[TRNSYS-users] Total heating demand

[王洋]

Dear all,

 Happy new year!

 I have a question about calculating total heating demand:

There is one same room to keep indoor temperature as 20°C one day 24 hours,
the initial indoor temperature is 20°C, there is no infiltration no other
internal gains in the room. I used 3 different methods to calculate total
heating demand of one day, separately.

1.First is heating in TRNBuild: after using the INTEGRATOR TYPE 46, the
QHEAT is about 34314 kJ.

2.Second is floor heating(active layer): after using the INTEGRATOR TYPE 46,
the QALFL_Inlet is about 33680.7kJ.

3.Third is still floor heating(active layer): after using the INTEGRATOR
TYPE 46, but I used Q=CwaterMwater(Tinlet-Toutlet), the result of Q is
144639kJ.

My question is: 1) To 2 and 3: Why is the difference is so large? 3 is
almost 4 times than 3? I will get the total heating demand, which one is
right? Why? What's different of both of them?

2) If 3 is right. Generally, the floor heating should be more energy-saving
than common heating. But here result is absolutely opposite. The common
heating is more energy-heating. Why? Here what difference of common heating
and floor heating?

Many thanks!

Br.

wang


在 2011年1月5日 下午2:38，王洋 <wanghongyang1767 at gmail.com>写道：

> Dear all,
>
>  Happy new year!
>
>  I have a question about calculating total heating demand:
>
> There is one same room to keep indoor temperature as 20°C one day 24 hours,
> the initial indoor temperature is 20°C, there is no infiltration no other
> internal gains in the room. I used 3 different methods to calculate total
> heating demand of one day, separately.
>
> 1.First is heating in TRNBuild: after using the INTEGRATOR TYPE 46, the
> QHEAT is about 34314 kJ.
>
> 2.Second is floor heating(active layer): after using the INTEGRATOR TYPE
> 46, the QALFL_Inlet is about 33680.7kJ.
>
> 3.Third is still floor heating(active layer): after using the INTEGRATOR
> TYPE 46, but I used Q=CwaterMwater(Tinlet-Toutlet), the result of Q is
> 144639kJ.
>
> My question is: 1) To 2 and 3: Why is the difference is so large? 3 is
> almost 4 times than 3? I will get the total heating demand, which one is
> right? Why? What's different of both of them?
>
> 2) If 3 is right. Generally, the floor heating should be more energy-saving
> than common heating. But here result is absolutely opposite. The common
> heating is more energy-heating. Why? Here what difference of common heating
> and floor heating?
>
> Many thanks!
>
> Br.
>
> wang
>
>
>
> 2011/1/4 <trnsys-users-request at cae.wisc.edu>
>
>> Send TRNSYS-users mailing list submissions to
>>        trnsys-users at cae.wisc.edu
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>        https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/trnsys-users
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>        trnsys-users-request at cae.wisc.edu
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>        trnsys-users-owner at cae.wisc.edu
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of TRNSYS-users digest..."
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. optimization problems using trnopt in Windows 7 OS (Dapeng Li)
>>
>>
>> ---------- 已转发邮件 ----------
>> From: Dapeng Li <jiap1120 at gmail.com>
>> To: TRNSYS-users at cae.wisc.edu
>> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:00:38 +0100
>> Subject: [TRNSYS-users] optimization problems using trnopt in Windows 7 OS
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I want to do optimization using trnsys, trnopt and genopt in* Windows 7
>> OS. *But when I run the example in the directory of "C:\Program
>> Files\Trnsys16_1\Optimization", I got a error message in Genopt interface
>> that is enclosed in the attachment.
>>
>> The version I use is listed below: TRNSYS version 16.01.0003, trnopt
>> version 2.1.0.52, genopt version 2.1.0 June 18, 2008.
>>
>> PS: I ever did optimization in XP OS, and it work well.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> With kind regards,
>>
>> Dapeng Li
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TRNSYS-users mailing list
>> TRNSYS-users at cae.wisc.edu
>> https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/trnsys-users
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/trnsys-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110105/f3a67531/attachment-0005.htm>