig Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:24 PM To: James Hansen; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? James--- This was discussed recently in the posts. See the attached response from last Tuesday. Mike Rosenberg commented that this is being addressed in the upcoming 90.1-2010 as such: G3.1.2.10.1 The calculated system fan power shall be distributed to supply, return, exhaust, and relief fans in the same proportion as the proposed design. Regards, Andrew Craig PE, LEED AP Project Mechanical Engineer INTERFACE ENGINEERING email andrewc at interfaceeng.com direct 503.382.2696 www.interfaceeng.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:05 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? App G says that if the proposed building has return fans, the baseline building is to be modeled with them as well, sized either at the minimum required to ensure ventilation, or 90% of the supply volume, whichever is greater. And the fan power calculations show that the KW allowance is for all supply, return, exhaust and relief fans combined. How do you generally pro-rate the fan power between supply and return fans in the baseline model? Ultimately it probably doesn't make too much difference, but is there an actual ruling that tells you how to do this? Thanks, GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From perickson at aeieng.com Tue Mar 15 19:45:02 2011 From: perickson at aeieng.com (Paul Erickson) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:45:02 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? In-Reply-To: <057EF46662FE994F8119F0A903BCD0F88F0D0FCAA9@eml1.dunham.corp> References: <057EF46662FE994F8119F0A903BCD0F88F0D0FCAA9@eml1.dunham.corp> Message-ID: <62A0B8D33C57C44288C6FE2BA647551D3D4D55F7B4@AEI-MB.aeieng.lan> Paul, I think your point about "proportioning power (kW) across fans with different operation" is exactly the intent of this addition to 2010 (though perhaps I'm twisting your angle on it). The intent of it is to provide consistency in the review process and undue penalty with regards to fan power. Using your example, if the Proposed design uses CAV exhaust fans and VFD driven supply & return fans, then the Baseline should as well. Some modelers (because the requirement has been unclear to date) put all of the fan kW on the Supply fan for the Baseline, which would skew the results so as to under-account for the Baseline energy/cost. Others may actually game the system and place the bulk of the allowable kW on the CAV fan and not the Baseline's SA and RA fans. It can go either way so I think this new clarity is helpful. I wasn't sure about the last part of your comment but assumed you were referring to "professional judgment" when selecting fans in the design process. Did I miss an important modeling insight? Paul Paul Erickson LEED(r) AP BD+C Sustainable AEI | AFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC. 5802 Research Park Boulevard | Madison, WI 53719 P: 608.236.1112 | F: 608.238.2614 perickson at aeieng.com | www.aeieng.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Paul Riemer Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:54 PM To: 'Andrew Craig'; James Hansen; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? Mike Rosenberg's section is a welcome improvement but it is still a challenging aspect. You could be proportioning power (kW) across fans with different operation. For example: - CAV exhaust fan vs. VFD driven supply & return fans - "Powered exhaust" fans that only operate to provide relief during economizer mode vs. normal supply fans In some instances, applying a bit of professional judgment will get better results in terms of fan energy (kWh) and fan heat (DT and resultant heating and cooling loads). Paul Riemer, PE, LEED AP DUNHAM Celebrating 50 Years of Service From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Craig Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:24 PM To: James Hansen; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? James--- This was discussed recently in the posts. See the attached response from last Tuesday. Mike Rosenberg commented that this is being addressed in the upcoming 90.1-2010 as such: G3.1.2.10.1 The calculated system fan power shall be distributed to supply, return, exhaust, and relief fans in the same proportion as the proposed design. Regards, Andrew Craig PE, LEED AP Project Mechanical Engineer INTERFACE ENGINEERING email andrewc at interfaceeng.com direct 503.382.2696 www.interfaceeng.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:05 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? App G says that if the proposed building has return fans, the baseline building is to be modeled with them as well, sized either at the minimum required to ensure ventilation, or 90% of the supply volume, whichever is greater. And the fan power calculations show that the KW allowance is for all supply, return, exhaust and relief fans combined. How do you generally pro-rate the fan power between supply and return fans in the baseline model? Ultimately it probably doesn't make too much difference, but is there an actual ruling that tells you how to do this? Thanks, GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sanyogitamanu at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 22:49:53 2011 From: sanyogitamanu at yahoo.com (sanyogita manu) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bldg-sim] U-value calculator Message-ID: <463992.23759.qm@web161713.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi All, I am looking for a U-value Calculator that bases its calculations on data and procedures given in ASHRAE?Fundamentals. ? Any help would be greatly apprciated. ? Thanks, ? Sanyogita Manu Energy Efficiency Research Associate USAID ECO-III Project International Resources Group (IRG) AADI Building, Lower Ground Floor 2, Balbir Saxena Marg Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016 Tel: +91.11.4597.4597 Email: smanu at irgssa.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Paul.Riemer at dunhameng.com Wed Mar 16 06:43:14 2011 From: Paul.Riemer at dunhameng.com (Paul Riemer) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:43:14 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? Message-ID: <057EF46662FE994F8119F0A903BCD0F88F0D0FCAAB@eml1.dunham.corp> Paul, Kudos to those who are improving the fan, system, and lab aspects in 90.1. And the intent of the specific section below is good, logical, and apparently needed if some modelers are putting all of the baseline power on the supply fan. However, given all of the all of the possible model complexities, it is still not does not preclude the need for judgment. As one example, several clauses in G3.1.1 can cause a deviation from a one-to-one relationship between baseline and proposed systems. So the section cannot state " same proportion as the proposed system design." And I highly doubt the intent is "same proportion as the aggregate of all the systems in the proposed design". So it is somewhere in between and hence the modeler needs to apply some judgment. If reviewers really care about this, then I suggest requiring separate documentation of the power and energy of the supply, return, relief, and exhaust for the building or even for each proposed and baseline system. Paul Riemer, PE, LEED AP DUNHAM Celebrating 50 Years of Service From: Paul Erickson [mailto:perickson at aeieng.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:45 PM To: Paul Riemer; 'Andrew Craig'; James Hansen; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? Paul, I think your point about "proportioning power (kW) across fans with different operation" is exactly the intent of this addition to 2010 (though perhaps I'm twisting your angle on it). The intent of it is to provide consistency in the review process and undue penalty with regards to fan power. Using your example, if the Proposed design uses CAV exhaust fans and VFD driven supply & return fans, then the Baseline should as well. Some modelers (because the requirement has been unclear to date) put all of the fan kW on the Supply fan for the Baseline, which would skew the results so as to under-account for the Baseline energy/cost. Others may actually game the system and place the bulk of the allowable kW on the CAV fan and not the Baseline's SA and RA fans. It can go either way so I think this new clarity is helpful. I wasn't sure about the last part of your comment but assumed you were referring to "professional judgment" when selecting fans in the design process. Did I miss an important modeling insight? Paul Paul Erickson LEED(r) AP BD+C Sustainable AEI | AFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC. 5802 Research Park Boulevard | Madison, WI 53719 P: 608.236.1112 | F: 608.238.2614 perickson at aeieng.com | www.aeieng.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Paul Riemer Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:54 PM To: 'Andrew Craig'; James Hansen; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? Mike Rosenberg's section is a welcome improvement but it is still a challenging aspect. You could be proportioning power (kW) across fans with different operation. For example: - CAV exhaust fan vs. VFD driven supply & return fans - "Powered exhaust" fans that only operate to provide relief during economizer mode vs. normal supply fans In some instances, applying a bit of professional judgment will get better results in terms of fan energy (kWh) and fan heat (DT and resultant heating and cooling loads). Paul Riemer, PE, LEED AP DUNHAM Celebrating 50 Years of Service From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Craig Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:24 PM To: James Hansen; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? James--- This was discussed recently in the posts. See the attached response from last Tuesday. Mike Rosenberg commented that this is being addressed in the upcoming 90.1-2010 as such: G3.1.2.10.1 The calculated system fan power shall be distributed to supply, return, exhaust, and relief fans in the same proportion as the proposed design. Regards, Andrew Craig PE, LEED AP Project Mechanical Engineer INTERFACE ENGINEERING email andrewc at interfaceeng.com direct 503.382.2696 www.interfaceeng.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 12:05 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? App G says that if the proposed building has return fans, the baseline building is to be modeled with them as well, sized either at the minimum required to ensure ventilation, or 90% of the supply volume, whichever is greater. And the fan power calculations show that the KW allowance is for all supply, return, exhaust and relief fans combined. How do you generally pro-rate the fan power between supply and return fans in the baseline model? Ultimately it probably doesn't make too much difference, but is there an actual ruling that tells you how to do this? Thanks, GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From abakshi at yrgsustainability.com Wed Mar 16 10:17:36 2011 From: abakshi at yrgsustainability.com (Arpan Bakshi) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:17:36 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] New events coming and new President at IBPSA-NYC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *IBPSA-NY* is gearing up for an exciting year of events. Sam Mason and the board did an excellent job of coordinating the national conference last year in NYC and I am assuming his responsibilities to ensure the energy and momentum of SimBuild continues! If you have recently moved to the New York City area, or have not previously attended an *IBPSA-NY* event, please email Stephen Mignogna * stephen.mignogna at atelierten.com *to have your name added to the mailing list and you will receive announcements for upcoming meetings. Once our mailing list is updated, news and updates will be channeled through the *IBPSA-NY*mailing list in lieu of the broader BLDG-SIM list. We look forward to hearing from you! Arpan ________________________________________ *Arpan Bakshi* LEED AP BD+C IBPSA-NYC President Sustainability Manager *YRG sustainability* 217 Grand Street No. 802 New York, NY 10013 Direct 646.704.2880 - Office T/F 917.677.8023 Connect to YRG on twitter & facebook ! www.yrgsustainability.com www.leeduser.com *Before printing this email, think about the environment* * * ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew McNamara Date: Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM Subject: New events coming and new President at IBPSA-NYC To: mailing-list at ibpsanyc.com Greetings IBPSA-NYers! After a brief hiatus, we are pleased to announce that we will be resuming our IBPSA-NY meetings this Spring (OK, maybe a bit more than "brief", but hosting the national conference in NYC took a lot of energy!). I am also pleased to announce* we have a new president, Arpan Bakshi of YRG* will replace Sam Mason (Sam is moving to London -- and we are sad to see him go!). All other board positions remain the same. Arpan will shortly be sending you a *web survey*. This survey is 10 questions, should *take you 2-3 minutes, and is vitally important to our planning process*. After all we, want to make meetings that are interesting and beneficial to you. We know it's been a while since the last meeting, so please feel free to*reach out to your co-workers and colleagues *to let them know about IBPSA-NY. Any *requests to join the mailing list should be sent to stephen.mignogna at atelierten.com*. As you know, we try to keep the number of mailings on the list to a reasonable level -- just meeting reminders and other upcoming events of interest to the modeling community. So look for that email from Arpan shortly and we are looking forward to your feedback. Stay tuned for upcoming meeting dates, which we will be releasing soon. Thanks. Best, Andy Andrew McNamara, CEM, LEED AP VP IBPSA-NYC VP New Construction & Renewables, Bright Power, Inc. tel: 212.803.5868, ext. 2002 fax: 866.379.8026 cell: 917.974.4499 11 Hanover Square, 15th Floor New York, NY 10005 View one of Bright Power?s solar installations online at: http://brightpower.kiosk-view.com/dinkinsgardens -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Wed Mar 16 13:22:41 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:22:41 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? In-Reply-To: <019901cbe373$0cc851b0$2658f510$@net> References: <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD2E2@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> <019901cbe373$0cc851b0$2658f510$@net> Message-ID: James, I do appreciate the heads up - I've been reading the ongoing discussion with interest! In the particular case I referenced, it didn't seem a big deal to me at the time as to my understanding my baseline supply and return fans were operating in tandem, but as I think it through now, I see this might skew the results somewhat with regard to fan energies in the airstreams. This has got me wondering: What, if anything, does 90.1 or similar have to say regarding fan heat in the baseline airstreams? I've developed a practice in eQuest of intentionally specifying baseline fan motors as outside the airstreams. I've done this specifically to not have their heat incident on the airstreams, because the procedure I follow for calculating baseline efficiencies (backing out the calculated fan energy, Pfan, from the prescribed efficiencies), can become a potentially cumbersome/iterative process otherwise. For example, a simulated baseline sizing run gives an airflow/capacity, from which I calculate Pfan, which once entered and simulated affects the calculated capacity, which affects the airflow, so I have to recalculate Pfan... and so forth until the reported figures match my calculations. For one system this is cake, but when I've got a bunch of baseline systems it's quite a pain. I recognize some others follow a baseline efficiency procedure that don't involve the Pfan for baseline heating/cooling efficiency calculations, for whom baseline fan heat energy is a moot concern, but for the moment that's really another can of worms I'd rather not open... I'd specifically like to hear if anyone knows of what guidance is or isn't out there for whether and to what extent baseline fan heat should be incident on baseline airstreams. Thanks again to everyone for providing such continuously supportive and productive discussions - it makes me proud to be a part of this community! ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: James V Dirkes II, PE [mailto:jvd2pe at tds.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:43 PM To: Nick Caton Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? Dear Nick, It's not a big deal, but the physics are a little different if you put some energy from the fan in the Return air stream and some in the supply air. Some of the return air energy is normally exhausted and the coil never sees it. Probably preaching to the choir here, but can't help mentioning it. The Building Performance Team James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP 1631 Acacia Drive NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 616 450 8653 From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:00 PM To: James Hansen; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? Last time I did this, I entered 0.00 kW/CFM for the return fans, and all of the calculated kW/CFM for the supply fans - better to keep it in one place imho to avoid the headache of explaining it. Just got news that project wrapped up review with a silver rating this week =). If you wanted to distribute the power regardless, I'd do it by weighting with the airflow amounts. Generally, I don't think it matters, so long as you can backtrack your steps if asked to explain yourself ;). ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:05 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? App G says that if the proposed building has return fans, the baseline building is to be modeled with them as well, sized either at the minimum required to ensure ventilation, or 90% of the supply volume, whichever is greater. And the fan power calculations show that the KW allowance is for all supply, return, exhaust and relief fans combined. How do you generally pro-rate the fan power between supply and return fans in the baseline model? Ultimately it probably doesn't make too much difference, but is there an actual ruling that tells you how to do this? Thanks, GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From jvd2pe at tds.net Wed Mar 16 17:51:40 2011 From: jvd2pe at tds.net (James V Dirkes II, PE) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:51:40 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? In-Reply-To: References: <4A015401026CF44ABCC4D2A6A467AA18CFD2E2@EXCHANGE1.cadd_group.ghtltd.com> <019901cbe373$0cc851b0$2658f510$@net> Message-ID: <025401cbe43d$7bb77630$73266290$@net> Dear Nick et al, 90.1 does not specify how to split up the fan heat when there is more than one fan (although I haven't read the 2010 version yet). My goal is to model something close to reality, so I split supply and return fan power in rough proportion to their total static pressure in the Proposed system. If the (proposed) supply fan moves air against 4" TSP and the return fan against 1" TSP, I allot 80% of the baseline power to the supply fan, 20% to the return fan. I don't try to be super precise, just reasonably close. This requires a little more art than science if you have a VAV supply fan and, say, a constant volume relief fan. On a related note, I always model Baseline systems with draw-through fans because: . ASHRAE is silent on the matter and . The extra fan heat in the airstream results in a little more airflow and makes it more favorable for the Proposed system J . Let me know if anyone thinks that's cheating! I use EnergyPlus exclusively, but I suspect that it should work for any software to do the following as a one-shot get-the-baseline-fan-power-correct approach: . Knowing that fan power is always related to CFM . Also knowing (or assuming) fan and motor efficiency . And knowing any pressure correction . I calculate the system delta P that will result in the desired fan power . Then I use that delta P, and those efficiencies as my baseline input values . Fan power comes out right on the money every time (with auto-sizing) For example, using a System 3 or 4: CFM * .00094 = allowable BHP (assuming no pressure correction) Delta P = BHP * (fan eff'y * motor eff'y) * 6356 / CFM = (CFM * .00094) * (fan eff'y * motor eff'y) * 6356 / CFM = .00094 * (fan eff'y * motor eff'y) * 6356 = 5.9746 * (fan eff'y * motor eff'y) Note that CFM is not relevant to this calculation, making it very handy for autosizing! Also note that I combine the fan and motor efficiencies because E+ uses their product as the single "fan efficiency" input, rather than keeping fan mechanical and motor efficiencies separate. Your software may not do that. The Building Performance Team James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP 1631 Acacia Drive NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 616 450 8653 From: Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:23 PM To: James V Dirkes II, PE; Paul Riemer; Paul Erickson; Andrew Craig; James Hansen; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? James, I do appreciate the heads up - I've been reading the ongoing discussion with interest! In the particular case I referenced, it didn't seem a big deal to me at the time as to my understanding my baseline supply and return fans were operating in tandem, but as I think it through now, I see this might skew the results somewhat with regard to fan energies in the airstreams. This has got me wondering: What, if anything, does 90.1 or similar have to say regarding fan heat in the baseline airstreams? I've developed a practice in eQuest of intentionally specifying baseline fan motors as outside the airstreams. I've done this specifically to not have their heat incident on the airstreams, because the procedure I follow for calculating baseline efficiencies (backing out the calculated fan energy, Pfan, from the prescribed efficiencies), can become a potentially cumbersome/iterative process otherwise. For example, a simulated baseline sizing run gives an airflow/capacity, from which I calculate Pfan, which once entered and simulated affects the calculated capacity, which affects the airflow, so I have to recalculate Pfan. and so forth until the reported figures match my calculations. For one system this is cake, but when I've got a bunch of baseline systems it's quite a pain. I recognize some others follow a baseline efficiency procedure that don't involve the Pfan for baseline heating/cooling efficiency calculations, for whom baseline fan heat energy is a moot concern, but for the moment that's really another can of worms I'd rather not open. I'd specifically like to hear if anyone knows of what guidance is or isn't out there for whether and to what extent baseline fan heat should be incident on baseline airstreams. Thanks again to everyone for providing such continuously supportive and productive discussions - it makes me proud to be a part of this community! ~Nick cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: James V Dirkes II, PE [mailto:jvd2pe at tds.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:43 PM To: Nick Caton Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? Dear Nick, It's not a big deal, but the physics are a little different if you put some energy from the fan in the Return air stream and some in the supply air. Some of the return air energy is normally exhausted and the coil never sees it. Probably preaching to the choir here, but can't help mentioning it. The Building Performance Team James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP 1631 Acacia Drive NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 616 450 8653 From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:00 PM To: James Hansen; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? Last time I did this, I entered 0.00 kW/CFM for the return fans, and all of the calculated kW/CFM for the supply fans - better to keep it in one place imho to avoid the headache of explaining it. Just got news that project wrapped up review with a silver rating this week =). If you wanted to distribute the power regardless, I'd do it by weighting with the airflow amounts. Generally, I don't think it matters, so long as you can backtrack your steps if asked to explain yourself ;). ~Nick cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of James Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:05 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] pro-rating fan power to supply/return fans per 90.1-2007? App G says that if the proposed building has return fans, the baseline building is to be modeled with them as well, sized either at the minimum required to ensure ventilation, or 90% of the supply volume, whichever is greater. And the fan power calculations show that the KW allowance is for all supply, return, exhaust and relief fans combined. How do you generally pro-rate the fan power between supply and return fans in the baseline model? Ultimately it probably doesn't make too much difference, but is there an actual ruling that tells you how to do this? Thanks, GHT Limited James Hansen, PE, LEED AP Senior Associate 1010 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22201-4749 703-338-5754 (Cell) 703-243-1200 (Office) 703-276-1376 (Fax) www.ghtltd.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From superfig at hotmail.com Wed Mar 16 23:18:45 2011 From: superfig at hotmail.com (=?ks_c_5601-1987?B?wLHBpMjG?=) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:18:45 +0900 Subject: [Bldg-sim] question about LEED sample forms Message-ID: Hi all, I've got an energy simulation project from a LEED-related firm. I understand that LEED EA sample forms are available on LEED online site, but since I'm not planning to pursue the LEED area, it is rather unnecessary for me to register. Is there any way I can get a sample form? Thank you. -Jeong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From empire999 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 17 07:00:02 2011 From: empire999 at hotmail.com (milda margarin) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:00:02 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Equipment sizing according 90.1 Appendix G Message-ID: hi all I was wondering if somebody could share some insight to the ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G3.1.2.2 point regarding heating and cooling equipment sizing based on building energy simulations. It is stated that the equipment should be oversized by a factor of 1.25 for heating and 1.15 for cooling. Are these "safety factors" based on the uncertainty associated with building energy simulations or a requirement that makes sure that the system can respond quickly enough during startup? Why are there different factors applied for heating and cooling?thanks!Milda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seldomvarun at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 08:02:27 2011 From: seldomvarun at gmail.com (varun kulkarni) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:02:27 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Hot water pumps (baseline) Message-ID: Hello everyone, User's manual for ASHRAE 90.1 says "For systems 1,5 and 7 (except for purchased hot water or steam), the baseline building design hot water pump power shall be 19 W/gpm". (page G-30) I am confused if I have to use the proposed pumps in case I have purchased hot water. The chilled water pumps are always (as i understand) modeled at 22 W/gpm. -- Thanks and Best Regards, Sincerely, Varun Kulkarni , M.S. , EIT RMF Engineering 5520, Research Park Drive, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD - 21228 Office : 410-576-0505 ext. 5352 Mobile: (+1)405-385-1928 Note: Please do not print, unless required. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From AndrewC at InterfaceEng.Com Thu Mar 17 08:50:59 2011 From: AndrewC at InterfaceEng.Com (Andrew Craig) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:50:59 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Hot water pumps (baseline) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Varun--- If you have purchased hot water in the proposed building and the project is pursuing LEED certification (which I assume it is) you need to use USGBC's Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 - Design & Construction. I've attached it as a reference. You basically have two options: 1.) building stand-alone scenario where only the downstream equipment is modeled and hot water is metered/purchased, or; 2.) aggregate building/DES scenario where the upstream equipment with its efficiencies or lack thereof are modeled in the proposed design against 90.1. Regards, Andrew Craig PE, LEED AP Project Mechanical Engineer INTERFACE ENGINEERING email andrewc at interfaceeng.com direct 503.382.2696 www.interfaceeng.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of varun kulkarni Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 8:02 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Hot water pumps (baseline) Hello everyone, User's manual for ASHRAE 90.1 says "For systems 1,5 and 7 (except for purchased hot water or steam), the baseline building design hot water pump power shall be 19 W/gpm". (page G-30) I am confused if I have to use the proposed pumps in case I have purchased hot water. The chilled water pumps are always (as i understand) modeled at 22 W/gpm. -- Thanks and Best Regards, Sincerely, Varun Kulkarni , M.S. , EIT RMF Engineering 5520, Research Park Drive, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD - 21228 Office : 410-576-0505 ext. 5352 Mobile: (+1)405-385-1928 Note: Please do not print, unless required. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Required Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy_v2.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 331422 bytes Desc: Required Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy_v2.pdf URL: From seldomvarun at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 09:05:12 2011 From: seldomvarun at gmail.com (varun kulkarni) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:05:12 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Hot water pumps (baseline) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Andrew, I did read this and we are according to this i have to change my system type to 7 from system 5 as I have district heating and cooling. But I am worried about the hot water pump W/gpm specifically. Should I just or Can I just go ahead and use 19 W/gpm. On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Andrew Craig wrote: > Varun--- > > > > If you have purchased hot water in the proposed building and the project is > pursuing LEED certification (which I assume it is) you need to use USGBC?s > *Treatment of District or Campus Thermal Energy in LEED V2 and LEED 2009 ? > Design & Construction. *I?ve attached it as a reference. You basically > have two options: 1.) building stand-alone scenario where only the > downstream equipment is modeled and hot water is metered/purchased, or; 2.) > aggregate building/DES scenario where the upstream equipment with its > efficiencies or lack thereof are modeled in the proposed design against > 90.1. > > > > Regards, > > > > *Andrew Craig **PE, LEED AP > *Project Mechanical Engineer > > *INTERFACE ENGINEERING > email *andrewc at interfaceeng.com > *direct *503.382.2696 > > *www.interfaceeng.com > * > > > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *varun kulkarni > *Sent:* Thursday, March 17, 2011 8:02 AM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Hot water pumps (baseline) > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > User's manual for ASHRAE 90.1 says "For systems 1,5 and 7 (except for > purchased hot water or steam), the baseline building design hot water pump > power shall be 19 W/gpm". (page G-30) > > > > I am confused if I have to use the proposed pumps in case I have purchased > hot water. > > > > The chilled water pumps are always (as i understand) modeled at 22 W/gpm. > > > > -- > > Thanks and Best Regards, > > > > Sincerely, > > Varun Kulkarni , M.S. , EIT > > RMF Engineering > > 5520, Research Park Drive, Suite 300 > > Baltimore, MD - 21228 > > > > Office : 410-576-0505 ext. 5352 > > Mobile: (+1)405-385-1928 > > > > Note: Please do not print, unless required. > > > > > -- Thanks and Best Regards, Sincerely, Varun Kulkarni , M.S. , EIT RMF Engineering 5520, Research Park Drive, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD - 21228 Office : 410-576-0505 ext. 5352 Mobile: (+1)405-385-1928 Note: Please do not print, unless required. