<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:718745357;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:772825554 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.25in;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:971256179;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1821405888 1252178908 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-start-at:4;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:-;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="3074" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Dan, not sure if you got all
your questions answered? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I typically see about a 20% smaller
GHEX with eQUEST when compared to GLD. I also believe it is the most
accurate tool between the two for a couple of reasons. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='color:#1F497D'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>1)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='color:#1F497D'>eQ models the heat
transfer on an hourly basis. GLD does not. If you look at the Zone
Manager, GLD takes the monthly peak and cumulative loads and arbitrarily
assigns those loads into one 12 hour block and three 4 hour blocks, and then
uses that profile for the entire month. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:.25in;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='color:#1F497D'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>2)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='color:#1F497D'>After talking to
Gaia “support,” I’m not correct that their equipment
libraries interface correctly with GHEX sizing algorithms (and that’s
probably more than I should say about that). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Some other thoughts:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='color:#1F497D'>4 subfields will always
have more capacity than a single field of equivalent bore length. So that
accounts for some of your error, maybe 10%.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='color:#1F497D'>You can select “real”
manufacturer performance data within the eQuest wizard by clicking the “Select
from GSHP Library” command(see screenshot). Since ClimateMaster
developed the add-on, you’re limited to their equipment choices of
course. I never use the default performance curves, I simply choose the
closest CM unit. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='color:#1F497D'>Although the totals
are the same, I use report SS-D (not SS-l) for these comparisons. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='color:#1F497D'>Make sure you’re
setting your “Years of Previous Operation” to 20 so that you
account for long term temperature creep. Just because the GHEX works in
year 1 doesn’t mean it’ll work in year 20.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:#1F497D'>Anthony Hardman<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Building Energy Analyst<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>LEED AP<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;color:#9BBB59'>Geo-Energy
Services<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>14250 E Easter Pl, STE C<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Centennial, CO 80112<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>303-531-5292 v<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>303-805-3563 f<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>720-273-9973 c<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#0070C0'><a
href="http://www.geoenergyservices.com">www.GeoEnergyServices.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#0070C0'><o:p><span
style='text-decoration:none'> </span></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#0070C0'><img
border=0 width=720 height=518 id="Picture_x0020_3"
src="cid:image002.png@01CAE7A2.C9960210"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dan
Russell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Equest-users] Geothermal Well Field Modeling<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Hi All – I am wondering if anyone has much experience
with the geothermal well field capabilities of eQUEST, in particular with
vertical well fields. I am concerned about the accuracy of the
calculation methodology for the vertical well fields, primarily due to a large
discrepancy we are getting between the eQUEST results and the results of a
separate geothermal well field software produced by Gaia Geothermal. Here
are the parameters:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Vertical well field<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Ground conditions & well field dimensions are identical
in both eQUEST and Gaia simulations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Equest model has four 4x5 rectangular well fields (80 bore
holes total) with 200 ft bore depth. Plant report PS-C shows that the
fourth well field has no load, thus using at most 60 of the 200 ft wells. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Gaia software inputs load data from the DOE2 report SS-I for
each zone along with the matching heat pump size (specific to manufacturer)
selected for the project for the zone. This software uses its knowledge
of the heat pump performance to generate the required well-field size and
depth. The result is 120 well fields of 250 ft bore depth or 80 well
fields of 350 ft bore depth. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I would expect some discrepancy between different software,
but in this case the eQUEST simulation is using only about 50% of the required
well-field size calculated by the Gaia software. The Gaia calculation is
coming out much larger than what the owner and design-build contractor had
planned for.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>How reliable is the eQUEST simulation on vertical well-fields?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I believe the primary difference is that Gaia software uses
“real” manufacturer performance data for heap pump models specified
and eQUEST uses PVVT system with default GSHP performance curves. Could
this difference really make such huge impact on the results?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thanks in advance for any insight.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";
color:#960028'>Dan Russell<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";
color:#C00000'><img border=0 width=197 height=140 id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:image001.png@01CAE79D.0A759440" alt="EI Signature"></span><span
style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Garamond","serif";color:#CA0002'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>