[Equest-users] 回复：回复：RE: Reply： The problem of minimum equipment efficiency requirement of Ashrae 90.1-2007

Sun May 24 17:41:54 PDT 2015

Hi,Dan

 The comment is a full version,no context missing!I  also feel very strange with it.

  ------------------
   Yongqing Zhao
 Changsha Green Building & Energy Saving Technology CO.,LTD
NO.438,Shaoshan Road,Changsha,Hunan,China
Telephone:13574805636
 Email:zhaoyongqing1987 at 126.com
          503271081 at qq.com 

 ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
  发件人: "Daniel Knapp";<danielk at arborus.ca>;
 发送时间: 2015年5月25日(星期一) 凌晨1:34
 收件人: "Nicholas Caton"<ncaton at catonenergy.com>; 
 抄送: "赵永青"<zhaoyongqing1987 at qq.com>; "Julien Marrec"<julien.marrec at gmail.com>; "equest-users at lists.onebuilding"<equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>; 
 主题: Re: [Equest-users] 回复：RE: Reply： The problem of minimum equipment efficiency requirement of Ashrae 90.1-2007

 I'm with Nick. I find the GBCI reviewer comment as reported to be a bit strange and I wonder if there is some context missing. Is it possible that the seasonal efficiency was much lower than 80% in the baseline, suggesting either oversizing of the baseline boilers or a curve that is different from the proposed curve? 

 Best,
 Dan

 —
 Sent from my phone

On May 24, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Nicholas Caton <ncaton at catonenergy.com> wrote:

I’m happy you are arriving at the same result, however to be clear I do not think the reviewer is correct to assert the prescribed efficiency is anything other than the full-load efficiency.

Follow the cited Test Procedure CFR 431 led me to:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/431.86

“§ 431.86 (c) (3) (ii) Thermal Efficiency. Use the calculation procedure for the thermal efficiency test specified in Section 11.1 of the HI BTS-2000, Rev 06.07 (incorporated by reference, see§ 431.85).”

I then found the referenced HI standard here (PDF link): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.resource.org%2Fpub%2Fus%2Fcfr%2Fibr%2F004%2Fhi.BTS-2000.2007.pdf&ei=R-dhVZr3FoffoASKxYC4Bw&usg=AFQjCNGb2HahzcO_Q-BftBzCugY5sPtifg&sig2=k1fojL9GcpjnN6T2fdzOug

In that standard, section 5 reads:

5.0  TYPES OF TESTS

5.1 Thermal Efficiency Test

Shall consist of a test point conducted at 100% ± 2% of the nameplate boiler input. The test shall

yield a complete accounting of the energy input in terms of output and losses.

5.2 Combustion Efficiency Test

Shall consist of a test point conducted at 100% ± 2% of the input to the boiler and shall yield an

accounting of energy input in terms of products of combustion only.

From this, it is clear Et and Ec as prescribed by 90.1 are only the efficiencies as measured at full load.  The test procedures following under section 9 deliberately exclude the effects of warmup/standby (equipment is made to warm up and arrive at the mandated operating conditions prior to measurements).

Section 11.1 of the standard prescribes all the calculations required, including Et = 100*QOUT / QIN , however the preceding sections makes clear we are in no way standardizing part load performance or warmup/standby performance.

Rounding back to 90.1… section 6.4.1.1 further cements the notion (“packaged boilers” fall under 1992 EPACT):

All this reinforces the point that 90.1 simply does not prescribe part load performance for baseline boilers.  To perform a simulation in compliance with Appendix G the onus is upon the energy modeler to make reasonable, defensible assumptions on that front.  I don’t see how forcing full-load efficiencies at all part-load conditions and removing standby/startup operation energies is more reasonable or reflects reality better than the defaults.  

If this is a new GBCI position they plan to hard-line on, then I would speculate it would be equally fair (albeit far more unrealistic for condensing cases) to give your proposed boilers the same treatment… extra work for a step backwards from reality…?

Thoughts?

~Nick

NICK CATON, P.E.
Owner

Caton Energy Consulting
  1150 N. 192nd St., #4-202

  Shoreline, WA 98133
  office:  785.410.3317

www.catonenergy.com

From: 冷面寒枪 [mailto:zhaoyongqing1987 at qq.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 7:13 AM
To: Nicholas Caton; Julien Marrec
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding
Subject: 回复：RE: [Equest-users] Reply： The problem of minimum equipment efficiency requirement of Ashrae 90.1-2007

Hi,Nick

 Than you for your insight!

   Except default curve and start up time, Min-Ratio also will result in discrepancy between annual equivalent HIR and nominal HIR. After I revised curve ,set start-time and Min-Ratio to 0,and hourly report and PS-C report indicate that the annual equivalent HIR  is accord with nominal HIR

------------------

Yongqing Zhao

Changsha Green Building & Energy Saving Technology CO.,LTD
NO.438,Shaoshan Road,Changsha,Hunan,China
Telephone:13574805636

Email:zhaoyongqing1987 at 126.com

         503271081 at qq.com 

------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------

发件人: "Nicholas Caton";<ncaton at catonenergy.com>;

发送时间: 2015年5月24日(星期天) 晚上9:53

收件人: "赵永青"<503271081 at qq.com>; "Julien Marrec"<julien.marrec at gmail.com>; 

抄送: "equest-users at lists.onebuilding"<equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>; 

主题: RE: [Equest-users] Reply： The problem of minimum equipment efficiency requirement of Ashrae 90.1-2007

I received some similar review language very recently suggesting 80% efficiency is expected at all/most part load conditions for the baseline boiler….  Similar context in that case with the boiler rarely operating near full load.

