<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Dear Users,<BR>
<BR>
1. Evaporative Cooling is used in a proposed design and eQUEST smulations indicate high unmet cooling hours (8760 multiplied by % outside throttling range 9.8%)<BR>
<BR>
2. Reviewer recommends to use mechanical cooling for this proposed case for the periods of evaporative cooling can not meet unmet cooling hours and receive credits<BR>
<BR>
3. The simulation strategy for this using eQUEST has been as follows:<BR>
<BR>
a. simulate proposed case using evap cooling and estimate energy cost<BR>
b. simulate proposed case using mechanical cooling same as the base case equipment type but capacities without being oversized by 1.15 to get same unmet hours as above (a) and estimate energy cost<BR>
c. simulate proposed case using mechanical cooling cooling same as the base case type to get acceptable unmet cooling hours and estimate energy cost<BR>
d. Use difference of costs as the cost of running mechanical cooling to meet unmet cooling hours requirement that are not met by evaporative cooling in the proposed case.<BR>
<BR>
Is this an acceptable strategy of simulation? If not how can eQUEST handle this simulation.<BR>
<BR>
Any comments will be greatly appreciated<BR>
<BR>
Anura<BR> <br /><hr />Windows Live: <a href='http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_3:092010' target='_new'>Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail you.</a></body>
</html>