[Equest-users] Equest-users Digest, Vol 136, Issue 6
Morteza Kasmai
morteza.kasmai at gmail.com
Fri Jul 12 10:29:07 PDT 2019
Bill and Paul,
Thank you so much for providing your valuable recommendations/instructions.
Regards,
Morteza
Morteza Kasmaei
Senior Architect
LEED AP BD+C, GGP
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 4:16 PM <equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org>
wrote:
> Send Equest-users mailing list submissions to
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> equest-users-owner at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Equest-users digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal (Morteza Kasmai)
> 2. Re: Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal (Bishop, Bill)
> 3. Re: Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal (Morteza Kasmai)
> 4. Re: Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal (Paul Riemer)
> 5. Re: Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal (Bishop, Bill)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Morteza Kasmai <morteza.kasmai at gmail.com>
> To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:06:47 -0400
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Bishop, Bill" <bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
> To: Morteza Kasmai <morteza.kasmai at gmail.com>
> Cc: "equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:53:25 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Morteza Kasmai <morteza.kasmai at gmail.com>
> To: "Bishop, Bill" <bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
> Cc: "equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:43:48 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Paul Riemer <Paul.Riemer at dunhameng.com>
> To: "'Morteza Kasmai'" <morteza.kasmai at gmail.com>, "Bishop, Bill" <
> bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>, "equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:12:31 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal
>
> Morteza,
>
> When series FPTUs are used throughout a system, the central fans typically
> have lower static pressure because the FPTUs are doing some of the air
> pressure work. You may need to change that as well as changing the
> terminal units. I don’t think any of us can say make a universal statement
> that FPTUs are more or less efficient than plain VAVs. There are a lot of
> variables there including climate, fan system power, hours of operation,
> set back behavior, type and efficiency of the heating source, etc, etc.
>
>
>
>
> *Paul Riemer, PE, LEED AP BD+C *Senior Associate / Mechanical
> *DUNHAM*
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Morteza Kasmai via Equest-users
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2019 9:44 AM
> *To:* Bishop, Bill
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Bishop, Bill" <bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>
> To: Paul Riemer <Paul.Riemer at dunhameng.com>, "'Morteza Kasmai'" <
> morteza.kasmai at gmail.com>, "equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org" <
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:30:25 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal
>
> Morteza,
>
> Yes, I agree the DTQS should be modeled as Series PIU terminals.
>
> To your second question, I suggest you DON’T keep everything equal. The
> central air handler of System 5 has to supply the peak cooling airflow AND
> the peak heating airflow. In your proposed design, the packaged RTUs need
> to supply the peak cooling airflow to the zones, and could be controlled
> with low minimum flows based on the minimum ventilation rates. Then the
> Series PIU terminals use recirculated zone air to meet the heating loads.
> (Change the ZONE:INDUCED-AIR-SRC to ZONE-RECIRC.) So you might be able to
> capture energy savings if you enter specific zone design and minimum
> airflows for each zone/terminal. I suggest reviewing the help file
> literature for Powered-Induction Terminals and the many zone airflow
> keywords including the terminal ZONE-FAN-RATIO, ZONE-FAN-FLOW. The baseline
> should be modeled with minimum zone flows per Appendix G but the proposed
> design minimum zone flows (provided by the packaged rooftops) should be
> different.
>
>
>
> 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:* Paul Riemer <Paul.Riemer at dunhameng.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2019 11:13 AM
> *To:* 'Morteza Kasmai' <morteza.kasmai at gmail.com>; Bishop, Bill <
> bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>; equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Equest-users] Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal
>
>
>
> Morteza,
>
> When series FPTUs are used throughout a system, the central fans typically
> have lower static pressure because the FPTUs are doing some of the air
> pressure work. You may need to change that as well as changing the
> terminal units. I don’t think any of us can say make a universal statement
> that FPTUs are more or less efficient than plain VAVs. There are a lot of
> variables there including climate, fan system power, hours of operation,
> set back behavior, type and efficiency of the heating source, etc, etc.
>
>
>
>
> *Paul Riemer, PE, LEED AP BD+C *Senior Associate / Mechanical
> *DUNHAM*
>
>
>
> *From:* Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] *On Behalf Of *Morteza
> Kasmai via Equest-users
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2019 9:44 AM
> *To:* Bishop, Bill
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Fan Powered Terminal vs Std VAV Terminal
>
>
>
> 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
>
> *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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> Equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190712/64084e05/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20190712/64084e05/attachment.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/20190712/64084e05/attachment.jpg>
-------------- 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/20190712/64084e05/attachment-0001.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/20190712/64084e05/attachment-0001.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/20190712/64084e05/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 32590 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190712/64084e05/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1903 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190712/64084e05/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190712/64084e05/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190712/64084e05/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 32590 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190712/64084e05/attachment-0006.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/20190712/64084e05/attachment-0003.jpg>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list