<div>It is under the Building Shell Tab. Before you can access it, I believe you must run a simulation. You first highlight the particular "Construction" (does not work with Layers or Materials) on the component tree panel. Then, you select summary from the tabs over the model window. This works for HVAC systems, Water-side systems, etc. It very useful to verify design flows, OA, and in this case construction summaries.</div>
<div><br></div><div>best,</div><div>nic</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Jain, Sunayana <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sjain@ftch.com">sjain@ftch.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Hi Nic,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I was curious to know that where did you find the option of generating construction summary report with graph in eQUEST.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thank You,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Sunayana Jain</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </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""> <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>nic<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 25, 2012 6:01 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nikola Kravik<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a></span></p><div><div class="h5">
<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] Exterior insulation vs Exterior with Cavity insulation</div></div></div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Again thank you for the insight. I have attached heat transfer graphs from eQuest that demonstrate (I believe) what you were getting at between the different constructions' rates. As for the utility rates, I have yet to explore anything beyond a simple structure so peak demand shaving could come into play here. THe peak is showing something far better than the EUI for that run in particular, but the HVAC energy in both kWh and Total Mbtu are even worse at ~ 18% under the baseline.</p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Another monkey wrench shows up when I increase the thickness of the continuous insulation with an improved R-Value of 18 ( > 12.) Again the results show a decrease in savings of 1% worse than ALT 1. </p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Nikola Kravik <<a href="mailto:NKravik@willdan.com" target="_blank">NKravik@willdan.com</a>> wrote:</p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I’m guessing that due to no fill insulation(R-0 insulation within the cavity 16 OC) you have large heat transfer between in/out through the studs and less thermal delay-more energy consumption(heat or cool). Since it’s school/educational I assume you don’t operate 365/24/7 but much less hours. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Depending on HeatingDegreeDays, HDD or CoolingDD(Climate factor) for your project you may be operating mostly in heating season or mostly in cooling season. Rates can vary for gas and electric, so do the tier utility structure so you may be penalized for operating in certain season(certain hours of the day). I wouldn’t rely on the 0.003 U difference. Think of it as a distance from A to point B driving with a car. Let’s put a point C half way between the A and B point. If I drive 55mph from A to B, I get 40mpg, if I drive 85mph from A to mid point C and 20 mph from C to end point B I guarantee you get probably 30mpg average (25% reduction in speed over the same length), so same analogy on the wall.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">So either you’re overpaying for heating or cooling or ventilation (conditioning the OA). Don’t just look at the cumulative EUI, but check the therms and kWh consumption between the alternatives and see the peak demand.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Best,n </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </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""> nic [mailto:<a href="mailto:ffonics@gmail.com" target="_blank">ffonics@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:31 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nikola Kravik<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Equest-users] Exterior insulation vs Exterior with Cavity insulation</span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Sorry that I wasn't more clear, but I am questioning the major decrease in energy performance between the baseline and the ALT 1 of 8%. The U-value difference is about 0.003, so I would expect a much smaller decrease around 0-0.5%. THe problem I am having is with the exterior only application of ALT 1 vs exterior and cavity fill insulation in the baseline.</p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">ie. 90.1 Baseline is R13 fill + R7.5 continuous insulation</p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">ALT 1 is R0 fill + R12 continuous insulation. (very common installation)</p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,</p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">nic</p></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Nikola Kravik <<a href="mailto:NKravik@willdan.com" target="_blank">NKravik@willdan.com</a>> wrote:</p>
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I guess your “issue” or question relates to the amount of savings so you’re surprised how little savings you get increasing your wall insulation thickness?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Don’t be surprised since you mentioned is internal load dominated plus there are other factors like climate, orientation and wall area that play a role so without the building description I don’t see any issue with the results you’re showing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Best,n</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:10.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">Nikola Kravik, LEED AP </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><img border="0" width="28" height="33" src="cid:image001.gif@01CCDC0E.DD15D470" alt="Description: cid:image001.gif@01CB9AE0.30118F00"></span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray"><br>
Project Engineer<br><br><b>Willdan Energy Solutions</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:10.0pt"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">11875 Dublin Boulevard, Suite A-201<br>
Dublin, California 94568<br>T. 925.556.2600 ext. 1228</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:10.0pt"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray">C. 925.719.5883<br>
F. 925.556.1444</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><a href="mailto:nkravik@willdan.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">nkravik@willdan.com</span></a><br>
<a href="http://www.willdan.com/energy" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">www.willdan.com/energy</span></a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:10.0pt">
<span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray"><img border="0" width="237" height="39" src="cid:image002.jpg@01CCDC0E.DD15D470" alt="WD_tagend_300rgb"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </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""> <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>nic<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:01 PM<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] Exterior insulation vs Exterior with Cavity insulation</span></p>
</div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I am attempting to establish a few alternatives compared to an ASHRAE 90.1 Wall construction. This much seems pretty straightforward with the only change between alternatives being a different construction applied to the exterior above grade walls. All alternatives are modeled as delayed and with layered materials. The wall from outside to inside is stucco(finish) R0.08 + Cont. Insulation R-VARIES + Ext sheathing R0.56 + Framing/Insulation R-VARIES* + Int. Sheating R0.56 (air films do not change, infiltration does not change, etc.)<br>
<br>*framing 16" Mtl OC taken into account<br><br><<< I should mention the building is very much internal load dominant as an education building with a lot of laboratory space >>></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">
The problem described below has been input into eQuest using material properties for all continuous insulation and a representative R-value for framing/insulation.</p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div><p class="MsoNormal">
<br>BASELINE - 90.1 - R6* + 7.5 ci na<br><br>ALT1 - only ext insulation R0.9 + 12 ci -8% savings (% energy under EUI - kBtu/sf/yr) <br><br>ALT2 - improved ext insulation R6* + 12 ci +1% savings<br><br>ALT3 - improved cavity insulation R7.1* + 7.5 ci +1% savings<br>
<br>ALT4 - all insulation improved R7.1* + 12 ci +2% savings</p><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I guess the question really is; does the issue lie within the vav systems or the envelope or both?</p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div><p class="MsoNormal">As a novice, I greatly appreciate any help.</p></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>