<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Personally I would have made the same
conversion from efficiency to HIR. I'm not aware of a conversion
that will take an efficiency of 77% and get you an HIR of 1.21.<br>
<br>
I think the best course of action would be to contact the review
team directly. They are fairly responsive to questions, and it
helps avoid the guessing game.<br>
<br>
I think your other option would be to writeup your confusion while
addressing the comments. You could explain the potential impact on
the model with the two values. It is unlikely the reviewer would
deny the whole credit if they don't like the input, they may just
adjust your results. <br>
<br>
This is the kind of grey area that you can waste hours and hours
and not really accomplish anything. <br>
<br>
- Steve<br>
<br>
On 7/5/2013 7:32 AM, vamshi ranga wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKLY+AbZr8c8JuDdZnbhu-EVzUFAfpULE8rg6B6S0T9eZZX0yQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear All,
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="">Could any help me out with the issue. Is it like,
this site is only meant for doubts related to eQUEST? (I asked
the related doubt 2 months back also, but could not get any
answer. On the same we got the LEED reviewer comment). If so,
requested to suggest me the sites where I can ask the doubts
related to ASHRAE.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">Your valuable time is appreciated.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">Thanks,</div>
<div style="">Vamshi.</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, vamshi
ranga <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vamshiranga@gmail.com" target="_blank">vamshiranga@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Dear All,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you very much for your time. It was very useful
information and good learning for me. I would be
following the conservative approach as suggested by Nick
for boiler HIR modeling.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I also would be requiring your esteemed assistance on
the Query No. 2. Which is the major issue for the LEED
Reviewer.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As queried by Ms. Ramya Shivkumar, there is no MPR
issue and the reviewer does not have any problem of
modeling two building together. The issue is about which
system needs to be modeled and interpretation of section
G 3.1.1 as queried in my previous mail.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Vamshi.</div>
</div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:39
PM, Daniel Knapp <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca" target="_blank">danielk@arborus.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Just
to followup with a little more clarity, my hope
was that the modellers have access to the boiler
specs with fuel input and heat output information
that they can use to define the eQuest HIR. If
all they have is the combustion efficiency then
yes, they are in the 90.1 no-man's land of how to
arrive at an overall thermal efficiency given only
the combustion efficiency.<br>
<div>
<div><br>
On 2013-07-02, at 1:54 PM, Daniel Knapp <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca"
target="_blank">danielk@arborus.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi Nick,<br>
><br>
> I agree entirely with what you're saying
here and have read through the attached
discussion with great interest. I sincerely
appreciate your contributions in not only
thinking this issue out in great detail but
also in making the effort to share your
thoughts with the group.<br>
><br>
> To be clear, I wasn't meaning to downplay
your response which I think is helpful to the
question at hand. In regards to this specific
question posed by the modeller, my
interpretation of the reviewer comment was
that the reviewer was speaking to the
modelling of the Proposed design efficiency,
i.e. that they were modelling it at 82% due to
the combustion efficiency being 82% when they
really need to model the Proposed design
according to the overall efficiency of the
boiler (fuel input vs. heat output) which may
be lower than 82%.<br>
><br>
> With best regards,<br>
> Dan<br>
><br>
> —<br>
> Daniel Knapp, PhD, P Phys, LEED® AP O+M<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca"
target="_blank">danielk@arborus.ca</a><br>
><br>
> Arborus Consulting<br>
> Energy Strategies for the Built
Environment<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.arborus.ca" target="_blank">www.arborus.ca</a><br>
> 76 Chamberlain Avenue<br>
> Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9<br>
> Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%28613%29%20234-7178%20ext.%20113"
value="+16132347178" target="_blank">(613)
234-7178 ext. 113</a><br>
> Fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%28613%29%20234-0740"
value="+16132340740" target="_blank">(613)
234-0740</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 2013-07-02, at 12:40 PM, Nick Caton
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ncaton@smithboucher.com"
target="_blank">ncaton@smithboucher.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi Daniel!<br>
>><br>
>> The wrench in the spokes is that 90.1
prescribes a combustion efficiency (less
flue/jacket losses), without providing any
further guidance for how to arrive at an
overall thermal efficiency for modeling
purposes.<br>
>><br>
>> It isn't a problem isolated to
eQuest/DOE2, but put another way 90.1/LEED
only provide part of what we need to define
baseline HIR inputs for a comparison to
real-world equipment and losses. A full
discussion is within the attached thread if
you're interested =).<br>
>><br>
>> This of course might have nothing to
do with Vamshi's reviewer's commentary - I
don't think that issue has been made clear
just yet...<br>
>><br>
>> ~Nick<br>
>><br>
>> NICK CATON, P.E.<br>
>> SENIOR ENGINEER<br>
>><br>
>> Smith & Boucher Engineers<br>
>> 25501 west valley parkway, suite 200<br>
>> olathe, ks 66061<br>
>> direct <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:913.344.0036" value="+19133440036"
target="_blank">913.344.0036</a><br>
>> fax <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:913.345.0617" value="+19133450617"
target="_blank">913.345.0617</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.smithboucher.com"
target="_blank">www.smithboucher.com</a><br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Daniel Knapp [mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca"
target="_blank">danielk@arborus.ca</a>]<br>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:13 AM<br>
>> To: Nick Caton<br>
>> Cc: r s; vamshi ranga; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Boiler
HIR and Section G3.1.1<br>
>><br>
>> I don't know if this helps, but from
the perspective of eQuest/DOE-2, the HIR is
the ratio of the fuel heat input to the boiler
to the heating capacity at full load. I.e.
