Equest Users:
I am modeling a school building, and on this BEPS report for baseline run and parametric runs,
the Total Source Energy KBTU/SQFT-YR
Gross-Area and Net-Area number is higher than expected.
Actually, I would expect it to be quite a bit lower in the 0.75 range.
Anyone have some approach I could follow to verify these and what could be driving this
elevated number. I could post INP and PD2 files if necessary.
Any and all suggestions are sincerely appreciated, and thank you in advance.
GINNIE SCHOFIELD
Yes, please post your files, Ginnie. Otherwise, all is speculation.
?
John R. Aulbach, PE
One extra thought: Your expectation (<1 kBtu/SF/yr) catches my eye immediately?
If I?m not mistaken, only unconditioned warehouses have values under 1.0 for the 2030 challenge EUI targets. I would expect any regularly occupied school to be magnitudes larger.
2030 challenge may not be on your project?s radar, but might serve a useful point of reference for what to expect. Here?s a quick link: www.architecture2030.org/.../2030_Challenge_Targets_National.pdf?
Best of luck!
~Nick
[cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]
NICK CATON, P.E.
Just to reiterate Nicks point ? 1 KBTU/ft2-yr is a REALLY low number ? especially for source energy. Site energy typically runs much lower than source energy, and even that is normally an order of magnitude higher.
Vikram Sami
Hey Ginnie,
I had to perform some shenanigans to get those files to open happily (something?s up with that .PD2 ? be sure to save again from your working copy), so this may not match exactly what you?re seeing, but here?s the result I?m seeing after a trial simulation:
[cid:image002.png at 01CE606E.73ABC8B0]
74.6 kBtu/SF/Yr is the? Site? EUI: this is what?s consumed at your project. Site EUI is the metric I?m used to discussing with architects and building owners who are interested, and is what the 2030 challenge targets are defined around.
?Source? EUI (117.3 kBtu/SF/Yr here) accounts for losses in the production/transmission of energy? i.e. how many Btu?s of coal were burned to produce the energy delivered at your project. A ?fuzzier? metric to be sure, but I suppose of more interest to those pushing reform of our energy grid.
In eQuest, you can review the default values for the site-to-source efficiency ratio, and adjust accordingly under your electric and fuel meters in detailed mode.
That said, a quick google to check on Energystar suggests your source EUI is well below the average (169) for K-12 schools: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=buildingcontest.eui. If you were to plug in values for the project into EnergyStar?s target finder tool, as we typically would for LEED EAp2 documentation, you could produce a more site-specific EUI average value to cite, if you?re interested.
I?d maintain my original hunch that this result checks out within the range of normal expectations. Also, here?s a corrected link to the 2030 challenge PDF I meant to share: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.architecture2030.org%2Fdownloads%2F2030_Challenge_Targets_National.pdf&ei=hvysUbaBDIu68wTp4oCAAQ&usg=AFQjCNGmNOwL0mxyAzGbpvdhHIKTHj74aw&bvm=bv.47244034,d.eWU
Hope that helps!
~Nick
[cid:489575314 at 22072009-0ABB]
NICK CATON, P.E.
Users:
Thank you for all the input with my questions. With your information, I have determined the values are within the necessary limits.
Enjoy the day, and keep up the most awesome support!
GINNIE SCHOFIELD