Cooking Equipment and Elevators/ Exhaust fans

8 posts / 0 new
Last post

Dear users,

I received form USGBC the following comment:

"The project contains elevators and kitchen equipment in the actual
design; however, the process energy related to the elevator and kitchen
equipment was not included in each energy model, since Section 1.8 of
the template does not include the process energy consumption for
elevator or kitchen equipment. Revise the Proposed and Baseline models
to include the process energy for elevator and kitchen equipment in the
appropriate space in the models. In addition, update the template
reflecting the changes."

The kitchen equipment and elevators were input in the model under the
equipment tab for each space as designed but I couldn't separate them in
eQuest from the Misc. Equip under the Consumption by Enduse Report or
Demand Report. I verified everything I could and see how I can spit them
and the only thing I found was this: "INTERIOR-EU - Accepts a list of up
to 10 code-words specifying the end-use category of the INTERIOR-POWER.
The code-words correspond to the end-use categories in the end-use
reports (PS-E, PS-F, BEPS, BEPU). Acceptable entries are LIGHTS,
and EXT-USAGE. "

In the end I understand that eQuest does not have the option of doing
what the reviewer is asking for.

The reviewer also wants the independent fans to be separated from the
supply and return fans which I didn't find how.

Am I missing something here?

Your help is appreciated.

Thank you.

Crina Bosch

Crina's picture
Joined: 2010-11-17
Reputation: 0

My only suggestion would be to perform a save-as and change the misc
equipment energy consumption to zero for the elevator (and then do it
again for the kitchen) to find the equipment usage and demand.

If your independent fans are exhaust fans, I would do the same thing
that I mentioned above.

The reports in eQUEST will not break out the equipment but you can write
a narrative explaining that eQUEST cannot separate these loads and
explain your procedure. I believe that the reviewer simply wants to make
sure that the energy consumption is the same for these items in the
baseline and proposed model.

Otto Schwieterman's picture
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 0


For the elevators, you can create a separate meter...


Demba Ndiaye's picture
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 200


Under Utility & Economics, EM1 you can specify the Interior or Exterior Direct
Loads. You can create a sub-meter in that tab then assign a meter to the
elevators and a meter for the kitchen equipment to separate these loads from

Paul Diglio

Paul Diglio's picture
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 400

Thank you all for your suggestions and thoughts. I will try the option
with 2 meters and hopefully this will resolve my problem.


Crina Bosch

Crina's picture
Joined: 2010-11-17
Reputation: 0

The comment from the reviewer looks like a copy-paste job from one of my
recent models (maybe we got the same guy/gal?).

Applying the equipment loads to the spaces as you've initially done is
the intuitive thing to do, but for LEED you will run into issues coming
up with annual consumption totals and maximum demand figures analogous
to other energy enduses normally reported in the graphical outputs.

As others are suggesting, I have specified non-receptacle process loads
as direct loads to one or more submeters. In doing so you can get the
analogous monthly consumption/demand quantities reported explicitly
through report PS-B, separate from your default gas/electric meters.

The disadvantage here (to the potential detriment in your modeled
performance) is that this method of reporting separately also removes
the associated internal loads from your buildings, which means you gain
less credit for any better-than-standard HVAC equipment handling those
loads. In the case of elevators, it may be negligible, but in the case
of significant kitchen equipment loads, you might want to run it defined
each ways [submetered for PS-B documentation but in the spaces for
everything else] and explain the reason for the separate simulation in
the provided PS-B reports is because the loads must be "isolated" from
the building to meet such reporting demands, but that this in turn skews
the loads incident on the systems for the actual model performance

...but don't jump through any extra hoops if removing those internal
loads doesn't make a big difference ;)!

In fact, Otto's suggestion to politely advise the reviewer of the issue
and simply provide screenshots of the corresponding schedules/inputs is
interesting and something I might try myself, next time this particular
comment comes up - that may be the path of least resistance.


Nick-Caton's picture
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 605

I would not be concerned that there is a disadvantage to sub-meters because
using separate meters removes the internal loads from the HVAC system.

In the Northeast, the elevator equipment rooms are generally exhausted with
maybe a unit heater for use during very cold weather. Kitchens use makeup air
and hood exhaust so the cooking equipment load does not trespass into the
building. Besides kitchens are seldom air-conditioned and the heating load is

Paul Diglio

Paul Diglio's picture
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 400

In those instances, I?d agree completely.

That said, common design I?ve encountered (in the Midwest) occasionally involves conditioning elevator rooms with split DX systems (particularly when internal to the building footprint) and/or the decision to condition kitchen makeup air to one degree or another. Heavy loads in IT rooms might also fall into this category of situations to consider?

So to be more specific: If you are modeling conditioned spaces with significant (non-receptacle) process loads using above-standard HVAC efficiencies, you may find it beneficial to your performance rating to include such heat loads in those spaces (and explicitly model the associated HVAC), rather than using a submeter.

You also might find it too much work ? and that?s not necessarily a wrong decision either ;).


Nick-Caton's picture
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 605