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike584595 at aol.com Fri Mar 18 07:58:04 2011 From: mike584595 at aol.com (Mike Porter) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:58:04 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Design Builder Message-ID: <8CDB39404FEFE29-20B8-5A71@TSTMAIL-D05.sysops.aol.com> All: Is there anyone in this group that uses Design Builder to perform their energy simulations? I have a few questions that I would like to ask but I don't wish to misuse this forum for questions regarding a program that may not be often used. Thanks, Mike Porter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lbarosow at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 10:04:25 2011 From: lbarosow at yahoo.com (Lyuben Barosow) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G HVAC system Message-ID: <556104.56855.qm@web120606.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hello all, I have a building that has radiator heating system and no cooling system designed. The system that I have to model for the baseline building is Packaged VAV with Reheat. According to ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G, Table G3.1.1b "All conditioned spaces in the proposed design shall be simulated as being both heated and cooled..." Also according to Table G3.1.10d "Where no cooling system has been specified, the cooling system shall be identical to the system modeled in the baseline building design". Does that mean that the proposed building model should include Packaged VAV with Reheat (with heating coils set to be always off) along with the radiator heating system in order to correctly model the cooling part? Thank you! Lyuben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rdh4176 at gmail.com Fri Mar 18 12:23:05 2011 From: rdh4176 at gmail.com (Rob Hudson) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Process Loads Message-ID: I have a question about definition and correct interpretation. If I am modeling building that has a space with a data rack and its own cooling system separate from the rest of the buildings systems, is the cooling considered process energy because it is "required" to be there similar to the data rack electrical energy? thanks in advanced, -- Rob Hudson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From oschwieterman at fhai.com Fri Mar 18 13:24:22 2011 From: oschwieterman at fhai.com (Otto Schwieterman) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Process Loads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81CD81BB0AC1FF41B8F014BA7512A74009FD8999@00mail.ad.fhai.org> Rob, You can try but I really doubt if the reviewer will see it that way. I always consider it its own HVAC system in the proposed model and lump it in with the one system per floor HVAC system in the baseline model. I do not see much of a benefit for counting this as a process load, maybe you can explain why you want to do this. Otto From: Rob Hudson [mailto:rdh4176 at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 3:23 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Process Loads I have a question about definition and correct interpretation. If I am modeling building that has a space with a data rack and its own cooling system separate from the rest of the buildings systems, is the cooling considered process energy because it is "required" to be there similar to the data rack electrical energy? thanks in advanced, -- Rob Hudson ________________________________________________________________________________________ Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. intends to send this transmission (including any attachments) only to the designated individual or entity. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to the electronic mail (if electronic) or by telephone at the number indicated on this document. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in the electronic mail. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc., will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this electronic mail or attachments. Use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and maybe unlawful. Any information included in this transmission that is not related to contracts with our authorization, verbal or written, by Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. may not be covered by our professional liability insurance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Fri Mar 18 13:57:45 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:57:45 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Process Loads In-Reply-To: <81CD81BB0AC1FF41B8F014BA7512A74009FD8999@00mail.ad.fhai.org> References: <81CD81BB0AC1FF41B8F014BA7512A74009FD8999@00mail.ad.fhai.org> Message-ID: Assuming we're talking about 90.1, the definition for process load reads something like "loads that don't have anything to do with HVAC..." so you could make the case that a small IT closet split DX unit or thermostat-controlled exhaust fan is not a process load, and therefore the HVAC must be modeled as a system. Why would one want to do this? You could demonstrate better performance with your efficient (?) system. On the other hand, loads in small IT closest are commonly core zones with 24/7 loads, and as a result any such system would be running 24/7 and/or on a consistent basis. An offshoot is you could very simply roll any A/C for such spaces into the room's W/SF, and there would potentially be little difference in consumed energy modeled. Why would one want to do this? Objectively: It's easy/fast. If those were the only two points of interest on the table, as your reviewer I wouldn't care either way. That said, the two above paths result in a pretty different baseline scenario: On the one hand you end up with a baseline system against which your proposed system may excel or underperform against in handling the data/IT room's heat loads. In the other case you have zero direct conditioning of the loads in that space in either model, which would have to propagate into adjacent spaces/systems via partitions - which is in most cases a step or two away from reality. Where one approach is "removed" from reality and the other may objectively "reward/punish" the design decisions made to condition that space, I think it's pretty clear which is the preferable judgment from a reviewer's standpoint. Then again, I'm not your reviewer ;). ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Otto Schwieterman Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 3:24 PM To: Rob Hudson; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Process Loads Rob, You can try but I really doubt if the reviewer will see it that way. I always consider it its own HVAC system in the proposed model and lump it in with the one system per floor HVAC system in the baseline model. I do not see much of a benefit for counting this as a process load, maybe you can explain why you want to do this. Otto From: Rob Hudson [mailto:rdh4176 at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 3:23 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Process Loads I have a question about definition and correct interpretation. If I am modeling building that has a space with a data rack and its own cooling system separate from the rest of the buildings systems, is the cooling considered process energy because it is "required" to be there similar to the data rack electrical energy? thanks in advanced, -- Rob Hudson ________________________________________________________________________ ________________ Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. intends to send this transmission (including any attachments) only to the designated individual or entity. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to the electronic mail (if electronic) or by telephone at the number indicated on this document. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in the electronic mail. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc., will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this electronic mail or attachments. Use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and maybe unlawful. Any information included in this transmission that is not related to contracts with our authorization, verbal or written, by Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. may not be covered by our professional liability insurance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From poleary1969 at gmail.com Fri Mar 18 14:28:26 2011 From: poleary1969 at gmail.com (Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:28:26 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Process Loads In-Reply-To: References: <81CD81BB0AC1FF41B8F014BA7512A74009FD8999@00mail.ad.fhai.org> Message-ID: <4D83CE7A.6090500@gmail.com> also note that if you're dealing with a small IT closet, or data room, 90.1 applies to comfort cooling applications. i.e. people comfort, not machinery comfort. try getting a liebert unit per the efficiency requirements of 90.1 chapter 6. probably won't happen. if you're just dealing w/a small IT closet or small data room and it is served by a packaged dx system i've just put them in both the proposed and baseline since it constitutes a single thermal zone. but as far as process loads go, i typically include it/data in process loads & haven't had that questioned yet. it does, after all, add to the total process that reviewer's look for being 25% of the baseline building cost. On 3/18/11 1:57 PM, Nick Caton wrote: > > Assuming we're talking about 90.1, the definition for process load > reads something like "loads that don't have anything to do with > HVAC..." so you could make the case that a small IT closet split DX > unit or thermostat-controlled exhaust fan is not a process load, and > therefore the HVAC must be modeled as a system. Why would one _want_ > to do this? You could demonstrate better performance with your > efficient (?) system. > > On the other hand, loads in small IT closest are commonly core zones > with 24/7 loads, and as a result any such system would be running 24/7 > and/or on a consistent basis. An offshoot is you could very simply > roll any A/C for such spaces into the room's W/SF, and there would > potentially be little difference in consumed energy modeled. Why > would one _want_ to do this? Objectively: It's easy/fast. > > If those were the only two points of interest on the table, as your > reviewer I wouldn't care either way. > > That said, the two above paths result in a pretty different baseline > scenario: On the one hand you end up with a baseline system against > which your proposed system may excel or underperform against in > handling the data/IT room's heat loads. In the other case you have > zero direct conditioning of the loads in that space in either model, > which would have to propagate into adjacent spaces/systems via > partitions -- which is in most cases a step or two away from > reality. Where one approach is "removed" from reality and the other > may objectively "reward/punish" the design decisions made to condition > that space, I think it's pretty clear which is the preferable judgment > from a reviewer's standpoint. > > Then again, I'm not your reviewer ;). > > ~Nick > > cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB** > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*** > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > Smith & Boucher Engineers > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > www.smithboucher.com_ _ > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Otto > Schwieterman > *Sent:* Friday, March 18, 2011 3:24 PM > *To:* Rob Hudson; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Process Loads > > Rob, > > You can try but I really doubt if the reviewer will see it that way. I > always consider it its own HVAC system in the proposed model and lump > it in with the one system per floor HVAC system in the baseline model. > > I do not see much of a benefit for counting this as a process load, > maybe you can explain why you want to do this. > > Otto > > *From:* Rob Hudson [mailto:rdh4176 at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 18, 2011 3:23 PM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Process Loads > > I have a question about definition and correct interpretation. If I > am modeling building that has a space with a data rack and its own > cooling system separate from the rest of the buildings systems, is the > cooling considered process energy because it is "required" to be there > similar to the data rack electrical energy? > > thanks in advanced, > > -- > Rob Hudson > > ________________________________________________________________________________________ > Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. intends to send this transmission (including any attachments) only to the > designated individual or entity. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying > to the electronic mail (if electronic) or by telephone at the number indicated on this document. > Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in the > electronic mail. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc., will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising > from the use of this electronic mail or attachments. Use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction > of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and maybe unlawful. Any information included in > this transmission that is not related to contracts with our authorization, verbal or written, by Fanning/Howey > Associates, Inc. may not be covered by our professional liability insurance. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kris_raj at rocketmail.com Fri Mar 18 15:31:54 2011 From: kris_raj at rocketmail.com (Kris Raj) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Night purge Message-ID: <865322.32324.qm@web111807.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hello, Does anyone know if we can take credit for night purge under LEED 2.2 thanks, raj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jvd2pe at tds.net Fri Mar 18 17:09:44 2011 From: jvd2pe at tds.net (James V Dirkes II, PE) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:09:44 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Night purge In-Reply-To: <865322.32324.qm@web111807.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <865322.32324.qm@web111807.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <03d201cbe5c9$f494c9d0$ddbe5d70$@net> Dear Raj, If it saves energy, it counts. The Building Performance Team James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP 1631 Acacia Drive NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 616 450 8653 From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Kris Raj Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 6:32 PM To: Bldg-sim Subject: [Bldg-sim] Night purge Hello, Does anyone know if we can take credit for night purge under LEED 2.2 thanks, raj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kris_raj at rocketmail.com Fri Mar 18 19:19:40 2011 From: kris_raj at rocketmail.com (Kris Raj) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Night purge In-Reply-To: <03d201cbe5c9$f494c9d0$ddbe5d70$@net> References: <865322.32324.qm@web111807.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <03d201cbe5c9$f494c9d0$ddbe5d70$@net> Message-ID: <385243.37824.qm@web111807.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> James, ?????????? Thank you for your responce. I am really confused because having night purge requires that the base case and proposed case have different operating schedules. The proposed case controls will check the space and outdoor temperatures at night and run the fans. However for the base case the fans are?turned off at night. Dosen't ASHRAE 90.1 appendix G require us to have the same operating schedules for the base and proposed case. thanks, raj ? ________________________________ From: "James V Dirkes II, PE" To: Bldg-sim Sent: Fri, March 18, 2011 8:09:44 PM Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Night purge Dear Raj, If it saves energy, it counts. ? The Building Performance Team James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP 1631 Acacia Drive?NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 616 450 8653 ? From:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Kris Raj Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 6:32 PM To: Bldg-sim Subject: [Bldg-sim] Night purge ? Hello, Does anyone know if we can take credit for night purge under LEED 2.2 thanks, raj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com Sat Mar 19 03:24:15 2011 From: chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com (Chris Yates) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:24:15 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Autocad LT clone from Dassault Message-ID: <4D84844F.80602@gmail.com> Dear all, Dassault have done a cracking job on this. Most of the command aliases are the same as AutoCAD. e.g. l[space] for line, m[space] for move. DWG and DXF compatibility back to release 12 (which is more than you can say for AutoCAD 2010). No Express tools (although it does have "Express" layer tools which where what you wanted from the Express tools anyway). No Autolisp, ARX, etc. But LT didn't have this anyway. http://www.3ds.com/products/draftsight/download-draftsight/ Cheers -- Chris Yates C Eng MCIBSE /Building Physics Consultant/ Tel:+447960731576 Email: chris.malcolm.yates at gmail.com Skype: christopher.m.yates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bonvehi at asolba.com Sat Mar 19 03:54:26 2011 From: bonvehi at asolba.com (Francesc Bonvehi) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:54:26 +0100 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Design Builder ( Mike Porter) Message-ID: <002101cbe624$0519d020$1801a8c0@tay> Go ahead Mike, We have some experience with Design Builder at user level. Francesc Bonveh? P.E. MASHRAE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From grobe at gmx.net Sun Mar 20 05:40:13 2011 From: grobe at gmx.net (Lars O. Grobe) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:40:13 +0100 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Autocad LT clone from Dassault In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D85F5AD.8080406@gmx.net> Hi! Sorry for cross-posting, but this, being a reply to a message on the building-simulation list, may be of interest for subscribers of the general cad-linux-list, too. Draftsight works nicely, the only pitfall right now I have experienced is that the Linux beta is currently available only as a 32bit binary. Users may not be aware that they can use 32bit software on 64bit Linux installations, as most package managers will cancel the installation with a warning. I forced installation on my Ubuntu amd64 as such: sudo dpkg --force-architecture -i DraftSight.deb At the first try, this gave me warnings about missing dependencies, which could be solved by the standard package installation tools in Ubuntu. Than, the above command installed the DraftSight (32bit-)package from the Website, which is perfectly useful for people working on 2d drawings. Export of SVG makes it easy to transfer drawings into e.g. layout tools, and a PDF export options allows quick generation of documents for review by non-CAD folks. Cheers, Lars. From dipaktwri at yahoo.co.in Sun Mar 20 23:31:04 2011 From: dipaktwri at yahoo.co.in (Deepak Tewari) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:01:04 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system Message-ID: <579667.32637.qm@web95212.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Dear All, I am comparing the energy performance of a constant volume and variable volume system for a composite climate of India (New Delhi) in EnergyPlus. The building area is 7500 sq m. The chiller capacity is same for both the cases. The chilled water to the cooling coils is supplied by a constant speed pump. The savings in the fan energy is evident due to variable speed of the supply fan in case of VAV. However i am getting energy saving in cooling energy (chiller energy) also, in VAV compared to CAV, which i feel is due to higher delta T (chilled water) across cooling coil for CAV compared to VAV, this in turns increases the chiller electricity consumption. However while discussions with some consultant, it is their feeling that the cooling energy would remain same for both type of systems. I want to ask has someone else tried this simulation and would there be any difference in cooling energy or not? Thanks in advance. Deepak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rdh4176 at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 06:01:21 2011 From: rdh4176 at gmail.com (Rob Hudson) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:01:21 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Process Loads In-Reply-To: <4D83CE7A.6090500@gmail.com> References: <81CD81BB0AC1FF41B8F014BA7512A74009FD8999@00mail.ad.fhai.org> <4D83CE7A.6090500@gmail.com> Message-ID: So, if i have a large IT space with numerous data racks, the HVAC system could fall into the G3.1.1 Exception b that states that since it is thermally different than all other spaces around it, it can be modeled as its own system in the baseline model. This would reward/penalize as you guys are saying. Now, to further the other part of the discussion, the definition of process energy stats any energy consumed in support of processes other than conditiong spaces and maintaining comfort and amenities for the occupants. This HVAC system would be maintaining "comfort" even though there is no occupants in the space? Thanks for all the help guys, hope your monday is treating you well. Rob On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr. < poleary1969 at gmail.com> wrote: > also note that if you're dealing with a small IT closet, or data room, > 90.1 applies to comfort cooling applications. i.e. people comfort, not > machinery comfort. try getting a liebert unit per the efficiency > requirements of 90.1 chapter 6. probably won't happen. if you're just > dealing w/a small IT closet or small data room and it is served by a > packaged dx system i've just put them in both the proposed and baseline > since it constitutes a single thermal zone. > > but as far as process loads go, i typically include it/data in process > loads & haven't had that questioned yet. it does, after all, add to the > total process that reviewer's look for being 25% of the baseline building > cost. > > > On 3/18/11 1:57 PM, Nick Caton wrote: > > Assuming we?re talking about 90.1, the definition for process load reads > something like ?loads that don?t have anything to do with HVAC?? so you > could make the case that a small IT closet split DX unit or > thermostat-controlled exhaust fan is not a process load, and therefore the > HVAC must be modeled as a system. Why would one *want* to do this? You > could demonstrate better performance with your efficient (?) system. > > > > On the other hand, loads in small IT closest are commonly core zones with > 24/7 loads, and as a result any such system would be running 24/7 and/or on > a consistent basis. An offshoot is you could very simply roll any A/C for > such spaces into the room?s W/SF, and there would potentially be little > difference in consumed energy modeled. Why would one *want* to do this? > Objectively: It?s easy/fast. > > > > If those were the only two points of interest on the table, as your > reviewer I wouldn?t care either way. > > > > That said, the two above paths result in a pretty different baseline > scenario: On the one hand you end up with a baseline system against which > your proposed system may excel or underperform against in handling the > data/IT room?s heat loads. In the other case you have zero direct > conditioning of the loads in that space in either model, which would have to > propagate into adjacent spaces/systems via partitions ? which is in most > cases a step or two away from reality. Where one approach is ?removed? > from reality and the other may objectively ?reward/punish? the design > decisions made to condition that space, I think it?s pretty clear which is > the preferable judgment from a reviewer?s standpoint. > > > > Then again, I?m not your reviewer ;). > > > > ~Nick > > > > [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]** > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*** > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > Smith & Boucher Engineers > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > www.smithboucher.com* * > > > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [ > mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] > *On Behalf Of *Otto Schwieterman > *Sent:* Friday, March 18, 2011 3:24 PM > *To:* Rob Hudson; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Process Loads > > > > Rob, > > > > You can try but I really doubt if the reviewer will see it that way. I > always consider it its own HVAC system in the proposed model and lump it in > with the one system per floor HVAC system in the baseline model. > > > > I do not see much of a benefit for counting this as a process load, maybe > you can explain why you want to do this. > > > > Otto > > > > *From:* Rob Hudson [mailto:rdh4176 at gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Friday, March 18, 2011 3:23 PM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Process Loads > > > > I have a question about definition and correct interpretation. If I am > modeling building that has a space with a data rack and its own cooling > system separate from the rest of the buildings systems, is the cooling > considered process energy because it is "required" to be there similar to > the data rack electrical energy? > > > > thanks in advanced, > > -- > Rob Hudson > > ________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. intends to send this transmission (including any attachments) only to the > > designated individual or entity. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying > > to the electronic mail (if electronic) or by telephone at the number indicated on this document. > > Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc. has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in the > > electronic mail. Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc., will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising > > from the use of this electronic mail or attachments. Use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction > > of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and maybe unlawful. Any information included in > > this transmission that is not related to contracts with our authorization, verbal or written, by Fanning/Howey > > Associates, Inc. may not be covered by our professional liability insurance. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing listhttp://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > > -- Rob Hudson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Jeremy.Poling at transwestern.net Mon Mar 21 06:03:51 2011 From: Jeremy.Poling at transwestern.net (Jeremy Poling) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:03:51 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Night purge In-Reply-To: <385243.37824.qm@web111807.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <865322.32324.qm@web111807.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><03d201cbe5c9$f494c9d0$ddbe5d70$@net> <385243.37824.qm@web111807.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Raj, This is where Section G2.5 comes in - you can model the night purge as an exceptional calculation methodology and take credit for it that way. It will require a parametric model or even a third model (depending on your approach to parametric models). Jeremy R. Poling, PE, LEED AP+BDC From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Kris Raj Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 9:20 PM To: Bldg-sim Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Night purge James, Thank you for your responce. I am really confused because having night purge requires that the base case and proposed case have different operating schedules. The proposed case controls will check the space and outdoor temperatures at night and run the fans. However for the base case the fans are turned off at night. Dosen't ASHRAE 90.1 appendix G require us to have the same operating schedules for the base and proposed case. thanks, raj ________________________________ From: "James V Dirkes II, PE" To: Bldg-sim Sent: Fri, March 18, 2011 8:09:44 PM Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Night purge Dear Raj, If it saves energy, it counts. The Building Performance Team James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP 1631 Acacia Drive NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 616 450 8653 From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Kris Raj Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 6:32 PM To: Bldg-sim Subject: [Bldg-sim] Night purge Hello, Does anyone know if we can take credit for night purge under LEED 2.2 thanks, raj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jvd2pe at tds.net Mon Mar 21 06:13:51 2011 From: jvd2pe at tds.net (James V Dirkes II, PE) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:13:51 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system In-Reply-To: <579667.32637.qm@web95212.mail.in2.yahoo.com> References: <579667.32637.qm@web95212.