<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=gb2312"><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:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@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:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Stylus BT";
panose-1:2 14 4 2 2 2 6 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:SimSun;}
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:SimSun;}
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";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="2050" />
</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=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Bobby et al:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Important clarification</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>: The building performance rating method does NOT require models “closely match reality.” This is an easy misperception which has landed many in hot water. 90.1 Appendix G is purposefully and necessarily arbitrary to reality in many regards (Consider: it’s made to be usable with buildings that are still only on paper), so it inherently follows the resulting rating and proposed model are often arbitrary to reality as well. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Nearly every time I see a chart showing “actual” vs. “LEED modeled” utility bills, I roll my eyes (or heave a large imagined sigh if I’m trying to be polite). There’s apparently money/litigation/business to be made perpetuating the fallacy, but I’d rather not take part as this does a disservice to the modeling community at large.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>To your actual query: I have run into one reviewer demanding <u>identical</u> assumptions between load calculations and energy models (fair to note: not a LEED/USGBC reviewer). This individual was unwilling to accept that an energy model and load calculations may be performed by different software and assembled by different persons, to start, and had some as-of-yet unexplained need to “prove” our design was “wrong,” so was trying his/her hardest to find a chink in my model’s armor. Long story short, hours upon hours spent syncing load calc assumptions/scheduling up had the net effect of improving our modeled performance rating (to this reviewers), and was altogether a pointless exercise from a “reality matching” perspective regardless since the load calcs were made to use artificially inflated space occupancy/ventilation rates. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That little scary anecdote aside, there are actually a number of good reasons for which it would be rational for a reviewer to request a comparison to ensure both load calcs and models are making reasonable and similar (not necessarily identical) assumptions for occupancies/loads/etc. It doesn’t take much creativity to figure out this is an area where one could artificially skew the results in their favor. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If you need a reference: 90.1-2007 Table G3.1.4. “Schedules.” This section makes two important points: (1) the rating authority has the designation to approve (or not) the scheduling used, and (2) such scheduling needs to agree with what the designer came up with. The specific wording is “typical of” which I personally don’t think can/should be read as “match exactly.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Between matching proposed design in capacities & unmet hour restrictions, 90.1 further reinforces <u>reasonable</u> assumptions on items like occupancy density and scheduling, otherwise you’ll find pushing the envelope will cause irresolvable unmet hours. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>All things said: I’ve found eQuest defaults and library entries tend to be reasonable for the most part, and when necessary can often be traced back to matching/similar guidance from ASHRAE and other industry authorities. I rely on them for PRM modeling, and reference a corresponding set of HVAC equipment sizing calculations as a QC resource where available, to ensure similar ventilation/occupancy/load assumptions are being made. This often resolves unmet hours before I even need to address them. I’ve found such QC measures are usually a small time investment returning a faster/easier workflow as you avoid repeating work like baseline sizing calculations down the road when something askew comes to light (or a reviewer decides this needs a closer look!).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>~Nick<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><img width=119 height=37 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CC872C.D5BEBDE0" alt="cid:489575314@22072009-0ABB"></span><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Stylus BT","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Stylus BT","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Stylus BT","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E'>NICK CATON, P.E.</span></b><b><span style='font-family:"Stylus BT","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#CC9900'>SENIOR ENGINEER<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E'>Smith & Boucher Engineers</span><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#CC9900'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E'>25501 west valley parkway, suite 200<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E'>olathe, ks 66061<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E'>direct 913.344.0036<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#2D4D5E'>fax 913.345.0617<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><a href="www.smithboucher.com" title="blocked::www.smithboucher.com"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>www.smithboucher.com</span></a></span><u><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:blue'> </span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><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"'> Bobby Sy [mailto:rsg4999@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 08, 2011 1:40 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nick Caton<br><b>Cc:</b> Jiao, Joey; Equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] Values choosing of the typical equipment &miscellaneous power densities.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you guys for bringing this up. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'd like to ask a simple question about the occupancy assumption. Do we need to match the occupancy density to the assumed occupancy (usually peak or dense) by the HVAC designer, in the model? Often times HVAC designers assume more occupants for peak load.