Roof Conduction Load

12 posts / 0 new
Last post

Hi All,

I am doing an energy simulation model in eQuest. I noticed that the
load through roof conduction in LS-C is zero where as in LS-B (for
plenum space) it is showing some load.

As per my understanding this load should appear in LS-C also.

Also, if I reduce the U value of the roof, the load through roof
reduces and can be accounted in LS-B only (plenum space).

Refer attached LS-C and LS-B reports.

Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks & Regards

Bhartendu Awasthi

Bhartendu Awasthi's picture
Joined: 2013-08-09
Reputation: 0

Hi,

This happens because the load calculation is made with a fixed temperature
(see picture). All the spaces, include plenum zones, have the same
temperature by default (70?F). So, all roof load appears in the plenum
spaces. To considerate the roof load, you have to change this temperature in
plenum spaces and a part of roof load will appear like "internal surface
conduction". But I'm not sure if this is a good practice. Maybe someone else
has an opinion about that.

Rodrigo Cerqueira

De : equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] De la part de Bhartendu
Awasthi
Envoy? : 8 ao?t 2013 06:35
? : equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Objet : [Equest-users] Roof Conduction Load

Hi All,

I am doing an energy simulation model in eQuest. I noticed that the load
through roof conduction in LS-C is zero where as in LS-B (for plenum space)
it is showing some load.

As per my understanding this load should appear in LS-C also.
Also, if I reduce the U value of the roof, the load through roof reduces and
can be accounted in LS-B only (plenum space).

Refer attached LS-C and LS-B reports.
Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks & Regards

Bhartendu Awasthi

Rodrigo Cerqueira's picture
Joined: 2012-11-12
Reputation: 0

In the space screen for the plenum zones, there is a check box "include in reports" (or something like that. Because it is unchecked, neither its conduction loads, nor its area are included in the building level reports. Checking this box for all plenums will add the roof and plenum wall conduction load to the LS-C report but the area reported will include plenum area.
Brian Fountain

bfountain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 201

Hi,

This happens because the load calculation is made with a fixed temperature
(see picture). All the spaces, include plenum zones, have the same
temperature by default (70?F). So, all roof load appears in the plenum
spaces. To considerate the roof load, you have to change this temperature in
plenum spaces and a part of roof load will appear like "internal surface
conduction". But I'm not sure if this is a good practice. Maybe someone else
has an opinion about that.

Rodrigo Cerqueira

De : equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
[mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] De la part de Bhartendu
Awasthi
Envoy? : 8 ao?t 2013 06:35
? : equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Objet : [Equest-users] Roof Conduction Load

Hi All,

I am doing an energy simulation model in eQuest. I noticed that the load
through roof conduction in LS-C is zero where as in LS-B (for plenum space)
it is showing some load.

As per my understanding this load should appear in LS-C also.
Also, if I reduce the U value of the roof, the load through roof reduces and
can be accounted in LS-B only (plenum space).

Refer attached LS-C and LS-B reports.
Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks & Regards

Bhartendu Awasthi

Rodrigo Cerqueira's picture
Joined: 2012-11-12
Reputation: 0

Hi All,

The LS-C report comes from the LOADS simulation portion of DOE 2.2. The
plenum reference temperature used in LOADS is adjusted in the SYSTEMS
portion of the program and the loads in the spaces adjacent to the plenum
are corrected
correspondingly.

Dave Wood

David Wood's picture
Offline
Joined: 2012-01-20
Reputation: 0

Just to repeat what David and Rodrigo have already sad, DOE-2 calculates conduction loads
in a two step process. In LOADS, a constant reference temperature is specified, which
DOE-2 uses to calculate the amount of heat flow through the surfaces. This is the LOADS
loads summarized in the LS-E and LS-F reports. In SYSTEMS, DOE-2 calculates the true
temperature of the zone based on the loads passed from LOADS, as well as the actions of
the HVAC system. In the course of this calculation, the heat flows ("loads") from LOADS
are adjusted, but this is not done surface by surface, but in total using the so-called
"Zone Conductance" times the difference between the actual zone temperature and the
reference temperature used in LOADS. At this point, heat flows through internal walls are
also considered, using the difference between this hour's zone temperature and the
previous hour's zone temperature of the adjacent space, e.g., the Attic or Plenum. If you
are interested in this number, I believe it can be extracted in an hourly report.

