[Equest-users] [Bldg-sim] FW: Wall classification for adjacentbuildings

5 posts / 0 new
Last post

Thanks for the quick response Nick.

Do you also have an opinion on the code issue, will it have to be
compared to exterior walls or interior walls if the walls aren't really
"shared" but are adjacent to each other with no exposure to the
environment? What if the adjacent building is demolished, shouldn't the
HVAC system be sized to meet that condition (or the wall built up to
exterior wall performance values)? I'm curious to understand how this is
approached in an MEP/code compliance standpoint.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Mirza

Mirza Sajjal2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 0

I'm sure local standards and code application/enforcement varies widely
around the world, but in my general practice I do not design systems
anticipating other portions of the building completely going away...
FEMA/disaster shelters being a common exception =)...

Unless demolition of the adjacent building is a definite and planned
venture in the near future, I would not deliberately oversize systems
for such reasons. Oversized systems can introduce a host of ongoing
issues for the building owner/occupants involving comfort, budget and
operating efficiency, and for as long as the adjacent building is
standing such a system in operation is simply incorrectly sized for the
application.

If demolition or destruction is a certain/likely possibility in the near
future, I might define and incorporate means by which an auxiliary MEP
systems (as appropriate) could be easily added if/when that occurs to
take on the additional loads for the affected zones. I would
simultaneously advise treating the envelope's construction as though it
were exterior so far as its construction is concerned, though that is
more out of common-sense than any code/standard-driven requirement.

In any case, I would be surprised to find an energy code-compliance
official requiring abutting, structurally independent walls as you've
described them to be counted as exterior surface area. Conversely I
would not as a designer include such areas in trying to "squeak by" for
lighting, WWR or similar calculations.

That's my opinion anyway, for what it's worth! Best to leave any
specific code application/enforcement questions to your local AHJ as
they'll have the final say regardless of anyone's feelings here on the
lists.

~Nick

NICK CATON, P.E.

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

Hi Team:

Hope everyone had a nice holiday.

I am doing an office building in eQuest with 7 EEMs. I am currently in the Detailed Edit mode.? I have an electric hot water heater with about a 400 gallon tank. I set the tank gallons in the EEM to 2 (as eQuest doesn't like Zero).? I ran the run and I get no savings.

I tried an test example in the Schematic Wizard using the Basic Office bldg presented. I used a storage type system for the Base (with about a 75 gallon tank) and an Instantaneous system (which is not a choice in the Detailed Edit mode) and a 2 gallon tank.? I got about a 10% improvement in DHW energy.

Can anyone suggest what?I might be missing in the large office mode?

John R. Aulbach, PE, CEM

John Aulbach's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 1

John,

When you changed the tank volume, did you also change the Tank UA? The
wizard default is based on the tank volume but I'm guessing it doesn't
change automatically for the EEM.

Regards,

Bill

Bishop, Bill2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 0

I'm sure local standards and code application/enforcement varies widely
around the world, but in my general practice I do not design systems
anticipating other portions of the building completely going away...
FEMA/disaster shelters being a common exception =)...

Unless demolition of the adjacent building is a definite and planned
venture in the near future, I would not deliberately oversize systems
for such reasons. Oversized systems can introduce a host of ongoing
issues for the building owner/occupants involving comfort, budget and
operating efficiency, and for as long as the adjacent building is
standing such a system in operation is simply incorrectly sized for the
application.

If demolition or destruction is a certain/likely possibility in the near
future, I might define and incorporate means by which an auxiliary MEP
systems (as appropriate) could be easily added if/when that occurs to
take on the additional loads for the affected zones. I would
simultaneously advise treating the envelope's construction as though it
were exterior so far as its construction is concerned, though that is
more out of common-sense than any code/standard-driven requirement.

In any case, I would be surprised to find an energy code-compliance
official requiring abutting, structurally independent walls as you've
described them to be counted as exterior surface area. Conversely I
would not as a designer include such areas in trying to "squeak by" for
lighting, WWR or similar calculations.

That's my opinion anyway, for what it's worth! Best to leave any
specific code application/enforcement questions to your local AHJ as
they'll have the final say regardless of anyone's feelings here on the
lists.

~Nick

NICK CATON, P.E.

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