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <043c01cbe7c9$d378e770$7a6ab650$@net> Deepak, Here are some thoughts: ? Less fan energy = less cooling load, since the fan energy is a part of the total cooling load. ? If the pump is variable volume, the pump energy required for VAV fans will be slightly less due to less fan heat to cool. ? If you are using the identical chiller for each system (VAV, CAV), then the chiller should use less energy also, due to less fan and pump heat. ? A more common comparison would be to contrast a VAV chiller system with a CAV packaged rooftop system. For that comparison, the part load efficiencies of chiller and compressor / DX coil will be a major factor. Dehumidification will also be different for DX vs. chilled water coils. The Building Performance Team James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP 1631 Acacia Drive NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 616 450 8653 From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Deepak Tewari Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 2:31 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system Dear All, I am comparing the energy performance of a constant volume and variable volume system for a composite climate of India (New Delhi) in EnergyPlus. The building area is 7500 sq m. The chiller capacity is same for both the cases. The chilled water to the cooling coils is supplied by a constant speed pump. The savings in the fan energy is evident due to variable speed of the supply fan in case of VAV. However i am getting energy saving in cooling energy (chiller energy) also, in VAV compared to CAV, which i feel is due to higher delta T (chilled water) across cooling coil for CAV compared to VAV, this in turns increases the chiller electricity consumption. However while discussions with some consultant, it is their feeling that the cooling energy would remain same for both type of systems. I want to ask has someone else tried this simulation and would there be any difference in cooling energy or not? Thanks in advance. Deepak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From caaronpowers at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 08:11:21 2011 From: caaronpowers at gmail.com (Aaron Powers) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:11:21 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system In-Reply-To: <043c01cbe7c9$d378e770$7a6ab650$@net> References: <579667.32637.qm@web95212.mail.in2.yahoo.com> <043c01cbe7c9$d378e770$7a6ab650$@net> Message-ID: There are several things going on here: - Yes, the lower fan energy for VAV will add less heat to the chilled water loop. This will propogate to the pumps, chillers, and heat rejection. - Chilled water coils are complex heat-exchangers, which do not exibit linear behavior. Reducing the air flow decreases the water-side coil effectiveness; therefore, at a given load, a CAV system will have a larger chilled water delta-T. - With equivalent pumping schemes, this will result in pump savings for the CAV system (in the absence of 3-way valves). I'm not sure about ePlus, but this can be demonstrated in the latest DOE2.2. - In reality, the larger chilled water delta-T will decrease chiller lift and increase its efficiency. Again I'm not sure about ePlus, but in DOE2.2, chiller curves are a function of a dT parameter which is the difference between condenser entering and chilled water leaving temperatures. Its an attempt to account for chiller lift, but it does not give an efficiency credit for increasing the chilled water delta-T. So, you will not see the chiller efficiency boost in DOE2 for CAV systems due to a greater chilled water delta-T. In my experience, the VAV fan savings (and reduced chilled water load savings) usually outweigh the pump and chiller savings for CAV. However, it varies from building to building. For example, if you had a rare building with a low air-side static pressure drop to begin with and a long, high head pumping system, then its possible that the CAV system will be more efficient overall. Aaron On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:13 AM, James V Dirkes II, PE wrote: > Deepak, > > Here are some thoughts: > > ? Less fan energy = less cooling load, since the fan energy is a > part of the total cooling load. > > ? If the pump is variable volume, the pump energy required for VAV > fans will be slightly less due to less fan heat to cool. > > ? If you are using the identical chiller for each system (VAV, > CAV), then the chiller should use less energy also, due to less fan and pump > heat. > > ? A more common comparison would be to contrast a VAV chiller > system with a CAV packaged rooftop system. For that comparison, the part > load efficiencies of chiller and compressor / DX coil will be a major > factor. Dehumidification will also be different for DX vs. chilled water > coils. > > > > *The Building Performance Team > **James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP > *1631 Acacia Drive NW > Grand Rapids, MI 49504 > 616 450 8653 > > > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Deepak Tewari > *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 2:31 AM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system > > > > Dear All, > > I am comparing the energy performance of a constant volume and variable > volume system for a composite climate of India (New Delhi) in EnergyPlus. > The building area is 7500 sq m. The chiller capacity is same for both the > cases. The chilled water to the cooling coils is supplied by a constant > speed pump. > > The savings in the fan energy is evident due to variable speed of the > supply fan in case of VAV. However i am getting energy saving in cooling > energy (chiller energy) also, in VAV compared to CAV, which i feel is due to > higher delta T (chilled water) across cooling coil for CAV compared to VAV, > this in turns increases the chiller electricity consumption. However while > discussions with some consultant, it is their feeling that the cooling > energy would remain same for both type of systems. > > I want to ask has someone else tried this simulation and would there be any > difference in cooling energy or not? > Thanks in advance. > Deepak > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -- Sent from my DynaTAC 8000x -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From floodyc at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 15:06:09 2011 From: floodyc at gmail.com (Chris) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:06:09 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Weather file - EcoTect - Winnipeg Message-ID: Does anyone have, or know where I can download, an EcoTect weather file for Winnipeg please? Thanks. -- Chris Flood BSc (Eng) Senior Building Analyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aryn.bergman at autodesk.com Mon Mar 21 20:55:34 2011 From: aryn.bergman at autodesk.com (Aryn Bergman) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:55:34 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Weather file - EcoTect - Winnipeg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'd suggest using Meteonorm and then convert the format in the weather tool in Ecotect. http://www.meteonorm.com/pages/en/meteonorm.php From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Chris Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:06 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Weather file - EcoTect - Winnipeg Does anyone have, or know where I can download, an EcoTect weather file for Winnipeg please? Thanks. -- Chris Flood BSc (Eng) Senior Building Analyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tiwari.sambhav at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 21:22:52 2011 From: tiwari.sambhav at gmail.com (sambhav tiwari) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:52:52 +0530 Subject: [Bldg-sim] COP of chiller Message-ID: Hi All, If i am knowing Chilled water leaving temperature and COP of chiller so can i calculate condenser water entering temperature by the formula COP = Te/Tc-Te Where Te is evaporator temperature which will be chilled water leaving temperature and Tc is condenser temperature ie condenser water entering temperature . Thanks Sambhav. From bkoran at qwest.net Mon Mar 21 21:59:19 2011 From: bkoran at qwest.net (Bill) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:59:19 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system In-Reply-To: References: <579667.32637.qm@web95212.mail.in2.yahoo.com><043c01cbe7c9$d378e770$7a6ab650$@net> Message-ID: <312595CAF63E45CD9244911C8C8D08A3@antecathlon3800> I have a bit different view of this: The load seen by the chiller is not just the load in the zones, but the load from the system. The system load is what is required to cool the supply flow down to the supply air temperature (SAT) setpoint. The SAT is either fixed, or cold enough to satisfy the zone requiring the most cooling (the "critical" zone), assuming the zone loads are met. All zones except for the critical zone don't need as much cooling. In a VAV system, the cooling is reduced via reduced flow. This reduced flow means less system load to the chiller plant. In contrast, the CAV system load does not get reduced because some zones have lower loads. The full fan flow needs to be cooled to the SAT. In this case, the non-critical zones are kept from being overcooled by the addition of reheat. Regards, Bill _____ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Powers Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 8:11 AM To: James V Dirkes II, PE Cc: Deepak Tewari; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system There are several things going on here: - Yes, the lower fan energy for VAV will add less heat to the chilled water loop. This will propogate to the pumps, chillers, and heat rejection. - Chilled water coils are complex heat-exchangers, which do not exibit linear behavior. Reducing the air flow decreases the water-side coil effectiveness; therefore, at a given load, a CAV system will have a larger chilled water delta-T. - With equivalent pumping schemes, this will result in pump savings for the CAV system (in the absence of 3-way valves). I'm not sure about ePlus, but this can be demonstrated in the latest DOE2.2. - In reality, the larger chilled water delta-T will decrease chiller lift and increase its efficiency. Again I'm not sure about ePlus, but in DOE2.2, chiller curves are a function of a dT parameter which is the difference between condenser entering and chilled water leaving temperatures. Its an attempt to account for chiller lift, but it does not give an efficiency credit for increasing the chilled water delta-T. So, you will not see the chiller efficiency boost in DOE2 for CAV systems due to a greater chilled water delta-T. In my experience, the VAV fan savings (and reduced chilled water load savings) usually outweigh the pump and chiller savings for CAV. However, it varies from building to building. For example, if you had a rare building with a low air-side static pressure drop to begin with and a long, high head pumping system, then its possible that the CAV system will be more efficient overall. Aaron On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:13 AM, James V Dirkes II, PE wrote: Deepak, Here are some thoughts: . Less fan energy = less cooling load, since the fan energy is a part of the total cooling load. . If the pump is variable volume, the pump energy required for VAV fans will be slightly less due to less fan heat to cool. . If you are using the identical chiller for each system (VAV, CAV), then the chiller should use less energy also, due to less fan and pump heat. . A more common comparison would be to contrast a VAV chiller system with a CAV packaged rooftop system. For that comparison, the part load efficiencies of chiller and compressor / DX coil will be a major factor. Dehumidification will also be different for DX vs. chilled water coils. The Building Performance Team James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP 1631 Acacia Drive NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 616 450 8653 From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Deepak Tewari Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 2:31 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system Dear All, I am comparing the energy performance of a constant volume and variable volume system for a composite climate of India (New Delhi) in EnergyPlus. The building area is 7500 sq m. The chiller capacity is same for both the cases. The chilled water to the cooling coils is supplied by a constant speed pump. The savings in the fan energy is evident due to variable speed of the supply fan in case of VAV. However i am getting energy saving in cooling energy (chiller energy) also, in VAV compared to CAV, which i feel is due to higher delta T (chilled water) across cooling coil for CAV compared to VAV, this in turns increases the chiller electricity consumption. However while discussions with some consultant, it is their feeling that the cooling energy would remain same for both type of systems. I want to ask has someone else tried this simulation and would there be any difference in cooling energy or not? Thanks in advance. Deepak _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -- Sent from my DynaTAC 8000x -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dipaktwri at yahoo.co.in Mon Mar 21 22:30:53 2011 From: dipaktwri at yahoo.co.in (Deepak Tewari) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:00:53 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system In-Reply-To: References: <579667.32637.qm@web95212.mail.in2.yahoo.com> <043c01cbe7c9$d378e770$7a6ab650$@net> Message-ID: <184927.41701.qm@web95214.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Aaron Can you elaborate how the larger chilled water delta-T will decrease chiller lift and increase efficiency? ________________________________ From: Aaron Powers To: "James V Dirkes II, PE" Cc: Deepak Tewari ; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Sent: Mon, 21 March, 2011 8:41:21 PM Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system There are several things going on here: - Yes, the lower fan energy for VAV will add less heat to the chilled water loop. This will propogate to the pumps, chillers, and heat rejection. - Chilled water coils are complex heat-exchangers, which do not exibit linear behavior. Reducing the air flow decreases the water-side coil effectiveness; therefore, at a given load, a CAV system will have a larger chilled water delta-T. - With equivalent pumping schemes, this will result in pump savings for the CAV system (in the absence of 3-way valves). I'm not sure about ePlus, but this can be demonstrated in the latest DOE2.2. - In reality, the larger chilled water delta-T will decrease chiller lift and increase its efficiency. Again I'm not sure about ePlus, but in DOE2.2, chiller curves are a function of a dT parameter which is the difference between condenser entering and chilled water leaving temperatures. Its an attempt to account for chiller lift, but it does not give an efficiency credit for increasing the chilled water delta-T. So, you will not see the chiller efficiency boost in DOE2 for CAV systems due to a greater chilled water delta-T. In my experience, the VAV fan savings (and reduced chilled water load savings) usually outweigh the pump and chiller savings for CAV. However, it varies from building to building. For example, if you had a rare building with a low air-side static pressure drop to begin with and a long, high head pumping system, then its possible that the CAV system will be more efficient overall. Aaron On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:13 AM, James V Dirkes II, PE wrote: Deepak, >Here are some thoughts: >? Less fan energy = less cooling load, since the fan energy is a part >of the total cooling load. >? If the pump is variable volume, the pump energy required for VAV fans >will be slightly less due to less fan heat to cool. >? If you are using the identical chiller for each system (VAV, CAV), >then the chiller should use less energy also, due to less fan and pump heat. >? A more common comparison would be to contrast a VAV chiller system >with a CAV packaged rooftop system. For that comparison, the part load >efficiencies of chiller and compressor / DX coil will be a major factor. >Dehumidification will also be different for DX vs. chilled water coils. > >The Building Performance Team >James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP >1631 Acacia Drive NW >Grand Rapids, MI 49504 >616 450 8653 > >From:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org >[mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Deepak Tewari >Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 2:31 AM >To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org >Subject: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system > >Dear All, > >I am comparing the energy performance of a constant volume and variable volume >system for a composite climate of India (New Delhi) in EnergyPlus. The building >area is 7500 sq m. The chiller capacity is same for both the cases. The chilled >water to the cooling coils is supplied by a constant speed pump. > > >The savings in the fan energy is evident due to variable speed of the supply fan >in case of VAV. However i am getting energy saving in cooling energy (chiller >energy) also, in VAV compared to CAV, which i feel is due to higher delta T >(chilled water) across cooling coil for CAV compared to VAV, this in turns >increases the chiller electricity consumption. However while discussions with >some consultant, it is their feeling that the cooling energy would remain same >for both type of systems. > >I want to ask has someone else tried this simulation and would there be any >difference in cooling energy or not? > >Thanks in advance. >Deepak > > > >_______________________________________________ >Bldg-sim mailing list >http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org >To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to >BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -- Sent from my DynaTAC 8000x -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com Mon Mar 21 23:38:19 2011 From: yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com (Joe Huang) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:38:19 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Weather file - EcoTect - Winnipeg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D8843DB.5060008@whiteboxtechnologies.com> There is a CWEC weather file for Winnipeg. I would suggest that you get that file instead of using Meteonorm. Go to : ftp://arcdm20.tor.ec.gc.ca/pub/dist/climate/CWEC/ENGLISH/MANITOBA/W14996W.ZIP For more information about CWEC weather files, look at the EnergyPlus weather site http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/weatherdata_sources.cfm#CWEC Joe Joe Huang White Box Technologies, Inc. 346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 108D Moraga CA 94556 yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com www.whiteboxtechnologies.com (o) (925)388-0265 (c) (510)928-2683 "building energy simulations at your fingertips" Aryn Bergman wrote: > > I?d suggest using Meteonorm and then convert the format in the weather > tool in Ecotect. > > http://www.meteonorm.com/pages/en/meteonorm.php > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris > *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 3:06 PM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Weather file - EcoTect - Winnipeg > > Does anyone have, or know where I can download, an EcoTect weather > file for Winnipeg please? > > Thanks. > > -- > Chris Flood BSc (Eng) > Senior Building Analyst > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > From grammy.hkust at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 23:44:04 2011 From: grammy.hkust at gmail.com (Grammy) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:44:04 +0800 Subject: [Bldg-sim] COP of chiller In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please google the definition of COP first. On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:22 PM, sambhav tiwari wrote: > Hi All, > If i am knowing Chilled water leaving temperature and > COP of chiller so can i calculate condenser water entering temperature > by the formula > > COP = Te/Tc-Te > > Where Te is evaporator temperature which will be chilled water leaving > temperature and Tc is condenser temperature ie condenser water > entering temperature . > > > Thanks > Sambhav. > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgbf_info at yahoo.com Tue Mar 22 05:41:05 2011 From: cgbf_info at yahoo.com (Meera Parthasarathy) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 05:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Registration Open for eQuest Workshop Message-ID: <459512.62344.qm@web121412.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Good morning, Registration is?open?for the eQuest Intermediate to Advanced program on May 18-20th, so sign up quickly! ? CGBF?strives to keep?its programs within reach of the design community and is providing a quality program with an exceptional speaker at an extremely affordable cost to the attendees (compared to similar programs hosted around the country). ? We hope to see you in Columbus! Meera ? Meera Parthasarathy, AIA, NCARB Founder, Columbus Green Building Forum PO Box 196, New Albany, Ohio 43054 W: www.cgbf.org? P: (614) 855-8085 E:?meera at cgbf.org? ? Intermediate - Advanced eQuest Workshop: Whole Building Analysis using eQUEST May 18th: 10am ? 5pm; May 19-20th : 8am ? 5pm Nationwide and Ohio Farm Bureau 4-H Center; Ohio State University Campus; Building 191, 2201 Fred Taylor Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43210 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Instructor:?Marlin S. Addison, Principal, M.S. Addison & Associates, Tempe, Arizona, and Clinical Assistant Professor, College of Design, Arizona State University. Mr. Addison is a nationally recognized expert in building energy analysis and eQuest. ? Engineers?note that PDU credits are offered for the three-day program (partial credits are not available) ? Registration fees: $399 for three-day workshop ($199 for one-day registration); If you would like to register please email?meera at cgbf.org?for details. Pre-registration required. Lunch included. ? Topics covered include: Wizard versus Detailed Interface, Strategies and Issues Detailed Interface Basics: create, copy, rename, delete components, user defaults & linked components Detailed Interface Essentials: Opaque Constructions, Schedules (including priorities among HVAC related schedules), Glass Types, Geometry, Shading, Parameters, Expressions, Parametric Processing Additional LEED Analysis issues using eQUEST DOE-2 simulation methodology basics Daylighting Utility Tariffs, Meters Life-Cycle Costing in eQUEST Quality Control Procedures and eQUEST/DOE-2.2 Results Reporting, Hourly Reports Modeling Air-side and Water-Side HVAC HVAC Sizing Issues (air-side and water-side, design days) OA and Exhaust, Demand Control Ventilation Ground Source Heat Pumps Heat Recovery Approximations to : Displacement Ventilation Dedicated OA Systems Chilled Beams Variable Flow Refrigerant Systems Plant Equipment Control and Load Management Equipment Performance Curves -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From massucci at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 11:44:50 2011 From: massucci at gmail.com (Francisco Massucci) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:44:50 -0300 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Double Facades - EPlus Message-ID: Hi, Does anyone knows how to modeling double facedes in EnergyPlus? Like a lightweight ceramic facede, located 10cm away from a traditional concrete masonry wall. I figured if modeling an thin extra zone could be work, or if its possible to work with the second facede only as a huge shading device. I think the most important in these cases is the amount of natural convection that occur around the exterior of the building but none of my proposals, this fact is taken into account. I appreciate if anyone can help me, Sorry about my bad english. Francisco Massucci Architect - S?o Paulo - Brasil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From caaronpowers at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 12:41:03 2011 From: caaronpowers at gmail.com (Aaron Powers) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:41:03 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system In-Reply-To: <184927.41701.qm@web95214.mail.in2.yahoo.com> References: <579667.32637.qm@web95212.mail.in2.yahoo.com> <043c01cbe7c9$d378e770$7a6ab650$@net> <184927.41701.qm@web95214.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bill, you're right about that. A central CAV system with reheat is limited by the most loaded zone. My statements before were simply for one air path and one zone, which is probably rare. The degree to which this hurts a CAV system depends on the diversity of the loads. If all zone loads remain similar, then the supply air temperature off the CAV coils will start to float upwards at reduced loads, and you'll see an increased chilled water delta-T. As for the increased chiller efficiency, here's my thinking. At a constant load with no mixing valves, an increased delta T across the cooling coils allows for a lower gpm. Slowing the water flow rate and raising the entering water temperature increases the effectiveness of the evaporator barrel (i.e. the enthalpy of the refrigerant now has a greater ability to approach the enthalpy of the higher enthalpy water). Running the compressor as before would over-cool the water. To maintain a constant chilled water supply temperature, the mass flow of the refrigerant must be reduced. Depending on the type of compressor unloading mechanism, this should produce some energy savings. This is my understanding simply based on theory, and I'm sure it's much more complicated in reality. Again, I know that DOE2 does not account for varying inlet conditions to the chiller evaporator barrel, but I'm not sure about ePlus. Aaron On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Deepak Tewari wrote: > Aaron > Can you elaborate how the larger chilled water delta-T will decrease > chiller lift and increase efficiency? > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Aaron Powers > *To:* "James V Dirkes II, PE" > *Cc:* Deepak Tewari ; > bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Sent:* Mon, 21 March, 2011 8:41:21 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV > system > > There are several things going on here: > > - Yes, the lower fan energy for VAV will add less heat to the chilled water > loop. This will propogate to the pumps, chillers, and heat rejection. > - Chilled water coils are complex heat-exchangers, which do not exibit > linear behavior. Reducing the air flow decreases the water-side coil > effectiveness; therefore, at a given load, a CAV system will have a larger > chilled water delta-T. > - With equivalent pumping schemes, this will result in pump savings for the > CAV system (in the absence of 3-way valves). I'm not sure about ePlus, but > this can be demonstrated in the latest DOE2.2. > - In reality, the larger chilled water delta-T will decrease chiller lift > and increase its efficiency. Again I'm not sure about ePlus, but in DOE2.2, > chiller curves are a function of a dT parameter which is the difference > between condenser entering and chilled water leaving temperatures. Its an > attempt to account for chiller lift, but it does not give an efficiency > credit for increasing the chilled water delta-T. So, you will not see the > chiller efficiency boost in DOE2 for CAV systems due to a greater chilled > water delta-T. > > In my experience, the VAV fan savings (and reduced chilled water load > savings) usually outweigh the pump and chiller savings for CAV. However, > it varies from building to building. For example, if you had a rare > building with a low air-side static pressure drop to begin with and a long, > high head pumping system, then its possible that the CAV system will be more > efficient overall. > > Aaron > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:13 AM, James V Dirkes II, PE wrote: > >> Deepak, >> >> Here are some thoughts: >> >> ? Less fan energy = less cooling load, since the fan energy is a >> part of the total cooling load. >> >> ? If the pump is variable volume, the pump energy required for >> VAV fans will be slightly less due to less fan heat to cool. >> >> ? If you are using the identical chiller for each system (VAV, >> CAV), then the chiller should use less energy also, due to less fan and pump >> heat. >> >> ? A more common comparison would be to contrast a VAV chiller >> system with a CAV packaged rooftop system. For that comparison, the part >> load efficiencies of chiller and compressor / DX coil will be a major >> factor. Dehumidification will also be different for DX vs. chilled water >> coils. >> >> >> >> *The Building Performance Team >> **James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP >> *1631 Acacia Drive NW >> Grand Rapids, MI 49504 >> 616 450 8653 >> >> >> >> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: >> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Deepak Tewari >> *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 2:31 AM >> *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org >> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> I am comparing the energy performance of a constant volume and variable >> volume system for a composite climate of India (New Delhi) in EnergyPlus. >> The building area is 7500 sq m. The chiller capacity is same for both the >> cases. The chilled water to the cooling coils is supplied by a constant >> speed pump. >> >> The savings in the fan energy is evident due to variable speed of the >> supply fan in case of VAV. However i am getting energy saving in cooling >> energy (chiller energy) also, in VAV compared to CAV, which i feel is due to >> higher delta T (chilled water) across cooling coil for CAV compared to VAV, >> this in turns increases the chiller electricity consumption. However while >> discussions with some consultant, it is their feeling that the cooling >> energy would remain same for both type of systems. >> >> I want to ask has someone else tried this simulation and would there be >> any difference in cooling energy or not? >> Thanks in advance. >> Deepak >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bldg-sim mailing list >> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to >> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG >> >> > > > -- > Sent from my DynaTAC 8000x > > -- Sent from my DynaTAC 8000x -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Tue Mar 22 14:18:42 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:18:42 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system In-Reply-To: References: <579667.32637.qm@web95212.mail.in2.yahoo.com><043c01cbe7c9$d378e770$7a6ab650$@net><184927.41701.qm@web95214.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I too cannot claim to be capable of tearing a chiller apart and putting it back together, but I can affirm Aaron's fundamentals appear on-cue to my understanding. Less cooling ? less compressor work ? $$$ savings. The attached email exchange from a few months back may be of interest to those following/participating in this discussion, though it is a bit lengthy. In it, I attempt to "reverse engineer" the three default curves found in eQuest/DOE2 which together define behavior of a centrifugal chiller, observing and discussing the isolated effects of all the variables that are taken into account on an hourly basis... One following along can see I was a bit puzzled along the way, but arrived at an "ah-ha" moment when I followed through and applied the curves against each other to observe their net effects on efficiency under set conditions. My hope then and now is that sharing this thought process may help others arrive at their own "eureka" moments =). ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Powers Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 2:41 PM To: Deepak Tewari Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system Bill, you're right about that. A central CAV system with reheat is limited by the most loaded zone. My statements before were simply for one air path and one zone, which is probably rare. The degree to which this hurts a CAV system depends on the diversity of the loads. If all zone loads remain similar, then the supply air temperature off the CAV coils will start to float upwards at reduced loads, and you'll see an increased chilled water delta-T. As for the increased chiller efficiency, here's my thinking. At a constant load with no mixing valves, an increased delta T across the cooling coils allows for a lower gpm. Slowing the water flow rate and raising the entering water temperature increases the effectiveness of the evaporator barrel (i.e. the enthalpy of the refrigerant now has a greater ability to approach the enthalpy of the higher enthalpy water). Running the compressor as before would over-cool the water. To maintain a constant chilled water supply temperature, the mass flow of the refrigerant must be reduced. Depending on the type of compressor unloading mechanism, this should produce some energy savings. This is my understanding simply based on theory, and I'm sure it's much more complicated in reality. Again, I know that DOE2 does not account for varying inlet conditions to the chiller evaporator barrel, but I'm not sure about ePlus. Aaron On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Deepak Tewari wrote: Aaron Can you elaborate how the larger chilled water delta-T will decrease chiller lift and increase efficiency? ________________________________ From: Aaron Powers To: "James V Dirkes II, PE" Cc: Deepak Tewari ; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Sent: Mon, 21 March, 2011 8:41:21 PM Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system There are several things going on here: - Yes, the lower fan energy for VAV will add less heat to the chilled water loop. This will propogate to the pumps, chillers, and heat rejection. - Chilled water coils are complex heat-exchangers, which do not exibit linear behavior. Reducing the air flow decreases the water-side coil effectiveness; therefore, at a given load, a CAV system will have a larger chilled water delta-T. - With equivalent pumping schemes, this will result in pump savings for the CAV system (in the absence of 3-way valves). I'm not sure about ePlus, but this can be demonstrated in the latest DOE2.2. - In reality, the larger chilled water delta-T will decrease chiller lift and increase its efficiency. Again I'm not sure about ePlus, but in DOE2.2, chiller curves are a function of a dT parameter which is the difference between condenser entering and chilled water leaving temperatures. Its an attempt to account for chiller lift, but it does not give an efficiency credit for increasing the chilled water delta-T. So, you will not see the chiller efficiency boost in DOE2 for CAV systems due to a greater chilled water delta-T. In my experience, the VAV fan savings (and reduced chilled water load savings) usually outweigh the pump and chiller savings for CAV. However, it varies from building to building. For example, if you had a rare building with a low air-side static pressure drop to begin with and a long, high head pumping system, then its possible that the CAV system will be more efficient overall. Aaron On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:13 AM, James V Dirkes II, PE wrote: Deepak, Here are some thoughts: ? Less fan energy = less cooling load, since the fan energy is a part of the total cooling load. ? If the pump is variable volume, the pump energy required for VAV fans will be slightly less due to less fan heat to cool. ? If you are using the identical chiller for each system (VAV, CAV), then the chiller should use less energy also, due to less fan and pump heat. ? A more common comparison would be to contrast a VAV chiller system with a CAV packaged rooftop system. For that comparison, the part load efficiencies of chiller and compressor / DX coil will be a major factor. Dehumidification will also be different for DX vs. chilled water coils. The Building Performance Team James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP 1631 Acacia Drive NW Grand Rapids, MI 49504 616 450 8653 From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Deepak Tewari Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 2:31 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system Dear All, I am comparing the energy performance of a constant volume and variable volume system for a composite climate of India (New Delhi) in EnergyPlus. The building area is 7500 sq m. The chiller capacity is same for both the cases. The chilled water to the cooling coils is supplied by a constant speed pump. The savings in the fan energy is evident due to variable speed of the supply fan in case of VAV. However i am getting energy saving in cooling energy (chiller energy) also, in VAV compared to CAV, which i feel is due to higher delta T (chilled water) across cooling coil for CAV compared to VAV, this in turns increases the chiller electricity consumption. However while discussions with some consultant, it is their feeling that the cooling energy would remain same for both type of systems. I want to ask has someone else tried this simulation and would there be any difference in cooling energy or not? Thanks in advance. Deepak _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -- Sent from my DynaTAC 8000x -- Sent from my DynaTAC 8000x -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Nick Caton" Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:32:28 -0500 Size: 401742 URL: From ppeixeiro at lnec.pt Wed Mar 23 07:38:50 2011 From: ppeixeiro at lnec.pt (Pedro Peixeiro) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:38:50 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Double Facades - EPlus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D8A05FA.2020507@lnec.pt> Hi Francisco. If your facade is made up of only opaque construction and/or you want to make a simple study of it, you can check the SurfaceProperty:ExteriorNaturalVentedCavity. For more detailed modelling, or if you facade is made of glassings, you should model the facade as a independent zone, and use airflownetwork objects to setup openings, virtual partitions and airflow. Convection on the outside of the facade shouldn't be much of a problem, the tricky one is the inside convection. EPlus doens't have an algorithm specified for these kinds of building elements, so you'll have to choose the one that best suits your needs. Pedro. On 22-03-2011 18:44, Francisco Massucci wrote: > Hi, > Does anyone knows how to modeling double facedes in EnergyPlus? Like > a lightweight ceramic facede, located 10cm away from a traditional > concrete masonry wall. I figured if modeling an thin extra zone could > be work, or if its possible to work with the second facede only as a > huge shading device. I think the most important in these cases is the > amount of natural convection that occur around the exterior of the > building but none of my proposals, this fact is taken into account. > I appreciate if anyone can help me, > Sorry about my bad english. > > Francisco Massucci > Architect - S?o Paulo - Brasil > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gorbachinsky at gmail.com Wed Mar 23 10:51:36 2011 From: gorbachinsky at gmail.com (Evgenia Gorbachinsky) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 Message-ID: Good Afternoon, Our client would like to get a tax deduction reducing the building's energy and power costs by 50% in comparison to a building meeting requirements set by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001. This standard does not have Appendix G. Could anybody help to understand,please, how I can do it. Do I need to Use section 11 ( Energy cost budget method) of the standard or I need to use the same systems and plants in both cases, but different lighting density, building envelope and energy rates according to the actual design for the proposed design and Standard 90.1-2001 for the baseline design? Thanks. -- With best wishes, Genia Gorbachinsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Michael.Deru at nrel.gov Wed Mar 23 11:04:52 2011 From: Michael.Deru at nrel.gov (Deru, Michael) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:04:52 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C55B832F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> Dear Genia, Please see the DOE web site for more information about the tax deduction and the following NREL report for guidance on calculating the savings. In addition, DOE and NREL are working on a simplified tool for the tax deduction calculations that will be available in April. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tax_incentives.html http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40467.pdf Michael Michael Deru, Ph.D. Senior Engineer II Commercial Buildings Research Group National Renewable Energy Laboratory 303-384-7503 (o) 303-725-3528 (c) From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Evgenia Gorbachinsky Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:52 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 Good Afternoon, Our client would like to get a tax deduction reducing the building's energy and power costs by 50% in comparison to a building meeting requirements set by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001. This standard does not have Appendix G. Could anybody help to understand,please, how I can do it. Do I need to Use section 11 ( Energy cost budget method) of the standard or I need to use the same systems and plants in both cases, but different lighting density, building envelope and energy rates according to the actual design for the proposed design and Standard 90.1-2001 for the baseline design? Thanks. -- With best wishes, Genia Gorbachinsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rgengelbach at sustainablemech.com Wed Mar 23 11:05:04 2011 From: rgengelbach at sustainablemech.com (Robert Gengelbach) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:05:04 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03a601cbe984$d6bda9e0$8438fda0$@com> There are specific rules for the procedure included in the NREL/TP 550-40467. You are supposed to follow the 90.1-2004 Appendix G (since to 2001 does not have an Appendix G) you are also supposed to use many utilization and tstat schedules from California Title 24. cid:image003.png at 01C9AB43.F0BEE290 Robert Gengelbach, PE, BEMP, LEED? AP BD+C Sustainable Mechanical Design Associates, Inc 89 Monroe Center NW Suite 302 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 P: (616) 776-9009 F: (616) 776-9010 C: (616) 570-2329 www.sustainablemech.com rgengelbach at sustainablemech.com P Please print only if necessary From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Evgenia Gorbachinsky Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:52 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 Good Afternoon, Our client would like to get a tax deduction reducing the building's energy and power costs by 50% in comparison to a building meeting requirements set by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001. This standard does not have Appendix G. Could anybody help to understand,please, how I can do it. Do I need to Use section 11 ( Energy cost budget method) of the standard or I need to use the same systems and plants in both cases, but different lighting density, building envelope and energy rates according to the actual design for the proposed design and Standard 90.1-2001 for the baseline design? Thanks. -- With best wishes, Genia Gorbachinsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 12369 bytes Desc: not available URL: From j.hensen at tue.nl Wed Mar 23 11:08:01 2011 From: j.hensen at tue.nl (Hensen, J.L.M.) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:08:01 +0100 Subject: [Bldg-sim] fully funded PhD position at TU Eindhoven Message-ID: Dear all, We currently have a fully funded building performance simulation PhD position available. The project is a part of the just started Dutch research project "Climate Proof Cities" http://knowledgeforclimate.climateresearchnetherlands.nl/nl/25222878-Climate_Proof_Cities.html which involves a large number of universities and research institutes. The aim of this programme is to generate knowledge for adapting the built environment in order to cope with future climate change. Details about the vacancy "Climate change adaptation measures: adaptive buildings and occupants" are at http://jobs.tue.nl/wd/plsql/wd_portal.show_job?p_web_site_id=3085&p_web_page_id=109720&p_order_by= Please don't hesitate to contact me for further information. I would appreciate it very much if you could forward this message to potential applicants. Thanks in advance! Jan ........................................ prof. dr. ir. Jan L.M. Hensen | Eindhoven University of Technology | Building Physics & Systems | P.O. Box 513 - VRT6.18 | 5600 MB EINDHOVEN, Netherlands | +31 (0)40 247 2988 | www.bwk.tue.nl/bps/hensen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kgorczynski at olace.com Wed Mar 23 11:52:52 2011 From: kgorczynski at olace.com (Kerry Gorczynski) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:52:52 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] 90.1 Appendix G - Resizing Baseline Systems to Meet Unmet Load Requirements (G3.1.2.2) Message-ID: Hello Everyone, I know there have been quite a few posts in the past regarding the definition and clarification of unmet hours in an energy model. I had a question outside of that - particularly when the baseline system needs to be resized to meet the requirements of G3.1.2.2: If unmet load hours in the proposed design exceed the unmet load hours in the baseline building by more than 50, simulated capacities in the baseline building shall be decreased incrementally and the building resimulated until the unmet load hours are within 50 of the unmet load hours of the proposed design. When we do this, do we need to resize the CFM of the system to maintain the supply-air-to-room-air temperature difference of 20?F, etc. used in sizing the baseline? I could see this becoming a lengthy process of reducing cooling capacity, then fan CFM, etc. and was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on it. Thanks, Kerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lesley.Herrmann at nrel.gov Wed Mar 23 13:45:52 2011 From: Lesley.Herrmann at nrel.gov (Herrmann, Lesley) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:45:52 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Internal Mass Estimations for Grocery Stores Message-ID: Hello, Are there any known resources that provide internal mass estimates (mass/floor area) for energy modeling of big-box commercial retail stores, particularly of the grocery store type? Obviously, internal mass estimations have a significant impact on HVAC energy consumption and, as I am experiencing, the default internal mass amounts in the EnergyPlus reference buildings tend to be an underestimate for retail stores. Thanks! Lesley Commercial Buildings Engineer Center for Electricity, Resources, and Building Systems Integration National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden CO 80401 303.275.4318 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david at d-n-a-design.com Wed Mar 23 16:08:39 2011 From: david at d-n-a-design.com (david at d-n-a-design.com) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:08:39 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Weather file - EcoTect - Winnipeg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is also a winnepeg weather file available in EPW format that you can translate to WEA with the Weather utility in EnergyPlus. Search for 'energyplus weather' to get the link. On Mar 21, 2011, at 20:55, Aryn Bergman wrote: > I?d suggest using Meteonorm and then convert the format in the weather tool in Ecotect. > > > > http://www.meteonorm.com/pages/en/meteonorm.php > > > > From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Chris > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:06 PM > To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > Subject: [Bldg-sim] Weather file - EcoTect - Winnipeg > > > > Does anyone have, or know where I can download, an EcoTect weather file for Winnipeg please? > > Thanks. > > -- > Chris Flood BSc (Eng) > Senior Building Analyst > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From poleary1969 at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 05:11:54 2011 From: poleary1969 at gmail.com (Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:11:54 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D8B350A.9080404@gmail.com> knowing that 1) appendix a, section 6.1, references that "For the purpose of Section A1.2, the base assembly is a slab floor of 6 in. concrete poured directly on to the earth ..." meets the requirement for an unheated slab f-factor of 0.73, and 2) section a6.3, f-factors for slab-on-grade floors, a.6.3.1 states: "/F-factors/ for slab-on-grade floors shall be taken from Table A6.3", and 3) section a6.3.2 states: "These /F-factors/ are acceptable for all /slab-on-grade floors/." does the "all slab-on-grade floors" really mean any thickness of slab-on-grade? i.e. section 6.1 references a 6-inch uninsulated slab meeting the 0.73 f-factor requirement, but per sections a6.3.2 and table a6.3 a 4-inch uninsulated slab (or an 8-inch uninsulated slab) would also meet the 0.73 f-factor requirement. so why would section a6.1 specify a 6-inch slab when any slab thickness will suffice? the user's manuals (both years) just refer to table a6.3 for f-factor values. the state of washington has a similar section in its energy code (see link below), page 41, table 4-2. section 1003.2 (also page 41) lists "All on-grade slab floors as assumed to be 6 inch concrete poured directly onto the earth." note that on page 40, table 10.1, the f-factors decrease the deeper the below grade the slab-on-grade floor is. http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/wa_energy.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kirankumar.devs at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 21:49:32 2011 From: kirankumar.devs at gmail.com (kiran kumar) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:19:32 +0530 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Double Facades - EPlus Message-ID: Hi all, Can anyone suggest the best tool to model double skin facades with glazing? Kiran On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:01 AM, wrote: > Send Bldg-sim mailing list submissions to > bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > bldg-sim-request at lists.onebuilding.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > bldg-sim-owner at lists.onebuilding.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Bldg-sim digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system > (Nick Caton) > 2. Re: Double Facades - EPlus (Pedro Peixeiro) > 3. Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with > the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 (Evgenia Gorbachinsky) > 4. Re: Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design > with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 (Deru, Michael) > 5. Re: Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design > with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 (Robert Gengelbach) > 6. fully funded PhD position at TU Eindhoven (Hensen, J.L.M.) > 7. 90.1 Appendix G - Resizing Baseline Systems to Meet Unmet > Load Requirements (G3.1.2.2) (Kerry Gorczynski) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Nick Caton" > To: "Aaron Powers" , "Deepak Tewari" < > dipaktwri at yahoo.co.in> > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:18:42 -0500 > Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system > > I too cannot claim to be capable of tearing a chiller apart and putting it > back together, but I can affirm Aaron?s fundamentals appear on-cue to my > understanding. Less cooling ? less compressor work ? $$$ savings. > > > > The attached email exchange from a few months back may be of interest to > those following/participating in this discussion, though it is a bit > lengthy. In it, I attempt to ?reverse engineer? the three default curves > found in eQuest/DOE2 which together define behavior of a centrifugal > chiller, observing and discussing the isolated effects of all the variables > that are taken into account on an hourly basis? One following along can see > I was a bit puzzled along the way, but arrived at an ?ah-ha? moment when I > followed through and applied the curves against each other to observe their > net effects on efficiency under set conditions. > > > > My hope then and now is that sharing this thought process may help others > arrive at their own ?eureka? moments =). > > > > ~Nick > > > > [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]** > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*** > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > Smith & Boucher Engineers > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > www.smithboucher.com* * > > > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Powers > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2011 2:41 PM > *To:* Deepak Tewari > *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV > system > > > > Bill, you're right about that. A central CAV system with reheat is limited > by the most loaded zone. My statements before were simply for one air path > and one zone, which is probably rare. The degree to which this hurts a CAV > system depends on the diversity of the loads. If all zone loads remain > similar, then the supply air temperature off the CAV coils will start to > float upwards at reduced loads, and you'll see an increased chilled water > delta-T. > > As for the increased chiller efficiency, here's my thinking. At a constant > load with no mixing valves, an increased delta T across the cooling coils > allows for a lower gpm. Slowing the water flow rate and raising the > entering water temperature increases the effectiveness of the evaporator > barrel (i.e. the enthalpy of the refrigerant now has a greater ability to > approach the enthalpy of the higher enthalpy water). Running the compressor > as before would over-cool the water. To maintain a constant chilled water > supply temperature, the mass flow of the refrigerant must be reduced. > Depending on the type of compressor unloading mechanism, this should produce > some energy savings. > > This is my understanding simply based on theory, and I'm sure it's much > more complicated in reality. Again, I know that DOE2 does not account for > varying inlet conditions to the chiller evaporator barrel, but I'm not sure > about ePlus. > > Aaron > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Deepak Tewari > wrote: > > Aaron > Can you elaborate how the larger chilled water delta-T will decrease > chiller lift and increase efficiency? > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Aaron Powers > *To:* "James V Dirkes II, PE" > *Cc:* Deepak Tewari ; > bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Sent:* Mon, 21 March, 2011 8:41:21 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV > system > > > > There are several things going on here: > > > > - Yes, the lower fan energy for VAV will add less heat to the chilled water > loop. This will propogate to the pumps, chillers, and heat rejection. > > - Chilled water coils are complex heat-exchangers, which do not exibit > linear behavior. Reducing the air flow decreases the water-side coil > effectiveness; therefore, at a given load, a CAV system will have a larger > chilled water delta-T. > > - With equivalent pumping schemes, this will result in pump savings for the > CAV system (in the absence of 3-way valves). I'm not sure about ePlus, but > this can be demonstrated in the latest DOE2.2. > > - In reality, the larger chilled water delta-T will decrease chiller lift > and increase its efficiency. Again I'm not sure about ePlus, but in DOE2.2, > chiller curves are a function of a dT parameter which is the difference > between condenser entering and chilled water leaving temperatures. Its an > attempt to account for chiller lift, but it does not give an efficiency > credit for increasing the chilled water delta-T. So, you will not see the > chiller efficiency boost in DOE2 for CAV systems due to a greater chilled > water delta-T. > > > > In my experience, the VAV fan savings (and reduced chilled water load > savings) usually outweigh the pump and chiller savings for CAV. However, > it varies from building to building. For example, if you had a rare > building with a low air-side static pressure drop to begin with and a long, > high head pumping system, then its possible that the CAV system will be more > efficient overall. > > > > Aaron > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:13 AM, James V Dirkes II, PE > wrote: > > Deepak, > > Here are some thoughts: > > ? Less fan energy = less cooling load, since the fan energy is a > part of the total cooling load. > > ? If the pump is variable volume, the pump energy required for VAV > fans will be slightly less due to less fan heat to cool. > > ? If you are using the identical chiller for each system (VAV, > CAV), then the chiller should use less energy also, due to less fan and pump > heat. > > ? A more common comparison would be to contrast a VAV chiller > system with a CAV packaged rooftop system. For that comparison, the part > load efficiencies of chiller and compressor / DX coil will be a major > factor. Dehumidification will also be different for DX vs. chilled water > coils. > > > > *The Building Performance Team > James V. Dirkes II, P.E., LEED AP > *1631 Acacia Drive NW > Grand Rapids, MI 49504 > 616 450 8653 > > > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Deepak Tewari > *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 2:31 AM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Difference in chiller energy for VAV and CAV system > > > > Dear All, > > I am comparing the energy performance of a constant volume and variable > volume system for a composite climate of India (New Delhi) in EnergyPlus. > The building area is 7500 sq m. The chiller capacity is same for both the > cases. The chilled water to the cooling coils is supplied by a constant > speed pump. > > The savings in the fan energy is evident due to variable speed of the > supply fan in case of VAV. However i am getting energy saving in cooling > energy (chiller energy) also, in VAV compared to CAV, which i feel is due to > higher delta T (chilled water) across cooling coil for CAV compared to VAV, > this in turns increases the chiller electricity consumption. However while > discussions with some consultant, it is their feeling that the cooling > energy would remain same for both type of systems. > > I want to ask has someone else tried this simulation and would there be any > difference in cooling energy or not? > Thanks in advance. > Deepak > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > > > > -- > Sent from my DynaTAC 8000x > > > > > > > -- > Sent from my DynaTAC 8000x > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Nick Caton" > To: "John T. Forester" , < > equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org> > Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:32:28 -0500 > Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!) > > Thanks to some extra guidance from John Forester and David Eldrige, I can > tie up some loose ends Ieft on the list this week. > > > > Analyzing the isolated default curves plotted out, I failed to keep one > thing in perspective: while each demonstrates how the variables (CHWT, CWT, > dT, PLR) independently affect a chiller?s performance, the three curves > ultimately work in concert to produce a net effect each hour. > > > > The EIR-FPLR&dT curve appeared wonky to me because I didn?t remember the > normalized EIR is simulataneously affected by the CHWT and CWT values, > independent of the dT. > > > > I expect many eyes are glazing over =). This is really hard to convey in > text alone, so I brought along some show-and-tell pictures for the group: > > > > The following is the two default EIR curves: EIR-f(t1, t2) and EIR-f(PLR, > dT) I showed earlier, multiplied together for a single CHWT and various > CWT?s. > > In a nutshell, this illustrates how efficiency changes independent of the > effects of the water temperatures on the chiller?s hourly capacity. > > The combined effects of the 2 curves moves their ?sweet spots? into the > range I was expecting: > > [image: cid:image002.png at 01CB7C15.4E6F3720] > > > > ?And the following is the same thing, but adding the effects of the CAP-FT > curve to the mix: all 3 default curves applied together in concert. > > This is what you?re modeling for a centrifugal VSD chiller every time you > rely on the library default curves. > > > > Condenser water temps straying far from the rated conditions (85) get an > efficiency penalty between these curves, just as the isolated CAP-FT curve > indicated. > > These curves pass my personal gut check: they look very much like some > chiller curves I?m used to seeing. > > > > Of note: This visual can serve as a great reference for judging whether > developing custom curves is a worthwhile venture for a given chiller. > > [image: cid:image003.png at 01CB7C15.4E6F3720] > > > > In conclusion, the default curves for centrifugal VSD chillers aren?t that > crazy after all, but be cautioned they can definitely be very different from > your actually equipment. > > > > I tried briefly to figure out who the author(s) of that EDR guideline were > 5 years ago, but came up empty handed? > > Does anyone else agree or disagree with me & John regarding whether it > should be fundamentally sound to define curves from design capacities on > downward (setting DESIGN-PLR=1.0), as long as those capacities aren?t > exceeded in the model at-hand? I?d feel comfier if it felt like a consensus > =). > > > > Thanks everyone, > > > > ~Nick > > > > [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]** > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*** > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > *Check out our new web-site @ *www.smithboucher.com* * > > > > *From:* John T. Forester [mailto:JohnTF at BVHis.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:42 PM > *To:* Nick Caton; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!) > > > > Nick, > > > > Thanks for adding your thoughts. I believe you and I are on the same page > here. > > > > On item 2 below, the help files state that the EIR-FPLR&dT curve must be > normalized to ?full-load? or ?maximum capacity? and not the design > capacity. Intuitively (maybe), if you normalize these curves to the design > capacity and then set the DESIGN-PLR to 1.0, it seems that this is locking > in your design values as maximum values. Physically, the machine may have > more capacity, but your energy model will be limited to these hard-coded > design values. > > > > One way to check the model curve accuracy is to use hourly report > blocks/reports to track the CHW supply temp, entering CW temp, chiller PLR, > chiller EIR. Use your normalized curves to calculate the EIR for each hour > with the CHW and CW temps and PLR. Then compare your calculated EIR with > the EIR from eQuest. I believe you can also track the chiller capacity to > see if it is holding the max capacity based on the DESIGN-PLR value and > chiller capacity value you enter. > > > > John > > > > John T. Forester, P.E., LEED AP, Mechanical Design Engineer *I BVH > Integrated Services I** *617.658.9008 tel *I** *617.244.3753 fax *I** *One > Gateway Center Suite 506, Newton MA 02458 *I www.bvhis.com I Hartford ? > New Haven ? Boston* > >
