[Equest-users] Supply fan kW for LEED Table 1.4

[Daric Adair]

Possibly a clarification & question combination:
The PS-E Report is for all electrical meters; the PS-F lets the modeler dig into individual meters if the project is configured correctly.
This is the clarification/question part: The PS-E report does not display the peak draw at the building coincident load, the PS-E shows the peak draw and when it occurs for each end-use type. From the eQuest Vol 4-Libraries & Reports:
“Max kW: The maximum power consumption for each end-use and total during the month. This is the peak consumption per end-use; the peak for a given end-use may not be coincident with the peak for the meter, or with the peaks for other end-uses. The meter’s peak is in the last column.
Day/Hr: The day and hour at which the peak and total end-use consumption occurred.” [underline emphasis is mine]

A minor, but important distinction as well is that for the building summary at the bottom, the day/hr row is replaced with a mon/dy row; which makes sense, but important to note the change.

In my quick review of a few projects, the peak draw day/hr for the individual end-uses are hit & miss if they occur at the same time as the building-wide peak coincident day/hour.

In summary, the PS-E report peaks [at the bottom] should be the report used to fill out the online EAp2 form, Table EAp2-4 and Table EAp2-5. The SV-A report[s] are good for getting/checking the fan power draw and completing Table 1.4. In the case of the baseline model, getting the fan size.

Thanks,
DARIC R. ADAIR  PE, C.E.M.
Henderson Engineers, Inc. | Mechanical Engineer, Energy Analyst
dir 913 742 5530  tel 913 742 5000  fax 913 742 5001  tx id #F-001236  email daric.adair at hei-eng.com  www.hei-eng.com<http://www.hei-eng.com/>
Licensed in KS. 

From: Nicholas Caton [mailto:ncaton at catonenergy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:22 AM
To: Jones, Christopher; Travis Miller; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Supply fan kW for LEED Table 1.4

This is one of those common boilerplate reviewer mistakes I’ve seen time and again.  Not understanding the nature of PSE/PSF peaks causes a variety of similar misunderstandings (not isolated to fans).  On the bright side, once you’ve handled such commentary once, for future cases you can usually copy/paste your previous response with minimal editing.  The best comments are easy comments!

For many large buildings with VAV systems and also notably for buildings with a combination of different system types, there exists no meter report concerning fan energy which can be leveraged to verify inputs circuitously via “full load equivalent hours.”  Sometimes the meter outputs actually work for this, but that’s the exception to the rule in my experience.

After double-checking to ensure there are no actual mistakes concerning system operations, fan inputs, etc,  I typically craft a response starting with an explanation/review of what the peak values shown on PSE/PSF are & are not.  The peak values in these reports break out, for each month, the portion energy drawn at the peak coincident hour for that meter.  That may have little-to-zero correlation to the actual peak draw for the simulated fans (or any other isolated enduse).  You’ll note the meter reports provide a “maximum” peak value at the bottom (after the December row).  I typically use these numbers for the EAp2 enduse reporting. These values however are the maximum peak value from the 12 monthly peaks reported for the corresponding column.  For the same reasons, this is not necessarily the same value as the peak enduse draw independent of everything else going on in the model.

I then would advise/clarify for the reviewer that the fan kW value reported on SVA system reports for may be referenced directly to verify the results of our fan power inputs (these values should match the value ‘Pfan’ reported/calculated for your baseline systems, and also the fan power sourced for your proposed case systems, as reported on the EAp2 excel template).  If I’m in a good mood, I’ll slap in some screenshots showing the interface inputs and highlight a that portion of an SVA output to make it plain as day in my response.

~Nick

NICK CATON, P.E.
Owner

Caton Energy Consulting
  603 N Ferrel
  Olathe, KS  66061
  office:  785.410.3317
www.catonenergy.com

From: Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] On Behalf Of Jones, Christopher
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:33 AM
To: Travis Miller; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Supply fan kW for LEED Table 1.4

Especially for a VAV system.  The actual peak fan kW may never reach the SV-A reported fan kW.  Silly reviewer.


[cid:image003.png at 01D09C46.E75BA0D0]
Christopher Jones, P.Eng.
Senior Engineer

WSP Canada Inc.
2300 Yonge Street, Suite 2300
Toronto, ON M4P 1E4
T +1 416-644-4226
F +1 416-487-9766
C +1 416-697-0065

www.wspgroup.com<http://www.wspgroup.com/>

From: Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Travis Miller
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:29 AM
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: [Equest-users] Supply fan kW for LEED Table 1.4

Which output report should be used when tabulating supply fan power in Table 1.4 of the excel file for LEED submittal?

I initially tabulated this kW number from the SV-A reports, which is different than the PS-E report. The PS-E report was used to fill out tables EAp2-4 and EAp2-5 of the online template. The LEED reviewer picked up on this and wants me to revise and resubmit.

I would assume that difference in these reports is due to the fact that the total building demand kW for ventilation fans does not happen at the same time that each individual system demand kW happens – is that a correct assumption?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Travis

________________________________

You are receiving this communication because you are listed as a current WSP contact. Should you have any questions regarding WSP’s electronic communications policy, please consult our Anti-Spam Commitment www.wspgroup.com/casl. For any concern or if you believe you should not be receiving this message, please forward this message to us at caslcompliance at wspgroup.com<mailto:caslcompliance at wspgroup.com> so that we can promptly address your request. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying or in any way using this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender, and destroy and delete any copies you may have received.

WSP provides professional land surveying services through the following entities: WSP Surveys (AB) Limited Partnership and WSP Surveys (BC) Limited Partnership

________________________________

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication represents the originator's personal views and opinions, which do not necessarily reflect those of Henderson Engineers, Inc. If you are not the original recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please immediately notify administrator at hei-eng.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150722/68dc148c/attachment-0005.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6574 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150722/68dc148c/attachment-0005.png>