all DOE-2 cares about is how much fuel to
assign each unit of heat produced for the
building. If you know what the fuel input and
the heating capacity at full load are you may
be able to bypass the thorny nature of the
combustion efficiency vs. thermal efficiency
question?<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>> Dan<br>
>><br>
>> -<br>
>> Daniel Knapp, PhD, P Phys, LEED(r) AP
O+M<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:danielk@arborus.ca"
target="_blank">danielk@arborus.ca</a><br>
>><br>
>> Arborus Consulting<br>
>> Energy Strategies for the Built
Environment <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.arborus.ca" target="_blank">www.arborus.ca</a><br>
>> 76 Chamberlain Avenue<br>
>> Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9<br>
>> Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%28613%29%20234-7178%20ext.%20113"
value="+16132347178" target="_blank">(613)
234-7178 ext. 113</a><br>
>> Fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%28613%29%20234-0740"
value="+16132340740" target="_blank">(613)
234-0740</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 2013-07-02, at 11:46 AM, Nick
Caton <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ncaton@smithboucher.com"
target="_blank">ncaton@smithboucher.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Regarding boiler HIR input vs.
efficiency... Your reviewer's commentary isn't
clear by your description, but you might find
the attached recent discussion informative
regarding thermal vs. combustion efficiencies.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The issue of whether it's
appropriate to model boiler thermal efficiency
(inclusive of flue/jacket losses), and if so
exactly how, is to my best understanding a bit
of a toss-up right now for 90.1/LEED. The
attached discussion thread takes the issue to
the sidewalk's end however, so I hope you can
use this to figure out where your reviewer is
coming from and how to respond in turn.<br>
>>><br>
>>> ~Nick<br>
>>><br>
>>> <image001.jpg><br>
>>><br>
>>> NICK CATON, P.E.<br>
>>> SENIOR ENGINEER<br>
>>><br>
>>> Smith & Boucher Engineers<br>
>>> 25501 west valley parkway, suite
200<br>
>>> olathe, ks 66061<br>
>>> direct <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:913.344.0036" value="+19133440036"
target="_blank">913.344.0036</a><br>
>>> fax <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:913.345.0617" value="+19133450617"
target="_blank">913.345.0617</a><br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.smithboucher.com"
target="_blank">www.smithboucher.com</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>>> [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org" target="_blank">equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org</a>]
On Behalf Of r s<br>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013
10:27 AM<br>
>>> To: vamshi ranga<br>
>>> Cc: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org"
target="_blank">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Equest-users]
Boiler HIR and Section G3.1.1<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi Vamshi,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Just wondering, you say two
buildings? Was there any MPR issue raised
within PIf1 in the review about having only
one building per LEED submittal?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Ramya<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:04 AM,
vamshi ranga <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vamshiranga@gmail.com"
target="_blank">vamshiranga@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>> Dear All,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I have following doubts, I would
be very grateful for your valuable<br>
>>> time,<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. We have modeled a boiler with
82% combustion efficiency in eQUEST<br>
>>> with HIR = 1.219 which is just
the inverse of boiler efficiency . But<br>
>>> from LEED reviewer, we got
comment saying that, HIR of 1.219 is<br>
>>> equivalent to 77% efficiency.
Could you please let us know, how to<br>
>>> convert combustion efficiency to
HIR<br>
>>><br>
>>> 2. We have two buildings, one is
Main Office building (7 day week, 8hr<br>
>>> running and Air-Conditioned, Main
Office building has 5 to 7% of total<br>
>>> two building areas) and the other
is Factory+Office building (7 day<br>
>>> week, Factory is 24 hr running
and Air-Conditioned with 100% of<br>
>>> occupancy, lighting and equipment
on all the time. While the Factory's<br>
>>> Office is 24hr running and
Air-Conditioned with 50% of occupancy,<br>
>>> lighting and equipment on all the
time) which are connected by<br>
>>> enclosed bridge (air
conditioned). These buildings are modeled<br>
>>> together in eQUEST and it comes
to be System 7 (Boiler for heating) as<br>
>>> per Table G 3.1.1. After reading
it for many number of times and to<br>
>>> confirm my understanding of the
section, doubts are as follows on<br>
>>> ASHRAE Appendix G Section G3.1.1<br>
>>><br>
>>> - What should be
the system type for Main Office building
(Conditioned area is around 45000 Sq ft)? and
let me know the exception of G3.1.1 if any
gets applied<br>
>>> - What should be
the system type for factory's Ground Floor
Office building? (Area is around 150000 Sq ft)
and Does the exception "Schedules that differ
by 40 equivalent full load hours" gets
applied? since the diversity is 50% for
factory's office, if this exception is not
applicable, let me know how the equivalent
full load hours need to be calculated )<br>
>>> - What should be
the system type for Factory's First Floor
office building? (This floor is total office,
and ground floor factory area is of double
height from ground)<br>
>>> - Does the
exceptions of Section G 3.1.1 applies at
building level or at each system level?
Exception "b" says both the things, so there
is confusion<br>
>>> - Does the term
"Peak thermal loads" in exception "b" consider
the load added due to outside air as well?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Let me know, if you need any
further clarification to resolve my doubts.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks,<br>
>>> Vamshi.<br>
>>><br>
>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>> Equest-users mailing list<br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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<br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> <Mail
Attachment.eml>_______________________________________________<br>
>>> Equest-users mailing list<br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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<br>
>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG"
target="_blank">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a><br>
>><br>
>> <Mail Attachment.eml><br>
><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Equest-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org">http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org</a>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG">EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE@ONEBUILDING.ORG</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>