[Equest-users] Interpreting SIM reports

Thu Jun 13 13:41:49 PDT 2019

Nick,

I'm glad that Erik took the first shot in answering your question, as I 
was leery to say too much because I haven't followed the development of 
DOE-2.2 much at all and might be giving you outdated impressions from 
DOE-2.1E.   However, your question seems to ask a generic question of 
why the design capacities in the verification reports (SV-A, PV-A, etc.) 
differ from the peak loads in the simulation reports (SS-H, PS-H, 
etc.).   Design capacities are either input by the user or calculated 
using design day conditions which are worse-case conditions, i.e., 
weather conditions at the 0.4% criteria and the building at full 
operations for all zones (this is for cooling; for heating the building 
is assumed to be completely off except for the HVAC).   I apologize if 
that's all  well known, in which case take this as an extended hello 
prior to meeting in KC!

Joe

On 6/13/2019 11:08 AM, Erik Kolderup via Equest-users wrote:
> Hi, Nick.
>
> I think that the capacity of the cooling loop will be based on the sum 
> of the capacities of cooling coils connected to the loop, assuming the 
> sizing option for the loop is "secondary" rather than "primary". If 
> you look at the SV-A report and sum up capacity of all the cooling 
> coils, does that get you to 13 MBtu/hr? If you want the loop sized 
> based on chiller size, then the sizing option for the loop should be 
> "primary".
>
> -Erik
>
>
> *Erik Kolderup, PE, LEED AP*
> erik at kolderupconsulting.com <mailto:erik at kolderupconsulting.com>| 
> 415.531.5198 | www.kolderupconsulting.com 
> <http://www.kolderupconsulting.com>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:02 AM Nicholas Caton via Equest-users 
> <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org 
> <mailto:equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi everyone,
>
>     Can anyone help me assert or correct my understanding on
>     something?  This is from a model built in v3.65, b7175, doe2.2
>     engine (with intent to upconvert the project to doe2.3 before I’m
>     done).
>
>     Report PV-A lists the capacity for each heating/cooling loop. 
>     Here I’m cropping to just the loops, and highlighting what I’m
>     used to thinking of as the “peak” coincident capacity requirement
>     for a chilled water loop – 13.909 MMBtu/hr (that’s millions):
>
>     The following reports PS-H go into more detail on each item listed
>     in PV-A.  Here is the report for the same “Chilled Water Loop,”
>     with a coule more highlights:
>
>     Immediately, I note that *13.909 MMBtu/hr*(1,159 tons) aligns with
>     PV-A, however I do not see that number matching (intuitively) any
>     of the other figures or sums provided on this sheet.  The figure
>     5,625.126 kBtu/hr (469 tons) aligns with my expectations for peak
>     load on the loop, where nominal capacity of the associated
>     chillers on this loop are in the same ballpark (one is 444 tons
>     and one is 210 tons on paper & @ design conditions, and I’m told
>     they commonly do not need to engage the smaller chiller during the
>     dead of summer).
>
>     Can anyone help me reconcile the differences between what’s
>     reported as “Cooling Capacity” in PV-A, in relation to the annual
>     peak loads indicated for the same loop in the PS-H report?
>
>     Thanks!
>
>     ~Nick
>
>     cid:image005.png at 01D515A3.47EDD880
>
>     *Nick Caton, P.E., BEMP*
>
>     Senior Energy Engineer
>     Regional Energy Engineering Manager
>
>     Energy and Sustainability Services
>     Energy Performance Contracting
>
>     	
>
>     D
>     M
>     F
>     E
>
>     	
>
>     913 . 564 . 6361
>
>     785 . 410 . 3317
>
>     913 . 564 . 6380
>
>     _nicholas.caton at se.com <mailto:nicholas.caton at se.com>_
>
>     	
>
>     15200 Santa Fe Trail Drive
>     Suite 204
>     Lenexa, KS 66219
>     United States
>
>     cid:image006.png at 01D515A3.47EDD880
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>     <mailto: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/20190613/1c0816ab/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 44782 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190613/1c0816ab/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 306303 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190613/1c0816ab/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190613/1c0816ab/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8477 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190613/1c0816ab/attachment-0011.png>