In reference to Rodrigo's question, I don't see any benefit in forcing a heat flow between
the room and the attic by using different reference temperatures. You will simply get a
constant heat flow at that temperature difference throughout the simulation. In reality,
attics are generally colder than the room in the winter and warmer than the room in the
summer, so the derived heat flow with this temperature difference doesn't get you any
closer to reality, in my opinion.

Joe Huang

Joe Huang's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 406

Joe, Just wondering, given your expertise how would you compare this to
the heat balance method.., and what do you think is more realistic?

*Jeremiah D. Crossett*

Jeremiah Crossett2's picture
Joined: 2012-12-14
Reputation: 0

DOE-2 does not simulate radiation.

Dru.Crawley at bentley.com's picture
Joined: 2011-10-02
Reputation: 0

Just to repeat what David and Rodrigo have already sad, DOE-2 calculates conduction loads
in a two step process. In LOADS, a constant reference temperature is specified, which
DOE-2 uses to calculate the amount of heat flow through the surfaces. This is the LOADS
loads summarized in the LS-E and LS-F reports. In SYSTEMS, DOE-2 calculates the true
temperature of the zone based on the loads passed from LOADS, as well as the actions of
the HVAC system. In the course of this calculation, the heat flows ("loads") from LOADS
are adjusted, but this is not done surface by surface, but in total using the so-called
"Zone Conductance" times the difference between the actual zone temperature and the
reference temperature used in LOADS. At this point, heat flows through internal walls are
also considered, using the difference between this hour's zone temperature and the
previous hour's zone temperature of the adjacent space, e.g., the Attic or Plenum. If you
are interested in this number, I believe it can be extracted in an hourly report.

In reference to Rodrigo's question, I don't see any benefit in forcing a heat flow between
the room and the attic by using different reference temperatures. You will simply get a
constant heat flow at that temperature difference throughout the simulation. In reality,
attics are generally colder than the room in the winter and warmer than the room in the
summer, so the derived heat flow with this temperature difference doesn't get you any
closer to reality, in my opinion.

Joe Huang

Joe Huang's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 406

Jeremiah,

Your question is not quite on the mark because what I've described is downstream from the
calculation of room loads where techniques such as the Weighting Factor or the Heat
Balance methods come into play. Before I get to that issue, though, I want to point out
that the "Adjust Loads" procedure I described is done automatically by DOE-2 and totally
invisible to the User; I did so only to explain whyBhartendu (the original poster) was
not seeing any conduction loads through the ceiling.

Now, back to this "Adjust Loads" procedure, there is no simulation program I know of that
solves simultaneously for the heat flows and the zone temperature. DOE-2 does it in the
two-step way that others and I have just described. When you said "compared to the Heat
Balance Method", I assume you're thinking of EnergyPlus. So, how does EnergyPlus meet
this problem? Whereas DOE-2 does one year of LOADS and then one year of SYSTEMS,
EnergyPlus does them in the same time step, but also sequentially. Therefore, EnergyPlus
calculates the heat flows using the zone temperature from the previous time step which are
then used in its HVAC simulation without adjustment. This should be okay when zone
temperatures don't change, but what about at morning start-up when temperatures could
change by 5-10 F within one hour? I've always wondered whether that's why EnergyPlus
gives much lower heating loads in mild California climates than does DOE-2? As far as
which procedure is "more realistic", I can't say.

Joe Huang

Joe Huang's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 406

Jeremiah,

Your question is not quite on the mark because what I've described is downstream from the
calculation of room loads where techniques such as the Weighting Factor or the Heat
Balance methods come into play. Before I get to that issue, though, I want to point out
that the "Adjust Loads" procedure I described is done automatically by DOE-2 and totally
invisible to the User; I did so only to explain whyBhartendu (the original poster) was
not seeing any conduction loads through the ceiling.