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I understand that simulation needs to be close to reality as possible but if I will reduce the occupancy close to reality, savings may be reduced due to increase in the HVAC equipment capacity difference between the baseline & proposed because the baselines equipment will be auto-sized (1.15 ratio for cooling, 1.25 for heating).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Have you experienced a comment from a reviewer picking on inconsistencies on assumed occupancy between other credit/prerequisites?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Bob<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>2011/9/29 Nick Caton <<a href="mailto:ncaton@smithboucher.com">ncaton@smithboucher.com</a>><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hi Joey,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>I thought to write about the 25% topic but thought it best to not bring it up<span lang=ZH-CN>…</span> Perhaps a quick recap is in order for your situation and others<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span> benefit!</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>There has been much discussion regarding that <span lang=ZH-CN>“</span>25% rule<span lang=ZH-CN>”</span> between myself and others on these lists ([bldg-rate], [bldg-sim], [equest-users]). Re: archives.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>I started out with the same conclusion you<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span>re stating: the baseline consumption is supposed to be 25% plug/process loads. The LEED 2.2 handbook is unfortunately worded under EAc1 to suggest this as a prescriptive default in the absence of substantial documentation, but that <span lang=ZH-CN>“</span>documentation<span lang=ZH-CN>”</span> can be as simple as a one-line reference as I described. Note the LEED v3 handbook (under EAp2 I think) re-words those lines on process loads to emphasize the expectation is to simply match between the models <span lang=ZH-CN>–</span> no mention of 25%. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>I have since that time done an about face on that viewpoint and believe that figure to be entirely arbitrary. <span lang=ZH-CN>“</span>Forcing<span lang=ZH-CN>”</span> 25% plug load consumption in the baseline is in many cases arbitrarily detrimental to the overall performance rating, is rarely realistic, and the resulting internal gains can cause irresolvable unmet hours for proposed equipment of a specified capacity (remembering the baseline and proposed should normally have matching process loads). I came to the lists seeking to share and learn better approaches to <span lang=ZH-CN>“</span>fairly<span lang=ZH-CN>”</span> mitigate these artificial internal loads, and in doing so learned I was far off the path from others.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>I could re-iterate my perception of the history and intent behind the 25% figure, but you<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span>re probably best advised to seek out those discussions in the archives to come to a fuller understanding. I would presently advise referencing and using something <u>reasonable</u> for your proposed building in both models, and not treating the 25% figure as a mandate, but do inform yourself by reading those archived discussions so that you can defend your position against any argumentative v2.2 reviewer. </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>~Nick</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'><img border=0 width=119 height=37 id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CC872C.D5BEBDE0" alt="cid:489575314@22072009-0ABB"></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='color:#2D4D5E'> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='color:#2D4D5E'>NICK CATON, P.E.</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;color:#CC9900'>SENIOR ENGINEER</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;color:#CC9900'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>Smith & Boucher Engineers</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>25501 west valley parkway, suite 200</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>olathe, ks 66061</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>direct <a href="tel:913.344.0036" target="_blank">913.344.0036</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>fax <a href="tel:913.345.0617" target="_blank">913.345.0617</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.smithboucher.com" target="_blank" title="blocked::www.smithboucher.com"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>www.smithboucher.com</span></a></span><u><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'> </span></u><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> Jiao, Joey [mailto:<a href="mailto:Joey.Jiao@WSPGroup.com.cn" target="_blank">Joey.Jiao@WSPGroup.com.cn</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 28, 2011 9:56 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nick Caton<br><b>Subject:</b> <span lang=ZH-CN>答复</span>: [Equest-users] Values choosing of the typical equipment &miscellaneous power densities.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hi, Nick:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thank you for your suggestion , it<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span>s really helpful!</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>I have found the TABLE GB, in ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Manual. See it below. I think it<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span>s what<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span>s your refer to.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>As an addition, I get another tip which should be a limitation for making a baseline model. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>On the LEED RATING SYSTEM , there is a rule that the process energy cost should be 25% of the total baseline energy cost. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hope it helpful for others.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks for your help again.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Joey</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><img border=0 width=778 height=343 id="_x0000_i1026" src="cid:image002.jpg@01CC872C.D5BEBDE0"><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span lang=ZH-CN style='font-size:10.0pt'>发件人</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> Nick Caton [mailto:<a href="mailto:ncaton@smithboucher.com" target="_blank">ncaton@smithboucher.com</a>] <br><b><span lang=ZH-CN>发送时间</span>:</b> 2011<span lang=ZH-CN>年</span>9<span lang=ZH-CN>月</span>28<span lang=ZH-CN>日</span> 22:48<br><b><span lang=ZH-CN>收件人</span>:</b> Jiao, Joey; <a href="mailto:Equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">Equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br><b><span lang=ZH-CN>主题</span>:</b> RE: [Equest-users] Values choosing of the typical equipment &miscellaneous power densities.