[Equest-users] Interpreting SIM reports - CHW plant improvements
Nicholas Caton
Nicholas.Caton at se.com
Thu Jun 20 09:28:38 PDT 2019
I’m re-submitting this thread from last week as it appears a number of folks may have missed it, based on direct responses I’ve received. Likely an email / subscription issue on my end, but sorry for anyone receiving this twice!
~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]
From: Nicholas Caton
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 11:11 AM
To: Bishop, Bill <bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>; Erik Kolderup <erik at kolderupconsulting.com>
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] Interpreting SIM reports - CHW plant improvements
Thanks SO MUCH to Erik, Bill, Kevin, and Joe for sharing your perspectives!
I’ve nearly worked this out now! Some recap and summary information:
* Recap: PV-A reports a total capacity of 13.909 MMBtu/h.
* I do believe now this is exactly as Erik (first) described: It’s essentially the sum of all of the service hard-input coil capacities
* Adding up all of my specified coil capacities (which I confirmed are reflected perfectly in the SV-A system reports), I total 13.808 MMBtu/h
* Looking hard for the difference, I identified that at peak conditions, the additional loads captured between the peak “coil” vs peak “net” load per PS-H brings the total up to 13.896 MMBtu/h
* I am not simulating any additional loop process loads or pipe losses, so I’m not sure what else might be missing to arrive at 13.909 MMBtu/h, though it does appear pump heat gets me most of the way there.
* Regardless, it appears clear that indeed PV-A is reporting non-coincident total cooling capacity owing to how loops (in doe 2.2) default to SECONDARY sizing, which is supposed to simply sum all connected coils, loop loads, etc.
* PS-H and by extension PS-D, by contrast, provide peak Coincident load sums.
* In this particular building (a large 2-story conference center with a ton of glass walls (solar gains) and a hot climate), there is huge difference between the coincident and non-coincident totals: more than a factor of 2. I’m relieved to assert the peak coincident load in this model, as these results align with real-world operations (where only one chiller of the 3 installed is generally required to handle loads through the hottest days of the summer season).
The additional options Bill has highlighted for doe 2.3 are of course a welcome advance! I anticipate we will now through the COINCIDENT/NON-COINCIDENT options be able to get a little more control in how loops are sized up for our simulation. Should be a pretty great featureset for those leveraging energy simulations to aid in “right sizing” design and plant automation. If the outputs of the model in front of me were available to the designers of 20+ years ago, they might have invested in a plant of half the size and more constructively spent that elsewhere!
~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]
From: Bishop, Bill <bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com<mailto:bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 2:00 PM
To: Erik Kolderup <erik at kolderupconsulting.com<mailto:erik at kolderupconsulting.com>>; Nicholas Caton <Nicholas.Caton at se.com<mailto:Nicholas.Caton at se.com>>
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] Interpreting SIM reports - CHW plant improvements
[External email: Use caution with links and attachments]
________________________________
Once you convert to DOE-2.3, you have additional sizing options and other CHW plant improvements. For example:
* For SIZING-OPTION, you can choose the COINCIDENT (simultaneous) peak load of all attached coils, or the NON-COINCIDENT total of all peak coil loads. (Or PRIMARY based on the attached equipment capacities.)
* The SIZING-WINDOW specifies how design-days are treated.
* You can specify the design LOOP-FLOW (gpm) if already known.
* You can specify the RATED-EDB and RATED-EWB for the corresponding coil ZONE:COOLING-CAPACITY.
* You can specify a STARTUP-COOL-DT that sizes the cooling coil based on the space temperature reduction you have to achieve per hour of operation.
~Bill
William Bishop, PE, BEMP, BEAP, CEM, LEED AP
Senior Energy Engineer
[Pathfinder-EA-logo-2]T: (585) 698-1956 F: (585) 325-6005
bbishop at pathfinder-ea.com<mailto:wbishop at pathfinder-ea.com> www.pathfinder-ea.com<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pathfinder-ea.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CNicholas.Caton%40se.com%7C099562f2a25d47f5dbbb08d6f0318c1a%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C636960492936672346&sdata=a8cubZyeVhDQOuM6wi%2BTNUNV%2FM%2FhM77XddaRQ6N17eU%3D&reserved=0>
134 South Fitzhugh Street
Rochester, NY 14608 [cid:image006.png at 01D5275B.472A2830] Ask me why Carbon Fee & Dividend may be right for you.
From: Equest-users <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>> On Behalf Of Erik Kolderup via Equest-users
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 2:08 PM
To: Nicholas Caton <Nicholas.Caton at se.com<mailto:Nicholas.Caton at se.com>>
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Interpreting SIM reports
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<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kolderupconsulting.com&data=02%7C01%7CNicholas.Caton%40se.com%7C099562f2a25d47f5dbbb08d6f0318c1a%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C636960492936672346&sdata=ww6YPp5ddvs6QkXrOtBf0aRdpezDQKlkj6wRd57FSYg%3D&reserved=0>
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):
[cid:image007.jpg at 01D5275B.472A2830]
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:
[cid:image008.png at 01D5275B.472A2830]
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<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.onebuilding.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fequest-users-onebuilding.org&data=02%7C01%7CNicholas.Caton%40se.com%7C099562f2a25d47f5dbbb08d6f0318c1a%7C6e51e1adc54b4b39b5980ffe9ae68fef%7C0%7C0%7C636960492936682343&sdata=gcxFrDD1LuIIB7gMBLWC8kULaYLklsflWfdAzw7IFIc%3D&reserved=0>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG<mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
______________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190620/86c67f14/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 255 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190620/86c67f14/attachment-0012.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8477 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190620/86c67f14/attachment-0013.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9336 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190620/86c67f14/attachment-0009.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1881 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190620/86c67f14/attachment-0010.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1554 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190620/86c67f14/attachment-0014.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 44782 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190620/86c67f14/attachment-0011.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 306303 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20190620/86c67f14/attachment-0015.png>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list