Now, back to this "Adjust Loads" procedure, there is no simulation program I know of that
solves simultaneously for the heat flows and the zone temperature. DOE-2 does it in the
two-step way that others and I have just described. When you said "compared to the Heat
Balance Method", I assume you're thinking of EnergyPlus. So, how does EnergyPlus meet
this problem? Whereas DOE-2 does one year of LOADS and then one year of SYSTEMS,
EnergyPlus does them in the same time step, but also sequentially. Therefore, EnergyPlus
calculates the heat flows using the zone temperature from the previous time step which are
then used in its HVAC simulation without adjustment. This should be okay when zone
temperatures don't change, but what about at morning start-up when temperatures could
change by 5-10 F within one hour? I've always wondered whether that's why EnergyPlus
gives much lower heating loads in mild California climates than does DOE-2? As far as
which procedure is "more realistic", I can't say.

Joe Huang

Joe Huang's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 406

To try to add to that, the sequential calculation of load then system
reaction is more a result of the calculation engines preferring to use only
linear solvers than the fundamentals of the procedure used. The main issue
arises because the load generally depends on the action of the HVAC system
(e.g. surface temperatures depend on convection coefficients) and the HVAC
system action depends on the load, which is a nonlinear relationship.

The Heat Balance Method (weird name because there is no such thing as a
conservation of heat) simply enforces an energy conservation equation at
each discrete temperature/enthalpy node. For N nodal temperatures, this
gives a set of N simultaneous equations to solve at each time step. If all
of these equations are linear, the calculation engine can use more
efficient linear solvers to resolve the temperatures. Nonlinear solvers
would require some sub-timestep iterations, which adds calculation time,
and there's also the problem that nonlinear solvers do not always converge
and can be sensitive to initial guesses. The preference for linear solvers
is also the reason that radiation is usually linearized.

Strictly speaking, Energy Plus is an "integrative" modeling tool and does
solve the loads and system response "simultaneously". The use of previous
time step temperatures are used because the energy balance equations
general involve transience which requires a finite difference approximation
of heat storage. As Joe pointed out, this can lead to errors especially
when large time steps are used in the vicinity of large temperature swings.
The integrative technique of Energy Plus is to first assume the thermostat
setpoint is exactly met, then calculate the system response to meet this
load, then to recalculate the zone temperature caused by this system
action. I'm not sure how many of these iterations are made each timestep,
but there is some information passing back from the system reaction to the
zonal temperatures. Similarly, this method (they call it Predictor
Corrector method) is used to model system controllers. Again, I'm not sure
if the information loop stops with one iteration or continues until a
convergence criterion is met.

The weight factor method used by DOE-2 relies on the convolution principle
of linear systems, so there is no way to obtain a simultaneous solution
(unless there is some way to first deconvolve the weight factors). On the
other hand, network or quasi-network solutions like the Heat Balance Method
have the ability to solve for space temperature and HVAC reactions
simultaneously, but this is not a requirement of the method, and true
simultaneous HBM solvers are either rare or do not exist because of the
computational expense.

Aaron

Jeremiah,

Your question is not quite on the mark because what I've described is
downstream from the calculation of room loads where techniques such as the
Weighting Factor or the Heat Balance methods come into play. Before I get
to that issue, though, I want to point out that the "Adjust Loads"
procedure I described is done automatically by DOE-2 and totally invisible
to the User; I did so only to explain why Bhartendu (the original poster)
was not seeing any conduction loads through the ceiling.

Now, back to this "Adjust Loads" procedure, there is no simulation program
I know of that solves simultaneously for the heat flows and the zone
temperature. DOE-2 does it in the two-step way that others and I have just
described. When you said "compared to the Heat Balance Method", I assume
you're thinking of EnergyPlus. So, how does EnergyPlus meet this problem?
Whereas DOE-2 does one year of LOADS and then one year of SYSTEMS,
EnergyPlus does them in the same time step, but also sequentially.
Therefore, EnergyPlus calculates the heat flows using the zone temperature
from the previous time step which are then used in its HVAC simulation
without adjustment. This should be okay when zone temperatures don't
change, but what about at morning start-up when temperatures could change
by 5-10 F within one hour? I've always wondered whether that's why
EnergyPlus gives much lower heating loads in mild California climates than
does DOE-2? As far as which procedure is "more realistic", I can't say.

Joe Huang

Aaron Powers2's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 0