<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 15 (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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">eQUEST should be referred to as DOE2.2 and isn’t part of the national laboratory/DOE system…but aside from that, it would be normal in eQUEST that you can go
back and size an airside or waterside system based on the observed loads in the model or from the design documents if they are available.
<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">Did you use design day sizing for all three programs, or are you sizing from the TMY simulation? How did annual energy end-use compare between programs?<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">One thing to check is the airflow requirements specified at the zone level. I see HAP gave you 0.51 cfm/sf and 0.09 cfm/sf of outside air and an output of 17
cfm/person – make sure eQUEST is being given the same instructions at the zone level.<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">You can open the simulation file viewer and look the L-series of reports for results on the loads to the space and then a report for the whole building (LS-C
or LS-D?). These reports are not including the system loads for outside air, they are the load calculations for zone heating/cooling so they won’t add up to the SV-A report which includes OA.<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">You can also check the system report for each of the RTU’s and see if the fan is operating at high levels often, or if it maxes out at a much lower airflow even
though the sizing was for a larger capacity…this will tell you that the mix-up is in the sizing and not the model inputs, i.e. the loads aren’t driving the sizing up, the sizing algorithm has selected the units to be larger than the load for some reason, or
vice versa.<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’m not sure for RTU’s about the sizing method – there may also be an option to size on modeled load vs capacity of zone equipment. Normally I’m working from
design documents and don’t use the auto-sizing feature for AHUs so I’m not sure if that could be one issue for you. You can cross-check this by summing the zone airflows and comparing to the total for both programs to see if the sizing algorithm is different,
for instance eQUEST may be sizing at 15% more than calculated requirement while HAP includes diversity and sizes at 15% smaller. Speaking of which, there is also a safety factor input for sizing in eQUEST, make sure this is consistent between programs or you’ll
be higher by 15% capacity off the bat.<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">David<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
</span></u><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:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><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">David S. Eldridge, Jr., P.E., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP, BEAP, HBDP</span><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:#244061">Grumman/Butkus Associates</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
</span></u><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:black"> </span><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 #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Equest-users [mailto:equest-users-bounces@lists.onebuilding.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mike Schaefer via Equest-users<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 08, 2017 7:29 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> equest-users@onebuilding.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Equest-users] ASHRAE Bldg_Modeling Comparisons<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I’m running an office building with three different energy programs (Trane Trace, Carrier HAP, and DOE’s eQUEST to compare and contrast each energy modeling programs output. Two of my programs Trane
Trace and Carrier HAP have similar rooftop unit sizing, however, my eQUEST model is producing rooftop unit sizes (RTU-1 & RTU-2) that greatly exceeds the other two programs. I believe that this difference is the ventilation load. CFM’s and building sensible
loads are similar, however. There is a large discrepancy between the total cooling capacity (defined by “cooling capacity” in eQUEST’s SV-A reports. My eQuest model is reporting a much higher than expected total “Cooling Capacity” for my rooftop units. All
models have two VAV rooftop units (one for each floor of a two story office building). The ventilation rates, internal loads and envelope are identical between my models. The models have air side economizers w/integrated dry bulb with an upper cutoff of 75
deg. F with the non-economizer outside air turned off during unoccupied hours. All programs are using KC, MO TMY2 weather data.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Can anyone explain, or find my error, in the eQUEST modeling that is causing the unusual load in ventilation? It seems obvious that the three programs would produce similar outputs, however, there
must be an eQUEST modeling error that I’ve created.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Also, does eQUEST have a load breakdown that describes (lists) the values that make-up the “SV-A cooling capacity”?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I’ve attached the Carrier RTU-1 (1</span><sup><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">st</span></sup><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
floor office load) system report and the eQUEST model.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="Signature">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper">
<p><strong><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Michael Schaefer - P.E.*, LEED AP</span></strong><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Licensed in Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado</span></strong><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>