Heat Pump Heating Undersized

7 posts / 0 new
Last post

I'm having trouble with the heating in my heat pump. I modeled a Packaged VAV (PVAVS) with HEAT-SOURCE= Heat Pump and ZONE-HEAT-SOURCE= Not Installed. Set HEAT-SET-T to 120F, DESIGN-HEAT-T to 70F, and did not specify auxiliary heat. I get the message that my zone has insufficient heating capability. Looking at SS-A, is says the maximum heating load is only -10.1 KBTU/HR. Looking at SS-P, the report says my heating capacity is -47.8 KBTU/HR. So why do I have 563 underheated hours? Does it have something to do with the system type? I tried ZONE-HEAT-SOURCE= Heat pump and tried HEAT-SIZING-RATIO= 5, just to see if either one would do anything, although I didn't really expect them to. Also tried electric supplemental heat, which comes out to -31.715 KBTU/HR. My design supply flow is 1913 CFM, and the outside air flow is 252 CFM. The design supply flow is the same for both the heating and cooling performance summaries. Should this be the case? Thanks for any help.

Brian Goldsmith, LEED(r) AP

Brian Goldsmith's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 0

Usually scheduling (fan, available heating and t-stat don't coincide every
hour of every day), airflow (too low), SAT (too low), or multiple zones on
one unit.

Usually.

Joe Fleming's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 0

Ya I looked at all that, seemed to be fine. It seems like whenever I change my system from single zone package to variable air volume this problem comes up. I just changed the system type and left everything else the same.

Brian Goldsmith

Brian Goldsmith's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 0

Check the minimum flow ratio and the minimum design flow cfm/sqft for the
trouble zones.

In the VAV system equest distributes a percentage of the supply airflow to
each zone. But cfm/sqft is a priority in the hierarchy and if you bump it
up for the trouble zones you will get higher cooling and heating airflows at
your given SAT. The energy you provide to the room is equal to
CFM*(Tsupply-Troom)*(1.085 or another conversion factor depending on units
and air density). So if your schedules and equipment are set up correctly
you should override the equest defaults for airflows or SAT.

Joe Fleming, E.I., LEED AP BD+C, BEMP

Joe Fleming's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 0

So if I force the cfm/sqft to 2, it brings the unmet load hours down to about 80, which is good. But of course the fan energy spikes. Each zone has its own unit. Is it good practice to force the cfm/sqft? Especially considering what this does to the fan energy?

Brian Goldsmith

Brian Goldsmith's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 0

Brian,

Hard to say without knowing more e.g. building type, internal loads, etc.,
but in general, although Paul may disagree, that's pretty high. I do not
disagree with using that methodology, as long as the cfm/sf stays within
reason.

If I were you I would start with looking at the internal loads, like w/sf
for equipment and process, etc. If they can be raised or lowered reasonable,
do so. The rule is, in general, that they be the same in both cases, so make
sure you pick the changes up in your other model. Also look at your
temperatures entered in the zones/systems and associated schedules.

Otherwise, you can always send the .pd2 and .inp files to us.

Carol

cmg750's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010-10-05
Reputation: 0

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

Bruce Easterbrook's picture
Joined: 2011-09-30
Reputation: 0