    > > *From:* Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:40 PM > *To:* John T. Forester; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!) > > > > Yikes? looks like a slew of responses got out before I finished this one, > but I have a lot to say =)? For context you might want to check which email > I?m responding to first, everyone ;). > > > > John, thanks very much for the encouragement. I think I can help further > your thoughts: > > > > 1. Getting a manufacturer vendor to cooperate is indeed tricky for > all parties, and I?m not convinced their selection software really affords > them the capability to find maximum loading points for varying > condenser/evaporater temps in a time-efficient fashion? time will tell but > I?ve got a very smart rep right now promising to see what he can do. > > 2. I?d rest easier knowing it?s perfectly fine to normalize all > three curves to the design conditions and have a PLR of 1.0 equal the design > conditions? except for the DOE2 help entries explicitly telling us that for > centrifugal chillers, ?full load? means ?maximum? (see the highlighted > copy-paste job way down below and the entry for EIR-FPLR as well). > > > > That said, your call to better understand the default curves sounds a lot > like a request, so perhaps I can scratch your back in return ;). Here are > the three curves eQuest pulls from its library when you specify a water > cooled centrifugal chiller? visualized! > > > > Note that each curve is indeed normalized to (Z=1.0 at) ARI conditions. > I?ve followed each with my (novice) observations/commentary. > > The EIR-FPLR&dT curve seems, well, kinda wacky to me! I?ve conferred with > a few other mechanical designers, and we seem to agree that an efficiency > ?sweet spot? for a centrifugal variable speed chiller should lie somewhere > between zero and full loading conditions ? this curve?s shape seems to > demonstrate continually improving efficiencies as you approach zero > loading. Truthfully, there?s a very slight apex that?s hard to see (you can > tell by the curving bands) just off the charted values shown between the 10% > and 20% loading marks, but what chiller has an optimum efficiency at 15% > loading? I?d of this as a ?normal? shape if the z-axis were on some scale > of straight power (kW)? I?d expect that to continually drop off with the PLR > in this fashion, but that z-axis is normalized EIR (kW/ton conceptually, if > not in magnitude)? shouldn?t the default curve have a ?sweet-spot? > efficiency somewhere in the vicinity of 40-60% loading? > > This EIR-FT curve is again normalized (1.0) at ARI conditions, and tells us > that the chiller will be pretty much linearly more efficient as you increase > the CHWT target temperature, and will exponentially increase in efficiency > as the condenser water temperature drops. Raising either has less of an > inverse effect. Nothing seems odd to me. > > This curve is also normalized (1.0) at ARI conditions, and is telling us > the chiller loses capacity when the condenser water either rises or falls > from ARI conditions (20-30% drop from ARI, when CWT is at 100F or 50F, for > example). I?m too new at this to know whether that makes total sense, but > my initial guess would be that colder condenser water would always be help > improve capacity? I?d infer from this curve that centrifugal chillers are > designed and optimized around a specific condenser water temperature, and > that hotter *or* colder condenser water temperatures, for the same CHWT, > hurts your equipment?s potential capacity. I suppose it might well be a > function of the refrigerant?s thermodynamic properties? The CHWT selected > has a linear, but a relative to the CWT minor effect on the capacity of the > chiller. > > > > 3. You?ve nailed my current approach on the head! I?m just > concerned that going against the explicit instructions in the DOE2 help > entries (mentioned above) may have some significant impact on what I?m > modeling? > > 4. Fully agreeing. And kudos for condensing paragraphs of fretting > into a single line answer =). > > > > Thanks again so much for everyone?s input so far. I?d be curious to hear > any other thoughts or second-opinions we as a group may have regarding: > > A. Why does the default part load curve above seems such an odd shape > (at least to my eyes) for a centrifugal VSD chiller? Are my chiller > fundamentals off? > > B. To what end/purpose do the DOE2 help docs and the EDR guidelines > emphasis normalizing the EIR-FPLR curve to maximum vs. design capacities at > the rated conditions, when you can normalize and specify to ARI conditions > and set DESIGN-PLR=1.0 as John and I are discussing? I mean, I understand > that you could get a ?comprehensive? set of curves allowing you to apply the > same chiller to other projects where you have a higher design capacity (or > expect higher capacities will be required), but is there any inherent loss > of accuracy if you build everything around data points encompassing all > extremes present in the simulated model? > > > > ~Nick > > > > [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]** > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*** > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > *Check out our new web-site @ *www.smithboucher.com* * > > > > *From:* John T. Forester [mailto:JohnTF at BVHis.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2010 11:49 AM > *To:* Nick Caton; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!) > > > > Nick, > > > > I think you?re on the right track. Below are some of my thoughts on your > conclusions. I hope the modeling community will set me straight if I?m > wrong here. > > > > 1. Getting multiple performance runs from vendors that show part-load > performance independent of the CW and CHW temps can often be challenging. > Adding the ?maximum capability? task to that for each of the conditions > requires a pretty detailed understanding of the selection software. I?d say > if you can get PLR data for 3-4 different CHW temps while holding the CW > temps constant at 85, 75, 65 (and sometimes lower) ? you?re ahead of most > modelers. Working with the Mechanical Design Engineer and the vendor > together has been successful for me in the past. > 2. Defining the chiller capabilities at the ?maximum? may only come > into play if you expect your model to overload the chiller above the > specified design capacity (I?m thinking building additions or process > loads). At this point, this data (or knowing what the default eQuest curves > do in that range) would be useful. Depending on your project, the time > spent on developing curves for PLR >1.0 may not be justified. > 3. If you don?t have ?max? data and don?t want eQuest to assume > performance at a part-load ratio >1.0, you can set the DESIGN-PLR to 1.0. > 4. Either way, you want your curves to be normalized at whatever > condition you specify (Design or Rated) and you want to enter those values > on the Basic Specifications tab. > > > > John > > > > John T. Forester, P.E., LEED AP, Mechanical Design Engineer *I BVH > Integrated Services I** *617.658.9008 tel *I** *617.244.3753 fax *I** *One > Gateway Center Suite 506, Newton MA 02458 *I www.bvhis.com I Hartford ? > New Haven ? Boston* > >
    > > *From:* Nick Caton [mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2010 12:06 PM > *To:* John T. Forester; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!) > > > > John, > > > > The design/max ratio is exactly what I?m discussing below when I say > ?DESIGN-PLR ratio,? so we?re definitely in the same ballpark =). > > > > I?d like to apply/paraphrase your advice to a few conditions to be sure I?m > getting it correctly: > > - If we create all 3 custom curves, and normalize each to a point > at maximum (not design) capacity, then the design-to-max ratio (DESIGN-PLR) > should be set to 1.00. > > - If we create *only* the part load efficiency curve (EIR-FPLR or > EIR-FPLR&dT), and wish to use the library defaults for EIR-FT and CAP-FT, > then we should normalize this curve?s data points to ARI conditions (as > that?s what the library curves are normalized to, per James?s email ? I > think I?ve read this somewhere also), specify an ARI capacity, EIR and > conditions on the basic specifications tab, and enter a DESIGN-PLR of [ARI > capacity/maximum capacity (for the same conditions)]. > > - If we create all 3 custom curves, and try to normalize each to > either ARI or design conditions, then we should specify capacity, EIR, CHWT, > CWT and condenser GPM corresponding to either the ARI or design conditions > of that normalizing point. In that case, we also specify a DESIGN-PLR using > either the ARI or design capacity divided by the maximum capacity for the > same conditions. > > > > *Profound (to me) Conclusion*: In *No* instance should we *Ever* attempt > creating custom curves and NOT have at least one run from our manufacturer > telling us what the maximum (not design) capacity is for the normalizing > point. This conclusion would only apply to centrifugal chillers only. > > > > Does this all sound right? > > > > ~Nick > > > > > > James, > > > > Yeah, if all the part load data you received held the same CHWT and CWT > equal, you might be able to make your part-load curve if it could have been > a quadratic EIR-FPLR curve (like a reciprocating chiller), but not a > bi-quadratic EIR-FPLR&dT (as with my centrifugal VSD chiller). You > definitely could not approach generating custom EIR-FT or CAP-FT curves > without varying condenser and chilled water temps. That exact issue > happened to me the first few times I tried to reign my chiller reps in =). > > > > This time, I convinced my rep to give me multiple part load runs holding > the CHWT constant and varying the CWT incrementally. This let me build the > bi-quadratic EIR-FPLR&dT curve as I had at least three different dT?s > represented in my part load data points. I plotted the 3D curve in excel to > check my work and darned if the generated coefficients seem to be really > accurate =)! It?s currently looking like a bittersweet revelation however > ? the library curve for a water-cooled centrifugal VSD chiller (see attached > visualization) seems a LOT more generous (more efficient) at low part loads > than the one I?ve generated which matches my rep?s data? I might share a > visual of my custom curve for comparison once I?m dead-sure it?s accurate ? > I?m trying to clarify a few things with my rep right now. > > > > ~Nick > > > > [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]** > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*** > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > *Check out our new web-site @ *www.smithboucher.com* * > > > > *From:* John T. Forester [mailto:JohnTF at BVHis.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2010 10:29 AM > *To:* Nick Caton; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!) > > > > Nick, > > > > When defining a centrifugal chiller in eQuest, one of the items on the > Basic Specifications tab under the Design vs. Rated Conditions is a > Design/Max Cap ratio. By default, this is 92% for a water cooled unit. I > believe this gets at the discussion in the help pages that talks about > maximum capacity versus design capacity and how the chiller vendor will spec > a piece of equipment. Typically, vendors don?t often get asked (or provide) > what the ?Maximum? capacity of a spec?d unit is. Therefore the performance > data that they provide are at ?design conditions.? > > > > If you change the chiller type to a reciprocating chiller, this ?Design/Max > Cap? ratio is disabled and the default specified condition changes from > ?Design Conditions? to ?Rated Conditions.? This suggests that there is > little ?extra? capacity when a selection is done for that type of chiller. > > > > If you do get ?maximum capacity? data and create curves from that data, you > will want to change the Design/Max Cap ratio to 1.0 so eQuest knows that > there isn?t any spare capacity at the chiller. Also if the data points you > are using to normalize your curves are different than the design conditions > for your energy model, you will want to change the ?Chiller Specified at? > value to ?Rated Conditions? and enter the rated conditions for CHW temp, CW > temp and CW gpm/ton to match your normalized curves. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > John > > > > John T. Forester, P.E., LEED AP, Mechanical Design Engineer *I BVH > Integrated Services I** *617.658.9008 tel *I** *617.244.3753 fax *I** *One > Gateway Center Suite 506, Newton MA 02458 *I www.bvhis.com I Hartford ? > New Haven ? Boston* > >
    > > *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Nick Caton > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 03, 2010 11:03 AM > *To:* Carol Gardner; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!) > > > > Thanks for the response Carol! > > > > That 120% load case is what I?m getting at ? let me try to explain a little > further: > > > > In the DOE2 help files, the vocabulary for centrifugal chillers is ?design > capacity? and ?maximum capacity,? where ?design? means the capacity at the > rated or designed conditions (at which you define / specify your chiller), > and ?maximum? means the capacity the chiller is really capable of under the > same conditions if it runs balls-out (maximum power to the refrigerant > drive). > > > > The help file excerpt I copied below with the red line is pretty explicitly > telling us to normalize the part load values to the *maximum* capacity for > centrifugal chillers. I?ve highlighted a second line for clarity. The EDR > guidelines I linked below are saying you can instead normalize to the * > design* capacity for the EIR-PLR curve if that?s all your field > measurements or manufacturer rep can provide. > > > > I?m asking ? are both approaches right? > > > > My first and second questions are kinda tied together? How would choosing > to normalize to either the maximum or design conditions affect how we should > handle the DESIGN-PLR ratio, if at all? > > > > > > ~Nick. > > > > [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]** > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*** > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > *Check out our new web-site @ *www.smithboucher.com* * > > > > *From:* Carol Gardner [mailto:cmg750 at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:04 PM > *To:* Nick Caton > *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Chiller Curves (oh boy!) > > > > Let me take a crack at this. If by design capacity you mean the chiller > running at 100% load, you would create the curve(s) by normalizing around > your ARI design conditions i.e. the PLR curve would be 1.0 at this point, > call it ARI Cap and the other points would be 90% Cap/ARI Cap, 80% Cap/ARI > Cap, etc. The same would go for your temp curves. If, however, your chiller > is operating at 120%, or some such other level, I would normalize the curve > around the ARI design conditions of the chiller at 120%. I had to do this > for a VRV hp that was selected at the 120% design condition. > > I find this from the DOE2 manual the most helpful: > > > > Volume 2: Dictionary > HVAC Components> > CURVE-FIT > INPUT-TYPE = DATA > INDEPENDENT-2 > > Used for all curves having two independent variables. A list of up to > twenty values of the second independent variable. The number of values > should be the same as for DEPENDENT. > > *Example 1*: defining a curve by inputting a set of data points. > > A packaged system (PZS) has cooling performance significantly different > from that used in the default model. The manufacturer lists the data shown > in Table 46, for cooling capacity, at 2000 cfm design air flow rate, as a > function of outside dry-bulb temperature and entering wet-bulb temperature. > > Table 46 Cooling capacity (kBtu/hr) vs. temperature > > *Outside > Dry-bulb* > > *Entering Wet-bulb* > > *72F* > > *67F* > > *62F* > > 85F > > 69 > > 65 > > 60 > > 95F > > 68 > > 63 (ARI) > > 57 > > 105F > > 65 > > 60 > > 53 > > 115F > > 62 > > 55 > > 49 > > > > In this example the independent variables are the entering wet-bulb > temperature and the outside dry-bulb temperature. Because there are two > independent variables and they have units of temperature, we input a curveof TYPE BI-QUADRATIC-T using the given data points. The dependent variable > is not the cooling capacity listed in the table but rather the cooling > capacity divided by the cooling capacity at the ARI rating point (95 F > outside dry-bulb and 67 F entering wet-bulb). In other words, the capacities > should be normalized to the ARI rating point., as shown in Table 47 > > Table 47 Normalized capacity vs. temperature > > *Outside > Dry-bulb* > > *Entering Wet-bulb* > > *72F* > > *67F* > > *62F* > > 85F > > 1.095 > > 1.032 > > 0.952 > > 95F > > 1.079 > > 1.0 (ARI) > > 0.905 > > 105F > > 1.032 > > 0.952 > > 0.841 > > 115F > > 0.984 > > 0.873 > > 0.778 > > > > The CURVE-FIT input will look like the following: > > CAP-CURVE-1 = CURVE-FIT > TYPE = BI-QUADRATIC-T > INPUT-TYPE = DATA > DEPENDENT = (1.000,1.079,0.905,1.032,0.952,0.841, > 0.984,0.873,0.778,1.095,1.032,0.952) .. > IN-TEMP1 = ( 67, 72, 62, 72, 67, 62, > 72, 67, 62, 72, 67, 62) .. > IN-TEMP2 = ( 95, 95, 95, 105, 105, 105, > 115, 115, 115, 85 85, 85) .. > > *Example 2:* Defining a curve by inputting coefficients > > We want a furnace to have a constant efficiency as a function of part load. > To do this we must replace the default FURNACE-HIR-FPLR with a curve that > will give a constant efficiency. The curve TYPE is QUADRATIC in the part > load ratio (PLR). PLR correction curves are always multiplied by the unit > capacity, not the load, to obtain the energy (fuel or electricity) use. Thus > the curve we want is: 0.0 + 1.0*PLR + 0.0*PLR*PLR. The input will look > like: > > New-Furnace-HIR-fPLR = CURVE-FIT > TYPE = QUADRATIC > INPUT-TYPE = COEFFICIENTS > COEFFICIENTS = (0.0,1.0,0.0) .. > > Then in the SYSTEM command we include: > > FURNACE-HIR-FPLR = New-Furnace-HIR-fPLR > > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Nick Caton > wrote: > > Hi everyone! > > > > I think I have *finally* wrapped my mind completely around custom chiller > performance curves for a centrifugal VSD chiller. I?ve got a few specific > questions now that I?m on the other side of the fence: > > > > 1. Is it necessary for the data points of a part load efficiency > curve (EIR-FPLR&dT in my case) to originate from data with a 1.0 (100%) PLR > ratio corresponding to a maximum vs. a design load capacity? From what I > gather in the EDR reference(re: ?Method 2? on PDF page 32/65), this curve can be generated using > part-load readings assuming a *design* capacity at the 100% loading mark? > but the DOE2 help entry for ?EIR-FPLR? seems to suggest otherwise (copied > below ? see highlighted line). > > 2. If the above part load efficiency curve is created based on data > where the 100% loading point corresponds to the maximum (not design) > capacity, should ?DESIGN-PLR? (the ratio of design to maximum capacity) be > set to 1.00 and the capacity of the chiller be specified at its maximum (not > design) for the design/rated conditions? As I write this question it sounds > like I?m chasing my tail ? someone straighten me out =)! > > 3. When you veterans finish a project with sets of custom > performance curves, do you have any suggestions for a naming scheme for > future reference/re-use? I?m currently thinking to keep the curves grouped > in an .inp snippet I for importing along with an equipment cutsheet? but I?m > certain I?ll forget the all the details as quickly as humanly possible when > this project is behind me? > > > > ~Nick > > > > [image: cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB] > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.* > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > *Check out our new web-site @ *www.smithboucher.com* * > > *EIR-FPLR* > > Takes the U-name of a curve that adjusts the electric input ratio as a > function of > > ? *The part load ratio (PLR)* ? The PLR is defined as the ratio of the > hourly load to the hourly capacity; Load / Caphour > > ? *The evaporator/condenser dT* - The temperature differential between > the condenser and leaving chilled-water. The meaning of the condenser > temperature varies according to condenser type. > > For most chillers, the dT has a relatively small effect on part-load > performance. However, for variable-speed centrifugal chillers, the effect of > dT is as important as the PLR. This is because the pressure rise across the > impeller is proportional to the square of the impeller?s speed. Unless some > form on condenser temperature relief is employed to reduce the temperature > (and pressure) differential across the chiller at part load, the performance > of a variable-speed chiller may not be significantly different than that of > a constant-speed chiller. > > To model power consumption as a function of the PLR only, use a CURVE-FIT > of TYPE = QUADRATIC or CUBIC. To model as a function of both PLR and dT, > use a BI-QUADRATIC-RATIO&DT curve. *The curve must be normalized to 1.0 at > full load and the rated temperature differential. * > > *Note that, for centrifugal chillers, ?full load? is defined as the > ?maximum capacity?, not the ?design capacity?.* Refer to the DESIGN-PLR > keyword for more information. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Pedro Peixeiro > To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:38:50 +0000 > Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Double Facades - EPlus > Hi Francisco. > > If your facade is made up of only opaque construction and/or you want to > make a simple study of it, you can check the > SurfaceProperty:ExteriorNaturalVentedCavity. For more detailed modelling, or > if you facade is made of glassings, you should model the facade as a > independent zone, and use airflownetwork objects to setup openings, virtual > partitions and airflow. > Convection on the outside of the facade shouldn't be much of a problem, the > tricky one is the inside convection. EPlus doens't have an algorithm > specified for these kinds of building elements, so you'll have to choose the > one that best suits your needs. > > Pedro. > > > > On 22-03-2011 18:44, Francisco Massucci wrote: > > Hi, > > Does anyone knows how to modeling double facedes in EnergyPlus? Like a > lightweight ceramic facede, located 10cm away from a traditional concrete > masonry wall. I figured if modeling an thin extra zone could be work, or if > its possible to work with the second facede only as a huge shading device. I > think the most important in these cases is the amount of natural > convection that occur around the exterior of the building but none of my > proposals, this fact is taken into account. > I appreciate if anyone can help me, > Sorry about my bad english. > > Francisco Massucci > Architect - S?o Paulo - Brasil > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing listhttp://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Evgenia Gorbachinsky > To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:51:36 -0400 > Subject: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design > with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 > Good Afternoon, > > Our client would like to get a tax deduction reducing the building's energy > and power costs by 50% in comparison to a building meeting requirements set > by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001. This standard does not have Appendix G. > Could anybody help to understand,please, how I can do it. > Do I need to Use section 11 ( Energy cost budget method) of the standard > or I need to use the same systems and plants in both cases, but different > lighting density, building envelope and energy rates according to the actual > design for the proposed design and Standard 90.1-2001 for the baseline > design? > > > Thanks. > > -- > With best wishes, > Genia Gorbachinsky > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Deru, Michael" > To: Evgenia Gorbachinsky , " > bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org" > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:04:52 -0600 > Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed > design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 > > Dear Genia, > > > > Please see the DOE web site for more information about the tax deduction > and the following NREL report for guidance on calculating the savings. In > addition, DOE and NREL are working on a simplified tool for the tax > deduction calculations that will be available in April. > > > > http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tax_incentives.html > > http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40467.pdf > > > > Michael > > > > Michael Deru, Ph.D. > > Senior Engineer II > > Commercial Buildings Research Group > > National Renewable Energy Laboratory > > 303-384-7503 (o) > > 303-725-3528 (c) > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Evgenia > Gorbachinsky > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:52 AM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed > design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 > > > > Good Afternoon, > > Our client would like to get a tax deduction reducing the building's energy > and power costs by 50% in comparison to a building meeting requirements set > by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001. This standard does not have Appendix G. > Could anybody help to understand,please, how I can do it. > Do I need to Use section 11 ( Energy cost budget method) of the standard > or I need to use the same systems and plants in both cases, but different > lighting density, building envelope and energy rates according to the actual > design for the proposed design and Standard 90.1-2001 for the baseline > design? > > > Thanks. > > -- > With best wishes, > Genia Gorbachinsky > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Robert Gengelbach" > To: "'Evgenia Gorbachinsky'" , < > bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org> > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:05:04 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed > design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 > > There are specific rules for the procedure included in the NREL/TP > 550-40467. You are supposed to follow the 90.1-2004 Appendix G (since to > 2001 does not have an Appendix G) you are also supposed to use many > utilization and tstat schedules from California Title 24. > > > > *[image: cid:image003.png at 01C9AB43.F0BEE290]* > > *Robert Gengelbach, PE, BEMP, LEED*?* **AP BD+C* > > *Sustainable Mechanical Design Associates, Inc* > > 89 Monroe Center NW > > Suite 302 > > Grand Rapids, MI 49503 > > P: (616) 776-9009 > > F: (616) 776-9010 > > C: (616) 570-2329 > > www.sustainablemech.com > > rgengelbach at sustainablemech.com > > * * > > P* **Please print only if necessary* > > > > > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Evgenia > Gorbachinsky > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:52 PM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed > design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 > > > > Good Afternoon, > > Our client would like to get a tax deduction reducing the building's energy > and power costs by 50% in comparison to a building meeting requirements set > by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001. This standard does not have Appendix G. > Could anybody help to understand,please, how I can do it. > Do I need to Use section 11 ( Energy cost budget method) of the standard > or I need to use the same systems and plants in both cases, but different > lighting density, building envelope and energy rates according to the actual > design for the proposed design and Standard 90.1-2001 for the baseline > design? > > > Thanks. > > -- > With best wishes, > Genia Gorbachinsky > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Hensen, J.L.M." > To: "bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org" , " > ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org" , " > esp-r at lists.strath.ac.uk" > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:08:01 +0100 > Subject: [Bldg-sim] fully funded PhD position at TU Eindhoven > > Dear all, > > We currently have a fully funded building performance simulation PhD > position available. The project is a part of the just started > Dutch research project ?Climate Proof Cities? > http://knowledgeforclimate.climateresearchnetherlands.nl/nl/25222878-Climate_Proof_Cities.html which > involves a large number of universities and research institutes. The aim of > this programme is to generate knowledge for adapting the built environment > in order to cope with future climate change. > > Details about the vacancy ?Climate change adaptation measures: adaptive > buildings and occupants? are at > http://jobs.tue.nl/wd/plsql/wd_portal.show_job?p_web_site_id=3085&p_web_page_id=109720&p_order_by= > > Please don't hesitate to contact me for further information. > > I would appreciate it very much if you could forward this message > to potential applicants. > > Thanks in advance! > Jan > > > > ........................................ > > prof. dr. ir. Jan L.M. Hensen | Eindhoven University of Technology | Building > Physics & Systems | P.O. Box 513 - VRT6.18 | 5600 MB EINDHOVEN, > Netherlands | +31 (0)40 247 2988 | www.bwk.tue.nl/bps/hensen > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Kerry Gorczynski > To: "bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org" > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:52:52 -0400 > Subject: [Bldg-sim] 90.1 Appendix G - Resizing Baseline Systems to Meet > Unmet Load Requirements (G3.1.2.2) > > Hello Everyone, > > > > I know there have been quite a few posts in the past regarding the > definition and clarification of unmet hours in an energy model. I had a > question outside of that ? particularly when the baseline system needs to be > resized to meet the requirements of G3.1.2.2: > > > > If unmet load hours in the p*roposed design *exceed the unmet load hours > in the *baseline building *by more than 50, simulated capacities in the *baseline > building *shall be decreased incrementally and the building resimulated > until the unmet load hours are within 50 of the unmet load hours of the *proposed > design*. > > > > When we do this, do we need to resize the CFM of the system to maintain the > supply-air-to-room-air temperature difference of 20?F, etc. used in sizing > the baseline? I could see this becoming a lengthy process of reducing > cooling capacity, then fan CFM, etc. and was just wondering if anyone had > any thoughts on it. > > > > Thanks, > > Kerry > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > Bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > > -- D.E.V.S.Kiran Kumar Graduate Student Building Technology & Construction Management Division Indian Institute of Technology Madras Mobile: +91 99622 47007 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Harris.Poirazis at arup.com Fri Mar 25 03:53:29 2011 From: Harris.Poirazis at arup.com (Harris Poirazis) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:53:29 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Double Facades - EPlus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0319F4B98420ED4E810334664AC22E6A0405494C14@EURXMBC02.global.arup.com> Kiran, I would say that you can select the best tool depending on your needs and the required output. The mode of the DSF (natural/mechanical ventilation), the control systems, the position of shading within the ventilated cavity, the type of DSF (multi-story, box window, etc), the origin and destination of the air (DSF, airflow window), etc are some of the parameters that will define that. In terms of tool validation of DSF there was an IEA validation task (34) (http://www.iea-shc.org/task34/subtask/index.html) that you can look into and see the comparative and empirical output. I am using IDA ICE 4.0 (incorporates the ISO 15099) and E+ depending on my needs. I believe that in DSFs it is essential to have an insight on the tools physics and these 2 tools allow you that. There are simpler tools depending on your needs such as Parasol (also using the ISO 15099) and WIS for steady state boundary conditions. As to calculation methods you can download the literature review report from the IEA website: http://www.iea-shc.org/publications/downloads/Task34-Double_Skin_Facades_A_Literature_Review1.pdf I hope this is of some use. Best regards, Harris Poirazis Harris Poirazis Engineer | Facade Engineering (Building Physics) Arup 13 Fitzroy Street London W1T 4BQ United Kingdom t +44 20 7636 1531 d +44 20 7755 4546 f +44 20 7755 3626 m +44 7713 068 050 www.arup.