[Equest-users] Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal

[Morteza Kasmai]

Hello Bill,
Thank you so much for reviewing the model. Since I am not familiar with
energy performance of different terminal boxes was wondering if my
selection was correct. The mechanical drawings include diagram bellow for
VAV terminal and a schedule titled “Fan Powered Terminal unit Schedule”
that marks DTQS as the model of terminal boxes. Manufacturer’s (Titus)
literature indicates DTQS as a Digital Series Fan Powered Terminal and very
energy efficient.

My first question is if selecting Series PIU is a correct selection for the
proposed terminal. If yes, then my second question would be the energy
performance of Series PIU terminals vs Std VAV terminals. Keeping
everything equal, when I change terminal types from Std VAV to Series PIU
the annual energy costs increase, which indicates Std VAV terminal is more
energy efficient than Series PIU terminal. Is this correct?


I truly appreciate your help,

Morteza

[image: image.png]

Morteza Kasmaei
Senior Architect
LEED AP BD+C, GGP









On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:52 AM Bishop, Bill <bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
wrote:

> Hi Morteza,
>
> I looked at your model and nothing jumps out as far as obvious problems. I
> can’t tell if you’ve modeled anything incorrectly without reviewing the
> design (which I’m not volunteering to do).
>
> My question back to you is – what is it about the proposed design that
> should save energy compared to the baseline?
>
> Regards,
>
> ~Bill
>
>
>
> *William Bishop, PE, BEMP, BEAP, CEM, LEED AP*
>
> *Senior Energy Engineer*
>
>
>
> [image: Pathfinder-EA-logo-2]*T: (585) 698-1956*                        F:
> (585) 325-6005
>
> bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com <wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
> www.pathfinder-ea.com
>
> 134 South Fitzhugh Street
>
> Rochester, NY 14608                       *Ask me why Carbon Fee &
> Dividend may be right for you.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Morteza Kasmai via Equest-users
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:07 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal
>
>
>
> Dear eQUEST experts,
>
> This is a LEED v4 C&S project modeled with eQUEST 3.65 build 7175 DOE 2.3.
>
> System Type for the Baseline Case is System 5 – Packaged VAV with HW
> boiler and for the Proposed Model is Gas fired RTUs with Digital Series Fan
> Powered Terminal (DTQS).
>
> Comparing the annual energy costs of the two models, when I change
> terminal type of the propose design system to Series PIU the energy costs
> of the model increases by 12%, which indicates the baseline system is more
> efficient the design system. Is this correct or there is something wrong
> with the terminal type selection? INP and PD2 files of the model are
> attached.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> Morteza
>
> Morteza Kasmaei
> Senior Architect
>
> LEED AP BD+C, GGP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190710/3f3104c5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190710/3f3104c5/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1903 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190710/3f3104c5/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 68282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190710/3f3104c5/attachment-0005.png>