<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:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@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:"Stylus BT";
panose-1:2 14 4 2 2 2 6 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","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";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.balloontextchar0
{mso-style-name:balloontextchar;
mso-style-priority:99;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1525092423;
mso-list-template-ids:-1134625192;
mso-list-style-name:"Style Numbered";}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:%1;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:windowtext;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-weight:bold;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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">Hi Matt!<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 your primary goal is to compare the relative performance of two systems on the same building, then you can rest assured you’ve made fine decisions so far.
That you’re simultaneously tasked with “validating” one choice over another might complicate things in presentation of your results – it depends on how the cookies crumble. More later.<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">eQuest is a capable tool to this end, but I might have cautioned you at the outset that eQuest can quickly become unwieldy for “a simple comparison” when trying
to compare certain system types, especially for newer/intermediate users. That said, you are clearly well-invested into this model, and why would anyone want to miss a learning opportunity, right =)?<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">General rule: A more representative model will always produce a ‘better’ result – the corollary is that ‘better’ is not always what you’re hoping for. “Degree-of-accuracy”
is always a balancing act for any model – it’s clear you’re taking an active role in deciding when/how to improve the model’s degree of detail, however. That’s enough to satisfy me. So long as you personally feel the model is “representative enough,” that’s
the key litmus test when you’re the one presenting the results ;).<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">I would not suggest stopping and building a 90.1 baseline model provided with this extra context, but you could use 90.1 as a broader reference to ensure you
are making a fair comparison. For example, 90.1 Appendix G has a section discussing unmet hours and establishes a threshold for both the (90.1) baseline and proposed models. Have you made a similar check between your chiller and DX models to ensure they’re
on similar footing? <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">I almost always build my models from DD wizards instead of SD so my usual workflow may produce different “normal fixes,” but I commonly need to spend extra
time reviewing the hydronic inputs in detailed mode to ensure any chiller system is being correctly modeled. Give your chiller, pump, and loop inputs a good scour, particularly pump operation/scheduling inputs. You mentioned also changing the quantity of
airside systems for the DX model – it might be worthwhile to review the schedules applicable to the consolidated system to ensure its operating as a single large AHU would.<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">When all is said and done if you still feel uncomfortable with your inputs, I’ve often found it productive to have the responsible mechanical designer scan
through typical waterside/airside inputs alongside me to identify anything that appears off. I have found pulling other designers in is a good QC practice for all skill levels where the modeler didn’t do all the work him/herself. I find it easiest to plan
on missing some nuances along the way (Murphy’s law), and allow those most intimate with the design to collaborate with me to pick any loose threads up.<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">So full-circle… regarding your ‘intended’ results: Accept that the “right” answer can ultimately swing either way. Whenever performing a comparative study,
keep in mind all such results are built on unknowns/assumptions. Where the results are close, it’s not uncommon to conclude there are multiple right answers.
<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>
<div>
<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@01CD21F5.D5249120" 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:7.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-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">Smith & Boucher Engineers</span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;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>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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""> Matt Clough [mailto:mclough@kme-inc.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:37 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nick Caton; equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: EEM vs. new model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">I suppose I should have been more specific in my description:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">By baseline I mean the proposed design. So the program outputs 2 sim files – the base(proposed, CHW) case and the iterated (DX) case<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">We want to use eQuest to validate the system choice on this particular project. This is work that was started before I joined, but I have been selected to try and
use eQuest to compare the performance of a chilled water system and a DX system. I’m not the most experienced energy modeler, but it seems like a task that would be a good application for eQuest.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">My approach was to simulate the energy consumption of a building that is similar to the actual design in orientation, shape, and square
footage. I initially built the model in the SD wizard, using most of the default values (building envelope, activity usage, etc.), autosize the equipment, and use the EEM to compare the two systems. The idea was that when the building construction and geometry
are equal, we can look at the relative energy consumption of the two systems. This initial simulation reported that the DX system would be more efficient, which is not what I had expected based on the design that had been selected.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">So I figured that maybe my model was too generic, too simple. I created zones based on the plans, and made the geometry more representative
of the actual building. These changes produced reports that suggest the chilled water system is more efficient than the DX. I realized that the EEM was incorrectly modeling the change – it was treating the chilled water system as having all 8 air handlers,
but was modeling the DX system as one AHU. So I created a duplicate model that has a DX system (autosized and using equest defaults).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">The comparison of these two models suggests the DX system is slightly more efficient. Unfortunately, my lack of experience makes me doubt
the validity of this comparison – especially considering that the engineers selected a chilled water system for this project.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">So I suppose my questions are: Does my approach seem valid? Is this an appropriate use of the software?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">After taking some time to write this note, and with a little rest, I wonder if comparing the proposed design to an ASHRAE 90.1 baseline would have been a better
approach.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy">Matt Clough<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<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""> Nick Caton [<a href="mailto:ncaton@smithboucher.com">mailto:ncaton@smithboucher.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 23, 2012 3:40 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Matt Clough; <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: EEM vs. new model</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">By context, I gather by ‘baseline’ you mean something other than your proposed design, such as an 90.1 Appendix G baseline or similar.<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 that’s the case, my general advice is that you should
<u>much</u> more heavily weight the comparative results using your “actual/proposed” model. A baseline per above inherently diverges from the actual building materials, lighting power densities, solar load shading, and so forth. It’s not the same building.<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">Best to choose systems that most efficiently handle your actual project. Don’t get too hung up what works best for an imaginary building ;).<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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><img border="0" width="119" height="37" id="Picture_x005f_x005f_x005f_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CD21F5.D5249120" 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.<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:7.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-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">Smith & Boucher Engineers</span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;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>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";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"">
<a href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a> [<a href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org">mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Matt Clough<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 23, 2012 1:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Equest-users] EEM vs. new model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Salutations eQuesters,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">I’m doing a simple comparison between a chilled water and DX system. It would seem that this is a great opportunity to use the EEM, and the simulation predicted that the CHW
configuration would be more energy efficient than the DX system. To be conservative, I also made a copy of the baseline model and changed the system from chilled water to DX. Using this method, the simulation predicts that the DX system would be more efficient
(although not by much). Which result is most accurate? The building is a car dealership with a large showroom and an air-conditioned parts storage area.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">The geometry and building envelope are not exact, but I made this decision because we are doing this for comparison purposes, so the geometry and construction will be the same.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">I have let eQuest autosize both systems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Sincerely,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Matt Clough<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>