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of kiran kumar Sent: 25 March 2011 04:50 To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Double Facades - EPlus Hi all, Can anyone suggest the best tool to model double skin facades with glazing? Kiran ____________________________________________________________ Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tiwari.sambhav at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 05:12:10 2011 From: tiwari.sambhav at gmail.com (sambhav tiwari) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:42:10 +0530 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Systems and zones Message-ID: Hi All, There are some conditioned rooms in my building which are served by two small ceiling suspended AHU but how can we assign two systems(AHU) to a single zone, assigning of 1 system to two or more zones is possible can the reverse be possible also, if not then the two sytems which are assigned for same zone will have individual kw/cfm how can i get equivalent kw/cfm which is combining the two i mean to say that the two AHUs will have there cfms i can create a single system(AHU) of cfm equal to sum of both but how will i get kw/cfm for this system i cannot add the two systems (AHU1,2) motor KW . I anticipate for any reply Thanks Sambhav From Daniel.Studer at nrel.gov Fri Mar 25 13:51:42 2011 From: Daniel.Studer at nrel.gov (Studer, Daniel) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:51:42 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] NREL Energy Modeler SME Request Message-ID: Opportunity Announcement The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is currently sponsoring a project to develop (1) job task analyses (JTAs), which identify and catalog all of the activities a worker performs in a given job; and (2) the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), which define the minimum requirements necessary for a person to adequately perform those tasks, for the following six commercial building job categories: - Energy modeler - Operating engineer/building technician - Building energy auditor - Energy/sustainability manager - Commissioning/retro-commissioning practitioner - Facility manager The project goal is to create "national guidelines" which will define a common body of knowledge that any training organization will be able to draw from when developing curriculum, helping to bring the core competencies imparted by training organizations to their trainees into common alignment. This body of knowledge will also be used by the General Services Administration and the Department of Energy to help meet the requirements of the Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act of 2010. To facilitate development of the JTAs/KSAs, Professional Testing, Inc. is seeking current industry practitioners who are interested in helping to define, promote energy efficiency in, and support their field of practice by participating in these JTA/KSA development workshops. Interested individuals are invited to submit their credentials at http://proftesting.rapidinsites.com. Please note that each JTA/KSA workshop will take place in Denver, Colorado and is anticipated to last 3 full days (not including travel). Reimbursement for travel costs up to a fixed amount and a travel per diem will be awarded to individuals selected for participation. Additional project details, including how practitioners will be selected and where to direct project-related questions, can be found using the above link. NREL and Professional Testing, Inc. are excited to present this unique opportunity for individuals to have their voices heard in this important discussion. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, The NREL Commercial Workforce Development Team From l.f.r.peeters at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 05:31:24 2011 From: l.f.r.peeters at gmail.com (leen peeters) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:31:24 +0100 Subject: [Bldg-sim] particle transport in case of evaporating droplets Message-ID: Dear all, could someone indicate me (online available) recent PhD work on the subject of particle transport in case of evaporating droplets e.g. in case of person-to-person exposure? The main interest is in i;provements that could be done to the current numerical techniques for teh solultion of this problem. Thanks, leen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Mon Mar 28 02:41:43 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 04:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) In-Reply-To: <4D8B350A.9080404@gmail.com> References: <4D8B350A.9080404@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hm? The heart of your query isn?t really crystal clear to me, but I?ll take a stab: Section A1.2 says if a building official feels sections A2 through A8 do not ?adequately represent? the proposed construction, Section A9 is to be used, but A.9.2.e. curtly says no alternate procedures are permitted to find alternative F-factors for SOG floors. At first glance, it would appear the 90.1 committee might be giving any extremely meticulous building officials/reviewers/designers the run-around. The way I see it, Section A6 in its entirety is suggesting concrete slab thickness varying from 6 inches ?doesn?t matter much.? More precisely: ?Real-world? SOG design within the confines of any 90.1 calculations shall be restricted to the following variables: 1. The R-value of any insulation, if present 2. The configuration of said insulation, if present, 3. Whether the slab is heated Note there are a series of variables are not brought up or either explicitly held constant, beyond slab thickness, and I understand these all can have a decent effect on perimeter conductivity: 1. What?s on top of the slab 2. Slab height relative to grade / footing exposure 3. Soil conductivity/moisture properties For further reading, I know there are multiple white papers out there going well into depth if that?s what you?re seeking ? LBNL comes to mind as being part of some research? I personally haven?t charged myself with crunching the numbers up to this point, rather letting my software of choice do the legwork. The reasons I would speculate that section A6.1 specifies a 6? thickness would include 1. It helps ground/quantify from what the numbers in the table are derived 2. It gives a reference to the base construction?s thermal mass ? necessary should you wish to model something different for your proposed constructions within the context of, say, an Appendix G performance rating. 3. While a strict reading of appendix A might lead one to believe all constructions used in all calculations must follow the prescribed values, I?ve only ever run into one reviewer who called into question the use of custom constructions and ASHRAE Fundamentals-derived materials/properties which do not appear within the (relatively abbreviated) Appendix A. I think the real intent is to provide a description of those constructions as defined earlier in the code ? namely envelope constructions in the context of describing either a ?prescriptive minimum? or in the context of energy modeling as the ?baseline constructions.? I do not believe the intent of Appendix A is to restrict/limit the design decisions that may be made outside of the presented materials/tables. I?m on a bit of a limb here, but I?m speculating at what may have prompted your question? does this miss the mark? ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr. Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:12 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) knowing that 1) appendix a, section 6.1, references that "For the purpose of Section A1.2, the base assembly is a slab floor of 6 in. concrete poured directly on to the earth ..." meets the requirement for an unheated slab f-factor of 0.73, and 2) section a6.3, f-factors for slab-on-grade floors, a.6.3.1 states: "F-factors for slab-on-grade floors shall be taken from Table A6.3", and 3) section a6.3.2 states: "These F-factors are acceptable for all slab-on-grade floors." does the "all slab-on-grade floors" really mean any thickness of slab-on-grade? i.e. section 6.1 references a 6-inch uninsulated slab meeting the 0.73 f-factor requirement, but per sections a6.3.2 and table a6.3 a 4-inch uninsulated slab (or an 8-inch uninsulated slab) would also meet the 0.73 f-factor requirement. so why would section a6.1 specify a 6-inch slab when any slab thickness will suffice? the user's manuals (both years) just refer to table a6.3 for f-factor values. the state of washington has a similar section in its energy code (see link below), page 41, table 4-2. section 1003.2 (also page 41) lists "All on-grade slab floors as assumed to be 6 inch concrete poured directly onto the earth." note that on page 40, table 10.1, the f-factors decrease the deeper the below grade the slab-on-grade floor is. http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/wa_energy.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From poleary1969 at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 04:21:30 2011 From: poleary1969 at gmail.com (Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr.) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 04:21:30 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) In-Reply-To: References: <4D8B350A.9080404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D906F3A.8030306@gmail.com> you're pretty much right on the same track. i realized after i sent it the email only had the main question buried in the middle and i have a side question to go with it. main question: what is the f-factor of a 4" concrete slab? reason for question: most architects in southern arizona specify, and contractors build, an unheatd 4" concrete slab for standard office/retail. 6" concrete slab for warehouses and other spaces where heavier loads are common. secondary question: does a building with a 4" concrete slab meet the f-factor requirements of 90.1 per table A6.3? (unheated or heated, unheated in my case though). reason for question: need to demonstrate 90.1-2004/2007 compliance for floor f-factor. unclear as to answer. 1. all of the research/other references to f-factors that i've found also reference the 6" slab, the same research, and 90.1, and from what i've seen/can tell they only tested at a 6" slab with 8" and 4" walls and varying insulations. 2. the problem with calculating an f-factor, even if using ashrae fundamentals derived constructions, per 90.1, is that calculations are prohibited by Section A9 Determination of Alternate Assembly U-Factors, C-Factors, or F-Factors, or Heat Capacities, SubSection A9.2(e), "Slab-on-Grade Floors: no testing or calculations allowed." 3. which leads me back to section a6.3.2, which states in reference to Table A6.3, "These /F-factors/ are acceptable for all /slab-on-grade floors/." - but is it really? how does one defend a building official or leed review comment for a 4" slab f-factor? if section a.6.3.2 is literally correct then the f-factor for an unheated 4" slab is the same 0.73 as an unheated 6" slab. since the f-factor is based on linear feet and not square feet this could make sense if the thermal capacity of the thickness of the slab does not matter for f-factor. note though that 4", 6", and 8" lightweight concrete all have the same conductivity (3.7), density (80), and specific heat (0.22) (per the 2009 fundamentals). knowing the thickness of the slab may be insignificant to the f-factor calculation is one thing, proving/demonstrating it to a code official/leed reviewer is another. i have asked my local code officials (who are pe's also) and they don't know the the answer(s) either ... On 3/28/11 2:41 AM, Nick Caton wrote: > > Hm? > > The heart of your query isn?t really crystal clear to me, but I?ll > take a stab: > > Section A1.2 says if a building official feels sections A2 through A8 > do not ?adequately represent? the proposed construction, Section A9 is > to be used, but A.9.2.e. curtly says no alternate procedures are > permitted to find alternative F-factors for SOG floors. At first > glance, it would appear the 90.1 committee might be giving any > extremely meticulous building officials/reviewers/designers the > run-around. > > The way I see it, Section A6 in its entirety is suggesting concrete > slab thickness varying from 6 inches ?doesn?t matter much.? > > More precisely: ?Real-world? SOG design within the confines of any > 90.1 calculations shall be restricted to the following variables: > > 1. The R-value of any insulation, if present > > 2. The configuration of said insulation, if present, > > 3. Whether the slab is heated > > Note there are a series of variables are not brought up or either > explicitly held constant, beyond slab thickness, and I understand > these all can have a decent effect on perimeter conductivity: > > 1. What?s on top of the slab > > 2. Slab height relative to grade / footing exposure > > 3. Soil conductivity/moisture properties > > For further reading, I know there are multiple white papers out there > going well into depth if that?s what you?re seeking ? LBNL comes to > mind as being part of some research? I personally haven?t charged > myself with crunching the numbers up to this point, rather letting my > software of choice do the legwork. > > The reasons I would speculate that section A6.1 specifies a 6? > thickness would include > > 1. It helps ground/quantify from what the numbers in the table are derived > > 2. It gives a reference to the base construction?s thermal mass ? > necessary should you wish to model something different for your > proposed constructions within the context of, say, an Appendix G > performance rating. > > 3. While a strict reading of appendix A might lead one to believe all > constructions used in all calculations must follow the prescribed > values, I?ve only ever run into one reviewer who called into question > the use of custom constructions and ASHRAE Fundamentals-derived > materials/properties which do not appear within the (relatively > abbreviated) Appendix A. I think the real intent is to provide a > description of those constructions as defined earlier in the code ? > namely envelope constructions in the context of describing either a > ?prescriptive minimum? or in the context of energy modeling as the > ?baseline constructions.? I do not believe the intent of Appendix A > is to restrict/limit the design decisions that may be made outside of > the presented materials/tables. > > I?m on a bit of a limb here, but I?m speculating at what may have > prompted your question? does this miss the mark? > > ~Nick > > cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB** > > * * > > *NICK CATON, E.I.T.*** > > PROJECT ENGINEER > > Smith & Boucher Engineers > > 25501 west valley parkway > > olathe ks 66061 > > direct 913 344.0036 > > fax 913 345.0617 > > www.smithboucher.com_ _ > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org > [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Patrick > J. O'Leary, Jr. > *Sent:* Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:12 AM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) > > knowing that > > 1) appendix a, section 6.1, references that "For the purpose of > Section A1.2, the base assembly is a slab floor of 6 in. concrete > poured directly on to the earth ..." meets the requirement for an > unheated slab f-factor of 0.73, and > 2) section a6.3, f-factors for slab-on-grade floors, a.6.3.1 states: > "/F-factors/ for slab-on-grade floors shall be taken from Table A6.3", and > 3) section a6.3.2 states: "These /F-factors/ are acceptable for all > /slab-on-grade floors/." > > does the "all slab-on-grade floors" really mean any thickness of > slab-on-grade? i.e. section 6.1 references a 6-inch uninsulated slab > meeting the 0.73 f-factor requirement, but per sections a6.3.2 and > table a6.3 a 4-inch uninsulated slab (or an 8-inch uninsulated slab) > would also meet the 0.73 f-factor requirement. so why would section > a6.1 specify a 6-inch slab when any slab thickness will suffice? the > user's manuals (both years) just refer to table a6.3 for f-factor values. > > the state of washington has a similar section in its energy code (see > link below), page 41, table 4-2. section 1003.2 (also page 41) lists > "All on-grade slab floors as assumed to be 6 inch concrete poured > directly onto the earth." note that on page 40, table 10.1, the > f-factors decrease the deeper the below grade the slab-on-grade floor is. > http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/wa_energy.pdf > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kswartz at ecw.org Mon Mar 28 06:10:05 2011 From: kswartz at ecw.org (Keith Swartz) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:10:05 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] eQUEST Training & LEED May 3-5 Message-ID: <912C14F60976CE428135CE5A102DA3C2B5A1680664@SBS.ecw.local> NEW eQUEST TRAINING SERIES IN MADISON, WI, MAY 3-5 Please register in advance as these trainings are expected to sell-out. Introductory and Intermediate eQUEST...the QUick Energy Simulation Tool Presented by Keith Swartz, P.E., LEED AP and Marlin Addison Tuesday, May 3- 4, 2011 in Madison, WI http://www.ecw.org/university/ecuevent.php?ecuid=378 Explore the effects of design decisions on building energy consumption, energy demand, and energy cost. The eQUEST energy modeling tool provides various levels of user sophistication and functionality, making it useful for "big picture" early design decisions as well as the detailed fine-tuning of advanced building systems. For more information or to register online, click here. LEED Energy Modeling with eQUEST* Presented by Amanda Bogner, P.E., LEED AP Thursday, May 5, 2011 in Madison, WI http://www.ecw.org/university/ecuevent.php?ecuid=380 This course presents an in-depth overview of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendix G and demonstrates how to develop baseline and proposed case models using the eQUEST energy analysis software. Common LEED documentation pitfalls will be discussed, along with tips on how to submit a successful energy model for LEED review. For more information or to register online, click here. *Prerequisite Attendance at Introductory and Intermediate eQUEST or intermediate knowledge of eQUEST from prior experience. Cost The registration fee for attending LEED energy modeling with eQUEST is $289, which includes continental breakfast, refreshments, lunch, and program materials. Attend the three day series of eQUEST trainings for the discounted rate of $799! Rave reviews * "I learned that eQUEST is the perfect tool for us to use to help make design decisions early in the process to create a more energy efficient building by implementing changes that are the best value to the client." * "The discussion was extremely enlightening because actual eQUEST modeling problems were discussed and applied." * "I thought the training was great, and the instructors are very knowledgeable." * "One of the best educators I have experienced." * "Absolutely excellent instructor!" Register Now ________________________________ Keith Swartz, P.E., LEED AP Energy Engineer / Senior Project Manager Energy Center of Wisconsin 455 Science Drive, Suite 200, Madison, WI 53711 Phone: 608.238.8276 x123 Fax: 608.238.0523 The Buildings Team Design decisions through energy, economics and emissions analysis. www.ecw.org/Buildings Energy Center University Your gateway to sustainable design training and online education programs. www.ecw.org/university/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cj at enersave.ca Mon Mar 28 06:29:41 2011 From: cj at enersave.ca (Chris Jones) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:29:41 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] 90.1 and swimming pool covers - site recovered energy definition. Message-ID: <20110328134315.617598DB0201@zapata.dreamhost.com> In 90.1-2004, 7.4.5.2 Pool Covers - a pool heated higher than 90?F required an R12 pool cover. We can't locate a automated retraction system with more than an R5. I am trying to determine exactly what site-recovered energy constitutes. The project does recover condenser heat from the chiller to preheat the pool area DHW and pool make-up water. I believe that qualifies as site-recovered energy. My question is does a ground source heat pump or air source heat pump count as site-recovered energy? Chris Jones 14 Oneida Avenue Toronto, ON M5J 2E3. Tel. 416-203-7465 Fax. 416-946-1005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chuck.khuen at wxaglobal.com Mon Mar 28 08:16:21 2011 From: chuck.khuen at wxaglobal.com (Chuck Khuen) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:16:21 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] eQUEST Training & LEED May 3-5 In-Reply-To: <912C14F60976CE428135CE5A102DA3C2B5A1680664@SBS.ecw.local> References: <912C14F60976CE428135CE5A102DA3C2B5A1680664@SBS.ecw.local> Message-ID: BTW to support eQuest users we just added .BIN files to our system so .BIN, .EPW, and .TM2 formats all come out automatically for any request for a 30 yr TMY file or any single year - Actual Meteorological Year (AMY) file. _____________________ Chuck Khuen Principal Weather Analytics Inc. www.weatheranalytics.com 781-856-5383 From: Keith Swartz Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 9:10 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Cc: David Vigliotta Subject: [Bldg-sim] eQUEST Training & LEED May 3-5 NEW eQUEST TRAINING SERIES IN MADISON, WI, MAY 3-5 Please register in advance as these trainings are expected to sell-out. Introductory and Intermediate eQUEST...the QUick Energy Simulation Tool Presented by Keith Swartz, P.E., LEED AP and Marlin Addison Tuesday, May 3- 4, 2011 in Madison, WI http://www.ecw.org/university/ecuevent.php?ecuid=378 Explore the effects of design decisions on building energy consumption, energy demand, and energy cost. The eQUEST energy modeling tool provides various levels of user sophistication and functionality, making it useful for "big picture" early design decisions as well as the detailed fine-tuning of advanced building systems. For more information or to register online, click here. LEED Energy Modeling with eQUEST* Presented by Amanda Bogner, P.E., LEED AP Thursday, May 5, 2011 in Madison, WI http://www.ecw.org/university/ecuevent.php?ecuid=380 This course presents an in-depth overview of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendix G and demonstrates how to develop baseline and proposed case models using the eQUEST energy analysis software. Common LEED documentation pitfalls will be discussed, along with tips on how to submit a successful energy model for LEED review. For more information or to register online, click here. *Prerequisite Attendance at Introductory and Intermediate eQUEST or intermediate knowledge of eQUEST from prior experience. Cost The registration fee for attending LEED energy modeling with eQUEST is $289, which includes continental breakfast, refreshments, lunch, and program materials. Attend the three day series of eQUEST trainings for the discounted rate of $799! Rave reviews ? "I learned that eQUEST is the perfect tool for us to use to help make design decisions early in the process to create a more energy efficient building by implementing changes that are the best value to the client." ? "The discussion was extremely enlightening because actual eQUEST modeling problems were discussed and applied." ? "I thought the training was great, and the instructors are very knowledgeable." ? "One of the best educators I have experienced." ? "Absolutely excellent instructor!" Register Now ________________________________ Keith Swartz, P.E., LEED AP Energy Engineer / Senior Project Manager Energy Center of Wisconsin 455 Science Drive, Suite 200, Madison, WI 53711 Phone: 608.238.8276 x123 Fax: 608.238.0523 The Buildings Team Design decisions through energy, economics and emissions analysis. www.ecw.org/Buildings Energy Center University Your gateway to sustainable design training and online education programs. www.ecw.org/university/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Michael.C.Allison at jci.com Mon Mar 28 08:37:19 2011 From: Michael.C.Allison at jci.com (Michael.C.Allison at jci.com) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:37:19 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] eQuest training Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Mon Mar 28 10:35:23 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:35:23 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) In-Reply-To: <4D906F3A.8030306@gmail.com> References: <4D8B350A.9080404@gmail.com> <4D906F3A.8030306@gmail.com> Message-ID: Alright, we are on the same page! Main Question Answer in short: Use the F-factor of a 6? slab as listed in the table. It?s less work for you, it?s defensible to a reviewer, and this should not significantly impact any calculations relative to the conductivity of an otherwise equivalent 4? slab. Fleshed out responses: 1. I?ve observed the same. 2. This ?runaround?/dead-end you?re also pointing out is the first point of defense against any reviewer or local code officials who would have you do anything else. 90.1 explicitly does not permit any calculations/methodology outside of using that table. 3. So that you can sleep easy at night, note that 90.1 also draws a line regarding what constitutes a significant deviation by defining the term ?adequately represented?: a. A1.2.b. reads (abbreviated): ?An assembly is deemed to be adequately represented if ? changes ? to the base assembly do not increase or decrease the R-value by more than 2 from that indicated?? b. This may seem somewhat arbitrary in discussion of F-factors, but you can be reasonably assured (and further defend the decision to use a 6? F-factor) that an additional 2 inches of concrete in your proposed slab construction, considering all possible concrete mixes, is very likely not going to swing the net R-value of the slab + footing by more than 2. c. My materials charts reference (from 2001 fundamentals) lists only 2 exceptions to that statement ? they?re the very least-dense options for ?polystyrene aggregate? and ?foam concretes*,? which stand apart with a shared listed density of 20pcf. These two in the list have an ?R-per-inch? value above 1. All other values for concrete are around or less than 0.5 per inch. d. If you have to, I?m pretty certain you can quickly calculate the net difference from a 6? slab using materials in fundamentals per above (or better yet, whatever?s listed in Appendix A for concrete), and show any meticulous reviewers/officials that the net difference in terms of R-value is less than 2, referencing A1.2.b. ~Nick * On a complete tangent, a friend of mine did a masters report on lightweight concretes in construction during my last semester, so I once got to play around once with a sample of foam-infused concrete block? That stuff is a mind bender like clear Pepsi from the 90?s! Their densities can be in the vicinity of a block of cork, for reference. Much fun playing one-handed catch with a CMU =). NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr. [mailto:poleary1969 at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 6:22 AM To: Nick Caton Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) you're pretty much right on the same track. i realized after i sent it the email only had the main question buried in the middle and i have a side question to go with it. main question: what is the f-factor of a 4" concrete slab? reason for question: most architects in southern arizona specify, and contractors build, an unheatd 4" concrete slab for standard office/retail. 6" concrete slab for warehouses and other spaces where heavier loads are common. secondary question: does a building with a 4" concrete slab meet the f-factor requirements of 90.1 per table A6.3? (unheated or heated, unheated in my case though). reason for question: need to demonstrate 90.1-2004/2007 compliance for floor f-factor. unclear as to answer. 1. all of the research/other references to f-factors that i've found also reference the 6" slab, the same research, and 90.1, and from what i've seen/can tell they only tested at a 6" slab with 8" and 4" walls and varying insulations. 2. the problem with calculating an f-factor, even if using ashrae fundamentals derived constructions, per 90.1, is that calculations are prohibited by Section A9 Determination of Alternate Assembly U-Factors, C-Factors, or F-Factors, or Heat Capacities, SubSection A9.2(e), "Slab-on-Grade Floors: no testing or calculations allowed." 3. which leads me back to section a6.3.2, which states in reference to Table A6.3, "These F-factors are acceptable for all slab-on-grade floors." - but is it really? how does one defend a building official or leed review comment for a 4" slab f-factor? if section a.6.3.2 is literally correct then the f-factor for an unheated 4" slab is the same 0.73 as an unheated 6" slab. since the f-factor is based on linear feet and not square feet this could make sense if the thermal capacity of the thickness of the slab does not matter for f-factor. note though that 4", 6", and 8" lightweight concrete all have the same conductivity (3.7), density (80), and specific heat (0.22) (per the 2009 fundamentals). knowing the thickness of the slab may be insignificant to the f-factor calculation is one thing, proving/demonstrating it to a code official/leed reviewer is another. i have asked my local code officials (who are pe's also) and they don't know the the answer(s) either ... On 3/28/11 2:41 AM, Nick Caton wrote: Hm? The heart of your query isn?t really crystal clear to me, but I?ll take a stab: Section A1.2 says if a building official feels sections A2 through A8 do not ?adequately represent? the proposed construction, Section A9 is to be used, but A.9.2.e. curtly says no alternate procedures are permitted to find alternative F-factors for SOG floors. At first glance, it would appear the 90.1 committee might be giving any extremely meticulous building officials/reviewers/designers the run-around. The way I see it, Section A6 in its entirety is suggesting concrete slab thickness varying from 6 inches ?doesn?t matter much.? More precisely: ?Real-world? SOG design within the confines of any 90.1 calculations shall be restricted to the following variables: The R-value of any insulation, if present The configuration of said insulation, if present, Whether the slab is heated Note there are a series of variables are not brought up or either explicitly held constant, beyond slab thickness, and I understand these all can have a decent effect on perimeter conductivity: What?s on top of the slab Slab height relative to grade / footing exposure Soil conductivity/moisture properties For further reading, I know there are multiple white papers out there going well into depth if that?s what you?re seeking ? LBNL comes to mind as being part of some research? I personally haven?t charged myself with crunching the numbers up to this point, rather letting my software of choice do the legwork. The reasons I would speculate that section A6.1 specifies a 6? thickness would include It helps ground/quantify from what the numbers in the table are derived It gives a reference to the base construction?s thermal mass ? necessary should you wish to model something different for your proposed constructions within the context of, say, an Appendix G performance rating. While a strict reading of appendix A might lead one to believe all constructions used in all calculations must follow the prescribed values, I?ve only ever run into one reviewer who called into question the use of custom constructions and ASHRAE Fundamentals-derived materials/properties which do not appear within the (relatively abbreviated) Appendix A. I think the real intent is to provide a description of those constructions as defined earlier in the code ? namely envelope constructions in the context of describing either a ?prescriptive minimum? or in the context of energy modeling as the ?baseline constructions.? I do not believe the intent of Appendix A is to restrict/limit the design decisions that may be made outside of the presented materials/tables. I?m on a bit of a limb here, but I?m speculating at what may have prompted your question? does this miss the mark? ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr. Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:12 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) knowing that 1) appendix a, section 6.1, references that "For the purpose of Section A1.2, the base assembly is a slab floor of 6 in. concrete poured directly on to the earth ..." meets the requirement for an unheated slab f-factor of 0.73, and 2) section a6.3, f-factors for slab-on-grade floors, a.6.3.1 states: "F-factors for slab-on-grade floors shall be taken from Table A6.3", and 3) section a6.3.2 states: "These F-factors are acceptable for all slab-on-grade floors." does the "all slab-on-grade floors" really mean any thickness of slab-on-grade? i.e. section 6.1 references a 6-inch uninsulated slab meeting the 0.73 f-factor requirement, but per sections a6.3.2 and table a6.3 a 4-inch uninsulated slab (or an 8-inch uninsulated slab) would also meet the 0.73 f-factor requirement. so why would section a6.1 specify a 6-inch slab when any slab thickness will suffice? the user's manuals (both years) just refer to table a6.3 for f-factor values. the state of washington has a similar section in its energy code (see link below), page 41, table 4-2. section 1003.2 (also page 41) lists "All on-grade slab floors as assumed to be 6 inch concrete poured directly onto the earth." note that on page 40, table 10.1, the f-factors decrease the deeper the below grade the slab-on-grade floor is. http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/wa_energy.