<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)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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;}
/* 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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="1026" />
</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>HI All-<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>While there are some posts similar to this issue, I want to ask the group for clarification for a slightly different application. Please bear with me for some assistance, I’d sure appreciate it!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I am working on someone else’s model that has had comments back from GBCI for a LEED project. The model came to me in detailed mode. They note that in the baseline model apparently non-90.1 baseline efficiencies were used. Looking at the model, it does seem that the modeler manually entered efficiencies (they are in red) and they do not seem to be correct (even the GBCI comment notes this). They are less efficient than 90.1. In some of the similar threads on this topic, someone mentioned that you can revert to autosizing by right clicking on the heating and cooling capacity and selecting “restore default”. Since the modeler did not manually input system size, just system efficiency (both cooling and heating hp eff, fan design kw/cfm and total eff frac seem to be manually entered), my question is if I restore those efficiency values to default (using right clicking), will Equest use the proper efficiencies and I’m good to ho? I’ve done this, and it seems to work, although I’m not experienced enough to truly verify this. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>When I compare the two models (original base and my reverted base) I do see where the power demand has dropped (SV-A), and none of the peak loads have changed (LS-A) but the equipment sizing (SV-A) has increased. This all seems correct, do others think I am on track here? Using the correct methodology?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If I can also confirm another question, LEED specific. I understand 90.1 is the only appropriate base case for LEED even in Washington state, even if portions of their energy code are more stringent, correct? The requirement to achieve a 10% reduction is how I think LEED addresses more stringent state codes so the base doesn’t need to be written specific to those (numerous) state codes. Correct? One comment from the client leads me to think that complying with WA code might explain the difference in equipment efficiencies used in the base case, and even though it doesn’t add up I want to confirm my understanding.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Another issue that further confuses this is that the modeler apparently chose two of the systems to be variable speed (all are system type 4, constant volume in 90.1) and I’m not sure why. The original modeler is not available for questioning. Any ideas? The VFD’s were applied to an office space and data/server room packaged heat pumps, but not a large storage space. Based on what I know right now, it seems those should be modeled constant volume. If I’m updating the base model, I think it makes sense to correct this if the base incorrectly models a more efficient system.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Lastly, can anyone tell me how to change the project descriptor at the top left of the sim reports? It’s got some boilerplate name and it sure would be nice to have the filename show, or at least a single descriptor I can update in each model run.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks so much-<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Laura<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>