<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Greetings,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am curious why we are not using DVC- demand ventilation control, with occupancy CO2 monitors in each zone, instead of the Ashrae guidlines for ventilation air. </div>
<div>It seems an significantly more efficient and energy-saving approach.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I haven't had a chance to peruse the archives yet, but I wonder what approach folks have been taking to model this type of outside air introduction?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As always, thanks to all the great contributors in this group.</div>
<div>J# </div>
<div>************************************************************<BR>Jeffery Sharpe, PE<BR></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-FAMILY: verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=replyBlockquote webmail="1">
<div >-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Equest Base Model vs. ASHRAE 90.1 (Michael<BR>Bejrowski)<BR>From: Michael Bejrowski <mbejrowski@hmg-associates.com><BR>Date: Fri, November 27, 2009 9:59 pm<BR>To: equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org<BR><BR>I am currently testing out Hevacomp with a 30 day trial. I have been tinkering with it for about 3-4 days now. The cad/geometry input is much easier and faster than with equest. Window and door placement is nice as well. It uses the cad interface for most of the model creation, which is very intuitive. I have not gotten into the actual calculations and system creation yet, so I will have to get back to you on the compliance documentation and such... It seems like a nice software, but it is broken up into two modules (a designer and a simulator), which for me can get kind of confusing/overwhelming. One other cool thing about the Hevacomp package is that it has an optional CFD package that works off of the model you create. I will let you know how the rest of my trial period goes. As of now, I am not convinced that the software is worth the initial and annual costs of substituting for a free package like equest. <BR> <BR>Other packages out there that claim built-in ASHRAE 90.1 compliance tools are TRACE and HAP (both mfr. created, Trane and Carrier, respectively). I have tried Trace a bit and don't like it. I don't know anything about HAP.<BR> <BR>One other ASHRAE related item I would like to add to this discussion is, compliance with ASHRAE 62.1. eQUEST has either per area or per person auto ventilation calcs, but 62.1 requires a combination. The folks at Bentley (who created Hevacomp) claim that they will include this in their April release, and TRACE and HAP already have it. It would be nice if equest could include this as well.<BR> <BR>If equest could add auto-compliance with both of these ASHRAE Standards I think there would be alot of satisfied simulators out there. If not, I would start to fear that the creators have "given up on keeping up", which will force me to find something new. These standards (driven by LEED, etc...) have become so important in our designs that having a software tool that simulates energy usage, verifies compliance with 90.1 and calculates ventilation requirements per 62.1 are becoming major assets.<BR> <BR>Michael Bejrowski
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Equest-users mailing list<BR><a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org" target=_blank>http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a><BR>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>