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From Jeremy.Poling at transwestern.net Mon Mar 28 10:49:46 2011 From: Jeremy.Poling at transwestern.net (Jeremy Poling) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:49:46 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) In-Reply-To: References: <4D8B350A.9080404@gmail.com><4D906F3A.8030306@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just to throw something out there since you have the motivation right now to research the topic, here?s the extent I?ve ever gone to get to the bottom of the ?F-Factor? questions. ASHRAE Fundamentals 2009 has a discussion on below-grade heat loss calculations starting on Page 18.30. They reference a 1969 research paper as a primary source of information: ?Latta, J.K. and G.G. Boileau. 1969. Heat losses from house basements. Canadian Building 19(10):39.? I haven?t read or researched much beyond 90.1 and Fundamentals for the very reason Nick cited as #1: the standard essentially says not to :) I?m not sure what you?ll find if you are able to get a copy of that research paper, but I?m sure it will shed some interesting light on the topic. Jeremy R. Poling, PE, LEED AP+BDC From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 12:35 PM To: Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr. Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) Alright, we are on the same page! Main Question Answer in short: Use the F-factor of a 6? slab as listed in the table. It?s less work for you, it?s defensible to a reviewer, and this should not significantly impact any calculations relative to the conductivity of an otherwise equivalent 4? slab. Fleshed out responses: 1. I?ve observed the same. 2. This ?runaround?/dead-end you?re also pointing out is the first point of defense against any reviewer or local code officials who would have you do anything else. 90.1 explicitly does not permit any calculations/methodology outside of using that table. 3. So that you can sleep easy at night, note that 90.1 also draws a line regarding what constitutes a significant deviation by defining the term ?adequately represented?: a. A1.2.b. reads (abbreviated): ?An assembly is deemed to be adequately represented if ? changes ? to the base assembly do not increase or decrease the R-value by more than 2 from that indicated?? b. This may seem somewhat arbitrary in discussion of F-factors, but you can be reasonably assured (and further defend the decision to use a 6? F-factor) that an additional 2 inches of concrete in your proposed slab construction, considering all possible concrete mixes, is very likely not going to swing the net R-value of the slab + footing by more than 2. c. My materials charts reference (from 2001 fundamentals) lists only 2 exceptions to that statement ? they?re the very least-dense options for ?polystyrene aggregate? and ?foam concretes*,? which stand apart with a shared listed density of 20pcf. These two in the list have an ?R-per-inch? value above 1. All other values for concrete are around or less than 0.5 per inch. d. If you have to, I?m pretty certain you can quickly calculate the net difference from a 6? slab using materials in fundamentals per above (or better yet, whatever?s listed in Appendix A for concrete), and show any meticulous reviewers/officials that the net difference in terms of R-value is less than 2, referencing A1.2.b. ~Nick * On a complete tangent, a friend of mine did a masters report on lightweight concretes in construction during my last semester, so I once got to play around once with a sample of foam-infused concrete block? That stuff is a mind bender like clear Pepsi from the 90?s! Their densities can be in the vicinity of a block of cork, for reference. Much fun playing one-handed catch with a CMU =). NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr. [mailto:poleary1969 at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 6:22 AM To: Nick Caton Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) you're pretty much right on the same track. i realized after i sent it the email only had the main question buried in the middle and i have a side question to go with it. main question: what is the f-factor of a 4" concrete slab? reason for question: most architects in southern arizona specify, and contractors build, an unheatd 4" concrete slab for standard office/retail. 6" concrete slab for warehouses and other spaces where heavier loads are common. secondary question: does a building with a 4" concrete slab meet the f-factor requirements of 90.1 per table A6.3? (unheated or heated, unheated in my case though). reason for question: need to demonstrate 90.1-2004/2007 compliance for floor f-factor. unclear as to answer. 1. all of the research/other references to f-factors that i've found also reference the 6" slab, the same research, and 90.1, and from what i've seen/can tell they only tested at a 6" slab with 8" and 4" walls and varying insulations. 2. the problem with calculating an f-factor, even if using ashrae fundamentals derived constructions, per 90.1, is that calculations are prohibited by Section A9 Determination of Alternate Assembly U-Factors, C-Factors, or F-Factors, or Heat Capacities, SubSection A9.2(e), "Slab-on-Grade Floors: no testing or calculations allowed." 3. which leads me back to section a6.3.2, which states in reference to Table A6.3, "These F-factors are acceptable for all slab-on-grade floors." - but is it really? how does one defend a building official or leed review comment for a 4" slab f-factor? if section a.6.3.2 is literally correct then the f-factor for an unheated 4" slab is the same 0.73 as an unheated 6" slab. since the f-factor is based on linear feet and not square feet this could make sense if the thermal capacity of the thickness of the slab does not matter for f-factor. note though that 4", 6", and 8" lightweight concrete all have the same conductivity (3.7), density (80), and specific heat (0.22) (per the 2009 fundamentals). knowing the thickness of the slab may be insignificant to the f-factor calculation is one thing, proving/demonstrating it to a code official/leed reviewer is another. i have asked my local code officials (who are pe's also) and they don't know the the answer(s) either ... On 3/28/11 2:41 AM, Nick Caton wrote: Hm? The heart of your query isn?t really crystal clear to me, but I?ll take a stab: Section A1.2 says if a building official feels sections A2 through A8 do not ?adequately represent? the proposed construction, Section A9 is to be used, but A.9.2.e. curtly says no alternate procedures are permitted to find alternative F-factors for SOG floors. At first glance, it would appear the 90.1 committee might be giving any extremely meticulous building officials/reviewers/designers the run-around. The way I see it, Section A6 in its entirety is suggesting concrete slab thickness varying from 6 inches ?doesn?t matter much.? More precisely: ?Real-world? SOG design within the confines of any 90.1 calculations shall be restricted to the following variables: The R-value of any insulation, if present The configuration of said insulation, if present, Whether the slab is heated Note there are a series of variables are not brought up or either explicitly held constant, beyond slab thickness, and I understand these all can have a decent effect on perimeter conductivity: What?s on top of the slab Slab height relative to grade / footing exposure Soil conductivity/moisture properties For further reading, I know there are multiple white papers out there going well into depth if that?s what you?re seeking ? LBNL comes to mind as being part of some research? I personally haven?t charged myself with crunching the numbers up to this point, rather letting my software of choice do the legwork. The reasons I would speculate that section A6.1 specifies a 6? thickness would include It helps ground/quantify from what the numbers in the table are derived It gives a reference to the base construction?s thermal mass ? necessary should you wish to model something different for your proposed constructions within the context of, say, an Appendix G performance rating. While a strict reading of appendix A might lead one to believe all constructions used in all calculations must follow the prescribed values, I?ve only ever run into one reviewer who called into question the use of custom constructions and ASHRAE Fundamentals-derived materials/properties which do not appear within the (relatively abbreviated) Appendix A. I think the real intent is to provide a description of those constructions as defined earlier in the code ? namely envelope constructions in the context of describing either a ?prescriptive minimum? or in the context of energy modeling as the ?baseline constructions.? I do not believe the intent of Appendix A is to restrict/limit the design decisions that may be made outside of the presented materials/tables. I?m on a bit of a limb here, but I?m speculating at what may have prompted your question? does this miss the mark? ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Patrick J. O'Leary, Jr. Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:12 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] f-factor & table a6.3 (90.1-2004 & 2007) knowing that 1) appendix a, section 6.1, references that "For the purpose of Section A1.2, the base assembly is a slab floor of 6 in. concrete poured directly on to the earth ..." meets the requirement for an unheated slab f-factor of 0.73, and 2) section a6.3, f-factors for slab-on-grade floors, a.6.3.1 states: "F-factors for slab-on-grade floors shall be taken from Table A6.3", and 3) section a6.3.2 states: "These F-factors are acceptable for all slab-on-grade floors." does the "all slab-on-grade floors" really mean any thickness of slab-on-grade? i.e. section 6.1 references a 6-inch uninsulated slab meeting the 0.73 f-factor requirement, but per sections a6.3.2 and table a6.3 a 4-inch uninsulated slab (or an 8-inch uninsulated slab) would also meet the 0.73 f-factor requirement. so why would section a6.1 specify a 6-inch slab when any slab thickness will suffice? the user's manuals (both years) just refer to table a6.3 for f-factor values. the state of washington has a similar section in its energy code (see link below), page 41, table 4-2. section 1003.2 (also page 41) lists "All on-grade slab floors as assumed to be 6 inch concrete poured directly onto the earth." note that on page 40, table 10.1, the f-factors decrease the deeper the below grade the slab-on-grade floor is. http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/wa_energy.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From slv3sat at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 11:31:50 2011 From: slv3sat at gmail.com (R B) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:31:50 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2.2 for manufacturing facility Message-ID: It is my understanding that we use App G for LEED energy credit analysis of manufacturing facility (which has some offices etc.) and all the manufacturing load counted as process load. Is this correct? This is based on the LEED 2.2 narative in the energy credit section (Standard 90.1 establishes minimum requirements for the energy-efficient design of buildings, except low-rise residential buildings. The provisions of this standard do not apply to single-family houses, multi-family structures of three stories or fewer above grade, manufactured houses (mobile homes) and manufactured houses (modular), or buildings that do not use either electricity or fossil fuel). The following bullet number 3 in the ashrae standard has me confused, but it is not included in the LEED 2.2 narative. 2.3 The provisions of this standard do not apply to: (a) single-family houses, multi-family structures of three stories or fewer above grade, manufactured houses (mobile homes) and manufactured houses (modular), (b) buildings that do not use either electricity or fossil fuel, or (c) equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes. Thanks -Rohini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheffer at energyopportunities.com Mon Mar 28 11:51:15 2011 From: sheffer at energyopportunities.com (Marcus Sheffer) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:51:15 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2.2 for manufacturing facility In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008901cbed79$1ea95270$5bfbf750$@com> LEED?s use of 90.1 is as an adaptation. 90.1 as a code does not apply to manufacturing facilities, but LEED adapts 90.1 to apply to all inhabited commercial buildings and residential 4 stories and higher buildings. Your first statement as it relates to LEED is correct. Marcus Sheffer Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com www.sevengroup.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of R B Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 2:32 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2.2 for manufacturing facility It is my understanding that we use App G for LEED energy credit analysis of manufacturing facility (which has some offices etc.) and all the manufacturing load counted as process load. Is this correct? This is based on the LEED 2.2 narative in the energy credit section (Standard 90.1 establishes minimum requirements for the energy-efficient design of buildings, except low-rise residential buildings. The provisions of this standard do not apply to single-family houses, multi-family structures of three stories or fewer above grade, manufactured houses (mobile homes) and manufactured houses (modular), or buildings that do not use either electricity or fossil fuel). The following bullet number 3 in the ashrae standard has me confused, but it is not included in the LEED 2.2 narative. 2.3 The provisions of this standard do not apply to: (a) single-family houses, multi-family structures of three stories or fewer above grade, manufactured houses (mobile homes) and manufactured houses (modular), (b) buildings that do not use either electricity or fossil fuel, or (c) equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes. Thanks -Rohini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheffer at energyopportunities.com Mon Mar 28 12:09:14 2011 From: sheffer at energyopportunities.com (Marcus Sheffer) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:09:14 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2.2 for manufacturing facility In-Reply-To: <3D39560EBFFAE546B42020BD8068801F72637029A7@extprdmbx01.bentley.com> References: <008901cbed79$1ea95270$5bfbf750$@com> <3D39560EBFFAE546B42020BD8068801F72637029A7@extprdmbx01.bentley.com> Message-ID: <00a401cbed7b$a1ee2410$e5ca6c30$@com> Hey Dru, Yep my language was not precise enough. Marcus Sheffer Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com www.sevengroup.com From: Dru.Crawley at bentley.com [mailto:Dru.Crawley at bentley.com] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 2:56 PM To: Marcus Sheffer Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2.2 for manufacturing facility Actually it does apply to all buildings (except low-rise residential) ? the scope only excludes: equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes. Not the buildings themselves. From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Marcus Sheffer Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 2:51 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2.2 for manufacturing facility LEED?s use of 90.1 is as an adaptation. 90.1 as a code does not apply to manufacturing facilities, but LEED adapts 90.1 to apply to all inhabited commercial buildings and residential 4 stories and higher buildings. Your first statement as it relates to LEED is correct. Marcus Sheffer Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com www.sevengroup.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of R B Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 2:32 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2.2 for manufacturing facility It is my understanding that we use App G for LEED energy credit analysis of manufacturing facility (which has some offices etc.) and all the manufacturing load counted as process load. Is this correct? This is based on the LEED 2.2 narative in the energy credit section (Standard 90.1 establishes minimum requirements for the energy-efficient design of buildings, except low-rise residential buildings. The provisions of this standard do not apply to single-family houses, multi-family structures of three stories or fewer above grade, manufactured houses (mobile homes) and manufactured houses (modular), or buildings that do not use either electricity or fossil fuel). The following bullet number 3 in the ashrae standard has me confused, but it is not included in the LEED 2.2 narative. 2.3 The provisions of this standard do not apply to: (a) single-family houses, multi-family structures of three stories or fewer above grade, manufactured houses (mobile homes) and manufactured houses (modular), (b) buildings that do not use either electricity or fossil fuel, or (c) equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes. Thanks -Rohini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Daniel.Studer at nrel.gov Mon Mar 28 14:46:08 2011 From: Daniel.Studer at nrel.gov (Studer, Daniel) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:46:08 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] NREL Energy Modeler SME Request (Update) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It has recently been brought to our attention that some of the information included in the NREL Opportunity Announcement sent out last Friday (March 25, 2011) was unclear. The announcement did not make it obvious that an honorarium would be provided in addition to the travel per diem and the reimbursement of travel costs. The text has been updated and a revised announcement has been appended below. Opportunity Announcement The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is currently sponsoring a project to develop (1) job task analyses (JTAs), which identify and catalog all of the activities a worker performs in a given job; and (2) the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), which define the minimum requirements necessary for a person to adequately perform those tasks, for the following six commercial building job categories: - Energy modeler - Operating engineer/building technician - Building energy auditor - Energy/sustainability manager - Commissioning/retro-commissioning practitioner - Facility manager The project goal is to create "national guidelines" which will define a common body of knowledge that any training organization will be able to draw from when developing curriculum, helping to bring the core competencies imparted by training organizations to their trainees into common alignment. This body of knowledge will also be used by the General Services Administration and the Department of Energy to help meet the requirements of the Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act of 2010. To facilitate development of the JTAs/KSAs, Professional Testing, Inc. is seeking current industry practitioners who are interested in helping to define, promote energy efficiency in, and support their field of practice by participating in these JTA/KSA development workshops. Interested individuals are invited to submit their credentials at http://proftesting.rapidinsites.com. Please note that each JTA/KSA workshop will take place in Denver, Colorado and is anticipated to last 3 full days (not including travel). Reimbursement for travel costs up to a fixed amount, a travel per diem, and an honorarium will be awarded to individuals selected for participation. Additional project details, including how practitioners will be selected and where to direct project-related questions, can be found using the above link. NREL and Professional Testing, Inc. are excited to present this unique opportunity for individuals to have their voices heard in this important discussion. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, The NREL Commercial Workforce Development Team -----Original Message----- From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Studer, Daniel Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 2:52 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] NREL Energy Modeler SME Request Opportunity Announcement The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is currently sponsoring a project to develop (1) job task analyses (JTAs), which identify and catalog all of the activities a worker performs in a given job; and (2) the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), which define the minimum requirements necessary for a person to adequately perform those tasks, for the following six commercial building job categories: - Energy modeler - Operating engineer/building technician - Building energy auditor - Energy/sustainability manager - Commissioning/retro-commissioning practitioner - Facility manager The project goal is to create "national guidelines" which will define a common body of knowledge that any training organization will be able to draw from when developing curriculum, helping to bring the core competencies imparted by training organizations to their trainees into common alignment. This body of knowledge will also be used by the General Services Administration and the Department of Energy to help meet the requirements of the Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act of 2010. To facilitate development of the JTAs/KSAs, Professional Testing, Inc. is seeking current industry practitioners who are interested in helping to define, promote energy efficiency in, and support their field of practice by participating in these JTA/KSA development workshops. Interested individuals are invited to submit their credentials at http://proftesting.rapidinsites.com. Please note that each JTA/KSA workshop will take place in Denver, Colorado and is anticipated to last 3 full days (not including travel). Reimbursement for travel costs up to a fixed amount and a travel per diem will be awarded to individuals selected for participation. Additional project details, including how practitioners will be selected and where to direct project-related questions, can be found using the above link. NREL and Professional Testing, Inc. are excited to present this unique opportunity for individuals to have their voices heard in this important discussion. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, The NREL Commercial Workforce Development Team _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG From dlombard at earthlink.net Mon Mar 28 21:08:42 2011 From: dlombard at earthlink.net (dlombard at earthlink.net) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:08:42 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2.2 for manufacturing facility Message-ID: <25468295.1301371722764.JavaMail.root@wamui-june.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From empire999 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 29 00:27:12 2011 From: empire999 at hotmail.com (milda margarin) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:27:12 +0000 Subject: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G3.1.2.2 Message-ID: hi , I already submitted this question but there were no responses so I'd like to try again: could somebody share some insight to the ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G3.1.2.2 point regarding heating and cooling equipment sizing based on building energy simulations. It is stated that the equipment should be oversized by a factor of 1.25 for heating and 1.15 for cooling. Are these "safety factors" based on the uncertainty associated with building energy simulations or a requirement that makes sure that the system can respond quickly enough during startup? Why are there different factors applied for heating and cooling?thanks!Milda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seldomvarun at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 04:56:50 2011 From: seldomvarun at gmail.com (varun kulkarni) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:56:50 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G3.1.2.2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Milda, I think if you are performorming energy simulations for the baseline, it doesnt matter what is this 25% and 15% upsizing is used for, as it used only as much capacity it needs to satisify the loads and thermostat. And your system size should be based on the design results and not simulation results (that also proposed model). But nevertheless I always interpret this as you said in your first point, to cover uncertainity in building simulation. I also think it helps baseline to reduce its unmet load hours. Hope this helps. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:27 AM, milda margarin wrote: > hi , I already submitted this question but there were no responses so > I'd like to try again: > could somebody share some insight to the ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G3.1.2.2 > point regarding heating and cooling equipment sizing based on building > energy simulations. It is stated that the equipment should be oversized by a > factor of 1.25 for heating and 1.15 for cooling. Are these "safety factors" > based on the uncertainty associated with building energy simulations or a > requirement that makes sure that the system can respond quickly enough > during startup? Why are there different factors applied for heating and > cooling? > thanks! > Milda > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -- Thanks and Best Regards, Sincerely, Varun Kulkarni , M.S. , EIT RMF Engineering 5520, Research Park Drive, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD - 21228 Office : 410-576-0505 ext. 5352 Mobile: (+1)405-385-1928 Note: Please do not print, unless required. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheffer at energyopportunities.com Tue Mar 29 05:11:54 2011 From: sheffer at energyopportunities.com (Marcus Sheffer) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:11:54 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2.2 for manufacturing facility In-Reply-To: <25468295.1301371722764.JavaMail.root@wamui-june.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <25468295.1301371722764.JavaMail.root@wamui-june.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <005101cbee0a$7ee3e7e0$7cabb7a0$@com> It gets problematic for these types of facilities, not on the energy side but in meeting the LEED MPRs. These types of facilities can demonstrate energy savings. Minimum program requirement #5 says that a LEED project has to have at least 1 FTE occupant. Marcus Sheffer Energy Opportunities, Inc/a 7group Company 1200 E Camping Area Road, Wellsville, PA 17365 717-292-2636, sheffer at sevengroup.com www.sevengroup.com From: dlombard at earthlink.net [mailto:dlombard at earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:09 AM To: Marcus Sheffer; Dru.Crawley at bentley.com Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2.2 for manufacturing facility So does that mean that a building that uses lots of energy to house computers or equipment that needs cooling but DOES NOT have any real occupants (other than those who may go there on occasion to check on the equipment, say less than once a day) can still go for LEED certification? What energy load then would be used for the LEED energy model since none of the energy load is for occupant comfort? Lighting only? Thanks, Debra Lombard, LEED AP, EMIT, EIT -----Original Message----- From: Marcus Sheffer Sent: Mar 28, 2011 3:09 PM To: Dru.Crawley at bentley.com Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED 2.2 for manufacturing facility -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncaton at smithboucher.com Tue Mar 29 08:59:28 2011 From: ncaton at smithboucher.com (Nick Caton) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G3.1.2.2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, I thought I had written a response to this query but can't seem to find it! On a general note, anyone seeking to better understand the intent behind various parts of 90.1 Appendix G would be well advised to borrow or purchase the 2007 User's manual. Here are my condensed thoughts - the user's manual supports some of this directly: 1. The oversizing factors appear analogous to "safety factors" in real-world design, but they exist in 90.1 primarily because it's recognized the capacity of the baseline systems is an easy means of cheating the system. One could very easily decrease relative baseline performance by undersizing or oversizing the baseline equipment. 2. With that in mind, and because the loads handled by the baseline systems are arbitrarily by a unique load profile, 90.1 has to set something as the sizing factor. To be fair to real-world systems which are often oversized, both for "safety factors" and because various equipment operates more efficiently at <100% capacity, oversizing factors above 1.0 have been set. 3. I think oversizing factor for heating is larger than cooling primarily because that reflects real-world design for packaged equipment selection. After calculating desired loads (and applying design safety factors), packaged equipment is often selected first on the desired cooling capacity, and then heating options are considered secondarily. Where heating capacity options are finite, the result is often heating elements which are oversized some degree beyond the design heating load. 4. I would discourage the mindset that oversizing factors are necessary to prevent unmet heating/cooling hours. They may mitigate unmet hours, particularly those occurring as thermostats are coming out of setback periods (morning warmup), but baseline system capacity is rarely the root problem in my experience. In my mind, if a baseline is set up correctly, oversizing factors of 1.0 ought to result in sufficient auto-sized capacity. There are inherent "uncertainties" to energy modeling, just as with any HVAC load calculation, water or electrical service size calculation, lighting maintained illuminance calcs, LRFD structural design loads and so on. Very little in world of building design does not have some sort of assumed future uncertainty worked into the design via "safety factors," both prescribed by code and self-imposed as standard practice. In that context, I don't believe the 90.1 oversizing factors speak to any uncertainty that's unique to energy modeling. ~Nick NICK CATON, E.I.T. PROJECT ENGINEER Smith & Boucher Engineers 25501 west valley parkway olathe ks 66061 direct 913 344.0036 fax 913 345.0617 www.smithboucher.com From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of varun kulkarni Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 6:57 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G3.1.2.2 Milda, I think if you are performorming energy simulations for the baseline, it doesnt matter what is this 25% and 15% upsizing is used for, as it used only as much capacity it needs to satisify the loads and thermostat. And your system size should be based on the design results and not simulation results (that also proposed model). But nevertheless I always interpret this as you said in your first point, to cover uncertainity in building simulation. I also think it helps baseline to reduce its unmet load hours. Hope this helps. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:27 AM, milda margarin wrote: hi , I already submitted this question but there were no responses so I'd like to try again: could somebody share some insight to the ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G3.1.2.2 point regarding heating and cooling equipment sizing based on building energy simulations. It is stated that the equipment should be oversized by a factor of 1.25 for heating and 1.15 for cooling. Are these "safety factors" based on the uncertainty associated with building energy simulations or a requirement that makes sure that the system can respond quickly enough during startup? Why are there different factors applied for heating and cooling? thanks! Milda _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -- Thanks and Best Regards, Sincerely, Varun Kulkarni , M.S. , EIT RMF Engineering 5520, Research Park Drive, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD - 21228 Office : 410-576-0505 ext. 5352 Mobile: (+1)405-385-1928 Note: Please do not print, unless required. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1459 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From jim at jimverzino.com Tue Mar 29 10:22:10 2011 From: jim at jimverzino.com (Jim Verzino) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:22:10 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 In-Reply-To: <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C55B832F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> References: <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C55B832F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> Message-ID: Michael, Will you be posting to the list when this new tool comes out? Jim V. On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Deru, Michael wrote: > Dear Genia, > > > > Please see the DOE web site for more information about the tax deduction > and the following NREL report for guidance on calculating the savings. In > addition, DOE and NREL are working on a simplified tool for the tax > deduction calculations that will be available in April. > > > > http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tax_incentives.html > > http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40467.pdf > > > > Michael > > > > Michael Deru, Ph.D. > > Senior Engineer II > > Commercial Buildings Research Group > > National Renewable Energy Laboratory > > 303-384-7503 (o) > > 303-725-3528 (c) > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Evgenia > Gorbachinsky > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:52 AM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed > design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 > > > > Good Afternoon, > > Our client would like to get a tax deduction reducing the building's energy > and power costs by 50% in comparison to a building meeting requirements set > by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001. This standard does not have Appendix G. > Could anybody help to understand,please, how I can do it. > Do I need to Use section 11 ( Energy cost budget method) of the standard > or I need to use the same systems and plants in both cases, but different > lighting density, building envelope and energy rates according to the actual > design for the proposed design and Standard 90.1-2001 for the baseline > design? > > > Thanks. > > -- > With best wishes, > Genia Gorbachinsky > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Michael.Deru at nrel.gov Tue Mar 29 10:46:38 2011 From: Michael.Deru at nrel.gov (Deru, Michael) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:46:38 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 In-Reply-To: References: <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C55B832F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> Message-ID: <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C560CD2F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> Yes I will post the release to this list. Michael From: jimmy44 at gmail.com [mailto:jimmy44 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jim Verzino Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:22 AM To: Deru, Michael Cc: Evgenia Gorbachinsky; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 Michael, Will you be posting to the list when this new tool comes out? Jim V. On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Deru, Michael > wrote: Dear Genia, Please see the DOE web site for more information about the tax deduction and the following NREL report for guidance on calculating the savings. In addition, DOE and NREL are working on a simplified tool for the tax deduction calculations that will be available in April. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tax_incentives.html http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40467.pdf Michael Michael Deru, Ph.D. Senior Engineer II Commercial Buildings Research Group National Renewable Energy Laboratory 303-384-7503 (o) 303-725-3528 (c) From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Evgenia Gorbachinsky Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:52 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 Good Afternoon, Our client would like to get a tax deduction reducing the building's energy and power costs by 50% in comparison to a building meeting requirements set by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001. This standard does not have Appendix G. Could anybody help to understand,please, how I can do it. Do I need to Use section 11 ( Energy cost budget method) of the standard or I need to use the same systems and plants in both cases, but different lighting density, building envelope and energy rates according to the actual design for the proposed design and Standard 90.1-2001 for the baseline design? Thanks. -- With best wishes, Genia Gorbachinsky _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rdh4176 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 11:15:34 2011 From: rdh4176 at gmail.com (Rob Hudson) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:15:34 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes Message-ID: Has anyone modeled for LEED for Homes before? I am trying to understand what the requirements are for the baseline HVAC system so that our design is sure to be better than the baseline (I understand that the "Rater" will be performing the final energy analysis at a later date). My situation: There will be a total of 64 apartment units between several different buildings, and each unit has valance with 2 central plants feeding all the equipment. thanks for your input! -- Rob Hudson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Paul.Riemer at dunhameng.com Tue Mar 29 11:13:46 2011 From: Paul.Riemer at dunhameng.com (Paul Riemer) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:13:46 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 In-Reply-To: <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C560CD2F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> References: <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C55B832F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C560CD2F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> Message-ID: <057EF46662FE994F8119F0A903BCD0F88F0FB752FE@eml1.dunham.corp> Will this be a new standalone simulation tool or some 'bridging' tool. E.g. an extension or parallel to the EnergyPlus Example File Generator? http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/cfm/inputs/index.cfm Of course, either would be welcomed. Paul Riemer From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Deru, Michael Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:47 PM To: Jim Verzino Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 Yes I will post the release to this list. Michael From: jimmy44 at gmail.com [mailto:jimmy44 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jim Verzino Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:22 AM To: Deru, Michael Cc: Evgenia Gorbachinsky; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 Michael, Will you be posting to the list when this new tool comes out? Jim V. On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Deru, Michael > wrote: Dear Genia, Please see the DOE web site for more information about the tax deduction and the following NREL report for guidance on calculating the savings. In addition, DOE and NREL are working on a simplified tool for the tax deduction calculations that will be available in April. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tax_incentives.html http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40467.pdf Michael Michael Deru, Ph.D. Senior Engineer II Commercial Buildings Research Group National Renewable Energy Laboratory 303-384-7503 (o) 303-725-3528 (c) From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Evgenia Gorbachinsky Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:52 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Corporate Deduction, comparison of the proposed design with the baseline design by ASHRAE 90.1-2001 Good Afternoon, Our client would like to get a tax deduction reducing the building's energy and power costs by 50% in comparison to a building meeting requirements set by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001. This standard does not have Appendix G. Could anybody help to understand,please, how I can do it. Do I need to Use section 11 ( Energy cost budget method) of the standard or I need to use the same systems and plants in both cases, but different lighting density, building envelope and energy rates according to the actual design for the proposed design and Standard 90.1-2001 for the baseline design? Thanks. -- With best wishes, Genia Gorbachinsky _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marjoriestein at yahoo.com Tue Mar 29 16:15:02 2011 From: marjoriestein at yahoo.com (Marjorie Stein) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bldg-sim] Autodesk is conducting Ecotect Analysis user research Message-ID: <75734.14299.qm@web110709.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Autodesk is conducting Ecotect Analysis user research sessions during the week of April 11th.? We are looking for Architects and Energy Analysts who currently use Ecotect Analysis to participate in a one-hour session conducted over the phone. ? ? Participants will receive a $50 Amazon gift card for their time.? Sign up and help shape the future of Autodesk products! ? If you are interested, please complete our quick sign-up survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HVH3X6M ? Thank you in advance, ? Marjorie Stein Product Manager, Building Performance Analysis? ? Autodesk, Inc. 1031 North McDowell Blvd Petaluma, CA 94954-1173 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eturner at robisonengineering.com Tue Mar 29 21:03:43 2011 From: eturner at robisonengineering.com (Erik Turner) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:03:43 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Running eQuest with Parallels for mac References: <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C55B832F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov><1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C560CD2F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> <057EF46662FE994F8119F0A903BCD0F88F0FB752FE@eml1.dunham.corp> Message-ID: <26B223C1A8E605469EDBCF982F72769F088094@BE54.exg3.exghost.com> Has anyone had issues installing eQuest on the PC partitioned portion of their mac drive using parallels? I've tried several times but keep getting an error stating "Error initializing BDLLib32" when I try and start eQuest. Thank you-- Erik Turner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rdh4176 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 05:47:48 2011 From: rdh4176 at gmail.com (Rob Hudson) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:47:48 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So, even though i have no central AC unit, and that i have a chiller that serves several apt units, i still use this SEER of 13 or 14? Or do i assume that because the units are getting chilled water/hot water from a "campus loop" that the efficiencies for both the baseline and the proposed are equivalent? thanks, Rob On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Jorge Torres-Coto wrote: > The minimums for SEER are on the tables from LEED for Homes (either 13 > SEER or 14 SEER), depending on your Climate zone. > > > > > > > Jorge E. Torres Coto > > 4830 Viewridge Ave. > > San Diego, CA 92123 > > p 858.751.0933 > > f 858.751.0937 > > c 858.688.6088 > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hudson > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:16 AM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes > > > > Has anyone modeled for LEED for Homes before? I am trying to understand > what the requirements are for the baseline HVAC system so that our design is > sure to be better than the baseline (I understand that the "Rater" will be > performing the final energy analysis at a later date). > > > > My situation: There will be a total of 64 apartment units between several > different buildings, and each unit has valance with 2 central plants feeding > all the equipment. > > > > thanks for your input! > > > -- > Rob Hudson > -- Rob Hudson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwalkerman at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 06:43:59 2011 From: kwalkerman at gmail.com (Karen Walkerman) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:43:59 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I haven't done a LEED for Homes project in a little while, but when I did, modeling needed to be done using software approved by HERS (Home Energy Rating System). There are a few software packages available. In general, they are pretty simple, and difficult to get unless you are a HERS rater. For LEED for Homes, LEED kind of tacked onto the HERS program for the energy portion. Is there a reason you're using LEED for Homes instead of LEED for Neighborhood Development or LEED NC? Karen On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Rob Hudson wrote: > So, even though i have no central AC unit, and that i have a chiller that > serves several apt units, i still use this SEER of 13 or 14? Or do i assume > that because the units are getting chilled water/hot water from a "campus > loop" that the efficiencies for both the baseline and the proposed are > equivalent? > > thanks, > Rob > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Jorge Torres-Coto > wrote: > >> The minimums for SEER are on the tables from LEED for Homes (either 13 >> SEER or 14 SEER), depending on your Climate zone. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jorge E. Torres Coto >> >> 4830 Viewridge Ave. >> >> San Diego, CA 92123 >> >> p 858.751.0933 >> >> f 858.751.0937 >> >> c 858.688.6088 >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: >> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hudson >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:16 AM >> *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org >> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes >> >> >> >> Has anyone modeled for LEED for Homes before? I am trying to understand >> what the requirements are for the baseline HVAC system so that our design is >> sure to be better than the baseline (I understand that the "Rater" will be >> performing the final energy analysis at a later date). >> >> >> >> My situation: There will be a total of 64 apartment units between several >> different buildings, and each unit has valance with 2 central plants feeding >> all the equipment. >> >> >> >> thanks for your input! >> >> >> -- >> Rob Hudson >> > > > > -- > Rob Hudson > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rdh4176 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 06:54:48 2011 From: rdh4176 at gmail.com (Rob Hudson) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:54:48 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Honestly, because i was told to. There is a LEED person on board that said this is the correct avenue to go. I do know that the software packages are different then what i am currently using, but this is more for design purposes rather than for LEED submittal. that being said i still want to compare our design to the "expected" values of the LEED for homes requirements. On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Karen Walkerman wrote: > I haven't done a LEED for Homes project in a little while, but when I did, > modeling needed to be done using software approved by HERS (Home Energy > Rating System). There are a few software packages available. In general, > they are pretty simple, and difficult to get unless you are a HERS rater. > For LEED for Homes, LEED kind of tacked onto the HERS program for the > energy portion. Is there a reason you're using LEED for Homes instead of > LEED for Neighborhood Development or LEED NC? > > Karen > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Rob Hudson wrote: > >> So, even though i have no central AC unit, and that i have a chiller that >> serves several apt units, i still use this SEER of 13 or 14? Or do i assume >> that because the units are getting chilled water/hot water from a "campus >> loop" that the efficiencies for both the baseline and the proposed are >> equivalent? >> >> thanks, >> Rob >> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Jorge Torres-Coto < >> jtorres-coto at mbo1.com> wrote: >> >>> The minimums for SEER are on the tables from LEED for Homes (either 13 >>> SEER or 14 SEER), depending on your Climate zone. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jorge E. Torres Coto >>> >>> 4830 Viewridge Ave. >>> >>> San Diego, CA 92123 >>> >>> p 858.751.0933 >>> >>> f 858.751.0937 >>> >>> c 858.688.6088 >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: >>> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hudson >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:16 AM >>> *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org >>> *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes >>> >>> >>> >>> Has anyone modeled for LEED for Homes before? I am trying to understand >>> what the requirements are for the baseline HVAC system so that our design is >>> sure to be better than the baseline (I understand that the "Rater" will be >>> performing the final energy analysis at a later date). >>> >>> >>> >>> My situation: There will be a total of 64 apartment units between >>> several different buildings, and each unit has valance with 2 central plants >>> feeding all the equipment. >>> >>> >>> >>> thanks for your input! >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Rob Hudson >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Rob Hudson >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bldg-sim mailing list >> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to >> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG >> >> > -- Rob Hudson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jtorres-coto at mbo1.com Wed Mar 30 07:54:35 2011 From: jtorres-coto at mbo1.com (Jorge Torres-Coto) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:54:35 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >From your description, I am wondering if you have vertical units or horizontal. If you have vertical units you probably should be looking at the LEED for Homes mid-rise document in lieu of the standard LEED for Homes. It is completely different approach than a single family low rise detached home approach. It is basically an energy model with ASHRAE 90.1 (not even 90.2) approach, Appendix G and all the bells and whistles. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7982 Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 _____ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hudson Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:55 AM To: Karen Walkerman Cc: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes Honestly, because i was told to. There is a LEED person on board that said this is the correct avenue to go. I do know that the software packages are different then what i am currently using, but this is more for design purposes rather than for LEED submittal. that being said i still want to compare our design to the "expected" values of the LEED for homes requirements. On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Karen Walkerman wrote: I haven't done a LEED for Homes project in a little while, but when I did, modeling needed to be done using software approved by HERS (Home Energy Rating System). There are a few software packages available. In general, they are pretty simple, and difficult to get unless you are a HERS rater. For LEED for Homes, LEED kind of tacked onto the HERS program for the energy portion. Is there a reason you're using LEED for Homes instead of LEED for Neighborhood Development or LEED NC? Karen On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Rob Hudson wrote: So, even though i have no central AC unit, and that i have a chiller that serves several apt units, i still use this SEER of 13 or 14? Or do i assume that because the units are getting chilled water/hot water from a "campus loop" that the efficiencies for both the baseline and the proposed are equivalent? thanks, Rob On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Jorge Torres-Coto wrote: The minimums for SEER are on the tables from LEED for Homes (either 13 SEER or 14 SEER), depending on your Climate zone. Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 _____ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hudson Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:16 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes Has anyone modeled for LEED for Homes before? I am trying to understand what the requirements are for the baseline HVAC system so that our design is sure to be better than the baseline (I understand that the "Rater" will be performing the final energy analysis at a later date). My situation: There will be a total of 64 apartment units between several different buildings, and each unit has valance with 2 central plants feeding all the equipment. thanks for your input! -- Rob Hudson -- Rob Hudson _______________________________________________ Bldg-sim mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG -- Rob Hudson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rdh4176 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 08:14:34 2011 From: rdh4176 at gmail.com (Rob Hudson) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:14:34 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We have a mix of Townhouses that could be 2 or 3 floors, Apartments that are 2 units per floor and 2 or 3 floors. Nothing is higher than 3 floors. On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Jorge Torres-Coto wrote: > From your description, I am wondering if you have vertical units or > horizontal. If you have vertical units you probably should be looking at > the LEED for Homes mid-rise document in lieu of the standard LEED for Homes. > > > > It is completely different approach than a single family low rise detached > home approach. It is basically an energy model with ASHRAE 90.1 (not even > 90.2) approach, Appendix G and all the bells and whistles. > > > > http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7982 > > > > Jorge E. Torres Coto > > 4830 Viewridge Ave. > > San Diego, CA 92123 > > p 858.751.0933 > > f 858.751.0937 > > c 858.688.6088 > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hudson > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:55 AM > *To:* Karen Walkerman > *Cc:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes > > > > Honestly, because i was told to. There is a LEED person on board that said > this is the correct avenue to go. > > > > I do know that the software packages are different then what i am currently > using, but this is more for design purposes rather than for LEED submittal. > that being said i still want to compare our design to the "expected" values > of the LEED for homes requirements. > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Karen Walkerman > wrote: > > I haven't done a LEED for Homes project in a little while, but when I did, > modeling needed to be done using software approved by HERS (Home Energy > Rating System). There are a few software packages available. In general, > they are pretty simple, and difficult to get unless you are a HERS rater. > For LEED for Homes, LEED kind of tacked onto the HERS program for the > energy portion. Is there a reason you're using LEED for Homes instead of > LEED for Neighborhood Development or LEED NC? > > > > Karen > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Rob Hudson wrote: > > So, even though i have no central AC unit, and that i have a chiller that > serves several apt units, i still use this SEER of 13 or 14? Or do i assume > that because the units are getting chilled water/hot water from a "campus > loop" that the efficiencies for both the baseline and the proposed are > equivalent? > > > > thanks, > > Rob > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Jorge Torres-Coto > wrote: > > The minimums for SEER are on the tables from LEED for Homes (either 13 > SEER or 14 SEER), depending on your Climate zone. > > > > > > > > Jorge E. Torres Coto > > 4830 Viewridge Ave. > > San Diego, CA 92123 > > p 858.751.0933 > > f 858.751.0937 > > c 858.688.6088 > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto: > bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hudson > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:16 AM > *To:* bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org > *Subject:* [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes > > > > Has anyone modeled for LEED for Homes before? I am trying to understand > what the requirements are for the baseline HVAC system so that our design is > sure to be better than the baseline (I understand that the "Rater" will be > performing the final energy analysis at a later date). > > > > My situation: There will be a total of 64 apartment units between several > different buildings, and each unit has valance with 2 central plants feeding > all the equipment. > > > > thanks for your input! > > > -- > Rob Hudson > > > > > -- > Rob Hudson > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bldg-sim mailing list > http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to > BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG > > > > > > > -- > Rob Hudson > -- Rob Hudson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Neal.Kruis at nrel.gov Wed Mar 30 08:18:11 2011 From: Neal.Kruis at nrel.gov (Kruis, Neal) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:18:11 -0600 Subject: [Bldg-sim] Running eQuest with Parallels for mac In-Reply-To: <26B223C1A8E605469EDBCF982F72769F088094@BE54.exg3.exghost.com> References: <1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C55B832F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov><1B3908614A647745B6A63C7E0E2980D029C560CD2F@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> <057EF46662FE994F8119F0A903BCD0F88F0FB752FE@eml1.dunham.corp> <26B223C1A8E605469EDBCF982F72769F088094@BE54.exg3.exghost.com> Message-ID: <3F1B98C4BF8D774C93FF336B93F4B2FE2927DD77B8@MAILBOX2.nrel.gov> Erik, I've been using parallels for a while now. Never had a problem with installing or running eQuest. Neal From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Erik Turner Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:04 PM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] Running eQuest with Parallels for mac Has anyone had issues installing eQuest on the PC partitioned portion of their mac drive using parallels? I've tried several times but keep getting an error stating "Error initializing BDLLib32" when I try and start eQuest. Thank you-- Erik Turner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jtorres-coto at mbo1.com Tue Mar 29 20:20:32 2011 From: jtorres-coto at mbo1.com (Jorge Torres-Coto) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:20:32 -0700 Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The minimums for SEER are on the tables from LEED for Homes (either 13 SEER or 14 SEER), depending on your Climate zone. Jorge E. Torres Coto 4830 Viewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 p 858.751.0933 f 858.751.0937 c 858.688.6088 _____ From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hudson Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:16 AM To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org Subject: [Bldg-sim] LEED for Homes Has anyone modeled for LEED for Homes before? I am trying to understand what the requirements are for the baseline HVAC system so that our design is sure to be better than the baseline (I understand that the "Rater" will be performing the final energy analysis at a later date). My situation: There will be a total of 64 apartment units between several different buildings, and each unit has valance with 2 central plants feeding all the equipment. thanks for your input! -- Rob Hudson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 177523 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 14532 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Dru.Crawley at bentley.com Wed Mar 30 19:48:59 2011 From: Dru.Crawley at bentley.com (Dru.Crawley at bentley.com) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:48:59 -0400 Subject: [Bldg-sim] IBPSA Welcomes A New Affiliates: IBPSA-Turkey Message-ID: <3D39560EBFFAE546B42020BD8068801F7263778A18@extprdmbx01.bentley.com> Greatings Building Simulationists, This week, the International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA) board voted unanimously to approve a new affiliate - IBPSA-Turkey. This brings IBPSA to 21 affiliates worldwide: http://www.ibpsa.org/ IBPSA is actively recruiting new affiliates. If you know of other countries or regions that might be interested in forming IBPSA affiliates, please let us know. Dru Crawley IBPSA Regional Affiliate Development -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From d.bradley at tess-inc.com Thu Mar 31 12:51:31 2011 From: d.bradley at tess-inc.com (David BRADLEY) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] process loads for a power plant facility Message-ID: <4D94DB43.6080407@tess-inc.com> Colleagues, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how to treat the process loads for a power plant that is seeking LEED certification. The facility is comparatively small but contains a number of gas turbines as well as administrative offices. If I include the entire service area as a process load then I suspect the building will get zero savings as the electricity generated for the service area is going to be millions of times greater than the facility's energy use. However, ignoring that process load does not seem fair because the administrative offices will be heated with waste heat off the turbines. Best, David -- *************************** David BRADLEY Principal Thermal Energy Systems Specialists, LLC 22 North Carroll Street - suite 370 Madison, WI 53703 USA P:+1.608.274.2577 F:+1.608.278.1475 d.bradley at tess-inc.com http://www.tess-inc.com http://www.trnsys.com From roos.rick at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 14:35:00 2011 From: roos.rick at gmail.com (Rick Roos) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:35:00 -0500 Subject: [Bldg-sim] THERM Boundary Conditions Message-ID: Greetings, I am doing some research for my MASc thesis in building science, where I am modeling exterior wall wood frame junctions. I have two questions: 1. Which library option do I choose for for a vented brick cavity: Frame Cavity CEN simplified, Frame Cavity NFRC 100-2001, or Frame Cavity slightly vented NFRC 100-2001? 2. Which boundary condition should I choose for the interior side of a wall assembly: aluminum frame, thermally broken frame, thermally improved frame or wood/vinyl frame? Thank you in advance, Rick Roos MASc Candidate Building Science Ryerson University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: