<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=iso-8859-2"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
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.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle18
{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 1.0in 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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>František,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I think you are wise to question your result and investigate whether or not it is reasonable or even possible to save 55% based primarily on envelope measures. I’ll describe the type of ‘sanity check’ process I might follow in assessing whether or not the results make sense:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>One way to look at this is to consider how the whole building baseline energy consumption breaks down by end use. What percentage is due to lights, plug loads, heating, cooling, fans, etc. I would assign a percentage to each of these end uses based on your baseline model results. Then consider which end uses can be affected by the envelope, and which cannot. Without more information, I might assume that lighting energy, plug load energy, process load energy, and service hot water would be completely unaffected by envelope characteristics. This means that your whole building savings would be coming only from HVAC energy. Now consider that the heating and cooling of ventilation air is completely unaffected by the envelope as well, so only a portion of the HVAC usage can be conserved through envelope measures. Next I would compare the percentage of whole building energy allocated to HVAC with the percent savings you are seeing, and evaluate for yourself whether or not everything looks reasonable. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>For example, if your whole building energy from HVAC is, say, 50% of your whole building baseline energy consumption, then it would be impossible to save 55% of whole building energy from HVAC savings, even if you completely removed the HVAC systems from the building.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The take away is that in order for envelope improvements to save 55% of whole building energy, the building would need to consume very little lighting, plug load, process, and SHW energy relative to heating and cooling energy, and would have to be minimally ventilated. The only building types I can think of that could potentially fit this bill are conditioned storage buildings or possibly a residence. 55% savings for a typical office building due to envelope measures alone seems highly unlikely.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>One more note: Whether you are looking at energy savings or dollar savings can make a significant difference, depending on fuel sources and prices for heating.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’m not sure this fully addresses your question, but hopefully it is a little helpful.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Christian<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></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><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#595959'>Christian Kaltreider, LEED AP</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#595959'> | Energy Analyst<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#4F6228'>Sud Associates, P.A.</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#595959'> | T 828.255.4691 | F 828.255.4949 | <a href="http://www.sudassociates.com">www.sudassociates.com</a><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> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><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";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>František Bartoš<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:41 AM<br><b>To:</b> equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org<br><b>Subject:</b> [Equest-users] Dynamic model compliance analysis results<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hello,<br>I made model using eQuest 3.65 and after simulation, baseline building generation and results compliance I see 55 % percent improvement in proposed design against the baseline design.<br>This model is just schematic for CS precertification but the envelope is modeled with most probably final design that will be built. The envelope is kind of a modular system with overall U factor 0,14<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://www.leeduser.com/glossary/14#term4689"><span style='font-size:10.5pt;color:#6CAA31;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none'>BTU</span></a>/ft2/hr*F per modul (it means both glass a wall parts).<br><br>My question - is it possible to get 55 % improvement against the baseline with this U factor? I checked, that LEED requirements is Umax 0,513, so our value is very good compared to this requirements. However compared to our local norms (Czech republic) it is not anything extra, so the 55 % percent improvement surprised me.<br>In HVAC system I used everywhere standard efficiencies of motorts, pumps etc. and VSD regulation, but this I think doesn´t have as large impact on the result as the envelope - or does it have?<br><br>Thanks a lot for all thoughs and answers.<br><br>František <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <br><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>František Bartoš</span></b><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'><br></span><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Energetika a certifikace budov</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'><br></span><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Enerfis s.r.o.</span><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'><br><br></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;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Tel.: +420 222 766 952</span><br><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Fax: +420 222 766 959<br>Mob: +420 607 965 265 <br>E-mail: <a href="mailto:bartos@enerfis.cz"><span style='color:#004080'>bartos@enerfis.cz</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>