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Generally, the <span lang=ZH-CN>“</span>correct<span lang=ZH-CN>”</span> baseline model values for these entries (misc/plug loads and occupancy/ventilation) are to match whatever is in the proposed model.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>There is more than one <span lang=ZH-CN>“</span>correct<span lang=ZH-CN>”</span> approach regarding misc load quantities for the proposed model. In any case you should be prepared to reproduce what decision you made and back it up for baseline/proposed documentation:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='color:#1F497D'>Reference tables in the 90.1 users manual (also found in certain state energy codes) with representative W/SF figures for various ‘whole building’ types and assign that figure to each space. I’ve found this approach to be time-efficient and so far totally accepted by the USGBC/LEED reviewers.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='color:#1F497D'>Stick with the eQuest defaults per occupancy. I’m unsure of where they’re all derived from exactly (Title 24? Some other standard/reference?), but they will vary as you change space activity types and appear sensible from what I’ve observed. These values, default or otherwise, are rolled into a weighted average for each zone group based on the % distribution in the zone group screen – which is why the resulting W/SF coming out of the wizards can appear somewhat random at first glance.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='color:#1F497D'>-</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='color:#1F497D'>Flex your spreadsheet muscles and do a space-by-space plug load takeoff to come up with an “actual” number. I have never pursued this degree of detail myself, but I understand others have specifically to account for gains from providing efficient plug load equipment with the project over “standard” equipment… resulting in a deliberate divergence between the baseline/proposed models. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>I<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span>ve found eQuest default values for occupant density/ventilation/loads are pretty much on the mark as to what I<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span>d define from ASHRAE references, so I leave the defaults alone in wizards and only focus on tweaking the calculated zone occupant quantities in detailed mode as necessary for model QC and matching loads. I do make a point to assign the appropriate <span lang=ZH-CN>“</span>space type percentages<span lang=ZH-CN>”</span> for each zone in the following wizard screens however.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>~Nick</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'><img border=0 width=119 height=37 id="_x0000_i1027" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CC872C.D5BEBDE0" alt="cid:489575314@22072009-0ABB"></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='color:#2D4D5E'> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='color:#2D4D5E'>NICK CATON, P.E.</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;color:#CC9900'>SENIOR ENGINEER</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;color:#CC9900'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>Smith & Boucher Engineers</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>25501 west valley parkway, suite 200</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>olathe, ks 66061</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>direct <a href="tel:913.344.0036" target="_blank">913.344.0036</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:#2D4D5E'>fax <a href="tel:913.345.0617" target="_blank">913.345.0617</a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.smithboucher.com" target="_blank" title="blocked::www.smithboucher.com"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>www.smithboucher.com</span></a></span><u><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'> </span></u><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> <a href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jiao, Joey<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 28, 2011 4:59 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:Equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">Equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [Equest-users] Values choosing of the typical equipment &miscellaneous power densities.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hi, Everyone:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span>m confused with the value choosing for the equipment & miscellaneous power densities like the illustrate below.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The table G 3.1 no.12 said it should be based on the building and space type, but there isn<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span>t other information. So do we need to add this load part when we make a baseline model? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Maybe this isn<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span>t very important , but I want to make sure about it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I know we can choosing the lighting power densities in Section 9, but I can<span lang=ZH-CN>’</span>t find the table for other equipment. So what should you do?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><img border=0 width=734 height=475 id="_x0000_i1028" src="cid:image003.png@01CC872C.D5BEBDE0"><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:#1F497D'>By the way</span> , about the occupancy density and ventilation inputs shown below, I found the reference information from ASHRAE 62.1, is that a common way when we make a baseline? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><img border=0 width=734 height=475 id="_x0000_i1029" src="cid:image004.png@01CC872C.D5BEBDE0"><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Thank you for your kindly help.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Best wishes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Joey<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>---------------------------------------------------------------------------</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>Joey Jiao</b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>Graduate Engineer<span style='color:#1F497D'> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>_______________________________________________<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 <a href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>