My comment has other issues that would cloud the topic at-hand, but here is  truncated version:

“…Furthermore, the average boiler efficiencies in the Baseline PS-C output reports, calculated by dividing the boiler energy consumption by the annual boiler heating energy generated was… [approximately 5% lower than the nominal efficiency input & documented].  Revise the baseline boiler efficiency to 80% and revise the boiler curve for the Baseline case as necessary to have an average efficiency that is near 80%. Provide updated PS-C reports for the Baseline confirming that the average baseline efficiency is near 80%.”

This is the first time I have run into commentary checking up on PS-C’s output at all, and I’m using the same library curves as always for typical baseline boilers.   

I believe the PS-C discrepancy is explained both by the non-flat library curve and by the boiler’s default start-up loads, in combination.

Here is the default library curve – it is (roughly, but not quite) linear:

<image002.png>

<image003.png>

[For those unfamiliar, the Y-axis is a unitless multiplier] 

If I’m not mistaken, this curve serves double-duty:  it simultaneously applies the hourly PLR to the full capacity (as either input or auto-sized) and also accounts for increased HIR (lower efficiency) as the PLR drops.  My understanding in equation form:

Energy Consumed (for the hour) = (Boiler full capacity as input/autosized) * (Boiler nominal HIR input @ full load) * HIRf(PLR)

If all of that is true, a perfectly “flat efficiency” curve, returning your nominal input HIR at all efficiencies, would therefore be Z = X.  That’s plotted above for reference with a light/thin line.  

Even with such a “flat efficiency” curve applied to a test-case, PS-C’s outputs still suggest an annual equivalent HIR higher than the nominal input.  Zeroing out the startup/standby inputs as well is required to get PS-C to report your nominal HIR = annual fuel / annual load:

I think the correct response (which perhaps I’ve mostly composed above) is to demonstrate the causes (library curve shape, startup/standby defaults), and to assert these are all appropriately applied to the baseline boiler, though none of this is regulated by 90.1 to the best of my knowledge so it might be relatively shaky territory.  

I would wager 90% of all eQuest baseline boilers submitted to GBCI to date probably don’t mess with the library curves or standby/startup inputs, but that’s pure speculation on my part.

Has anybody ever tried to explain/justify the default boiler curve and default startup/standby inputs?  Do we know where those defaults come from?

~Nick

NICK CATON, P.E.
Owner

Caton Energy Consulting
  1150 N. 192nd St., #4-202

  Shoreline, WA 98133
  office:  785.410.3317

www.catonenergy.com

From: Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of ???
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 5:34 AM
To: Julien Marrec
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding
Subject: [Equest-users] Reply： The problem of minimum equipment efficiency requirement of Ashrae 90.1-2007

Hi,Julien 

I understand his meaning is keep a constant efficiency and I know the flat efficiency in equest is a curve that is y=x, but I can't  confirm if a constant efficiency is Ashrae 90.1-2007's original intent.

------------------

Yongqing Zhao

Changsha Green Building & Energy Saving Technology CO.,LTD
NO.438,Shaoshan Road,Changsha,Hunan,China
Telephone:13574805636

Email:zhaoyongqing1987 at 126.com

         503271081 at qq.com 

------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------

发件人: "Julien Marrec";<julien.marrec at gmail.com>;

发送时间: 2015年5月24日(星期天) 晚上8:19

收件人: "赵永青"<503271081 at qq.com>; 

抄送: "equest-users at lists.onebuilding"<equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>; 

主题: Re: [Equest-users] The problem of minimum equipment efficiency requirement of Ashrae 90.1-2007

Hey,

He's saying that you need to make sure that the curve boiler-fPLR gives you a constant efficiency. As far as I remember, the default atmospheric curve from equest is like this.

Don't be confused by "flat". A flat efficiency curve is when you plot efficiency=f(PLR). In equest, it should be a curve that is y=x

Look at the curve you used.

Best,

Julien

Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 24 mai 2015 à 11:27, "赵永青" <503271081 at qq.com> a écrit :

I get the energy model comments from LEED reviewer as following:

The narrative response indicates that the Baseline boiler has been modeled utilizing operating performance curves and a boiler HIR of 1.25. However, since the boiler operation HIR is based on the performance curves, the HIR is less than 1.25 in the part-load condition, which is inappropriate. Revise the Baseline boilers to include a flat efficiency of 80% for all part-loads. Provide eQuest input files or screen shots verifying the boiler efficiency has been modeled as required.

 <545E22AD at FA528147.9F996155>

However, I can not understand it very much. The minimum equipment efficiency requirement(80 % Et) of Ashrae 90.1-2007 should be base on full load condition.Why the LEED reviewer raise such a question?Any insight is appreciate!!

Thanks

------------------

Yongqing Zhao

Changsha Green Building & Energy Saving Technology CO.,LTD
NO.438,Shaoshan Road,Changsha,Hunan,China
Telephone:13574805636

Email:zhaoyongqing1987 at 126.com

         503271081 at qq.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

  _______________________________________________
Equest-users mailing list
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150525/4b977111/attachment-0005.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2CC43B98 at 3C151328.D26F6255
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 13793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150525/4b977111/attachment-0010.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 6F92315D at 3C151328.D26F6255
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 61539 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20150525/4b977111/attachment-0011.obj>

[Equest-users] 回复： 回复：RE: Reply： The problem of minimum equipment efficiency requirement of Ashrae 90.1-2007

[Equest-users] 回复：回复：RE: Reply： The problem of minimum equipment efficiency requirement of Ashrae 90.1-2007