LEED Comment for FAN EFLH--help please

6 posts / 0 new
Last post

Hello fellow eQuesters,

I'm sure we all get the standard LEED review comment regarding Fan
equivalent full load hours (EFHL).

I received this one on my current project (elementary school in Ohio with
heat recovery units.) I have confirmed that my fan schedules for both
models are exactly the same. But I do have drastically different EFLH
values for the baseline (over 3,000) and proposed (less than 1,500).

I have made changes in my models, but I cannot seem to get the proposed
hours over 1,600 of run time.

QUESTION: Do any of you have any experience of suggesting to the LEED
Reviewer that it is possible to have this significant of difference between
the two models hvac systems AND how can I show justification for these run
hours?? Any advice & suggestions are welcomed at this time.

Here is the LEED comment I received with highlighted notes:
. Table EAp2-5 of the form indicates that the equivalent full load hours
for interior fans in the Proposed and Baseline model are 1,200 hours
(57,951 kWh/48.31 kW) and 3,702 hours (130,702 kWh/35.31 kW), respectively;
however, it is unclear if the HVAC fans are modeled as cycling to meet the
cooling and heating loads of the building during unoccupied hours. Table
G3.1.4 in the Proposed building column requires that HVAC fans that provide
ventilation air in the Proposed model must be modeled as operating
continuously during occupied hours and cycled to meet the cooling and
heating loads of the building during unoccupied hours, unless one of the
exceptions of Table G3.1.4 are met. In addition, Section G3.1.2.4 requires
that supply and return fans reflected in the Baseline model must be modeled
as operating continuously during occupied hours and cycled to meet the
cooling and heating loads of the building during unoccupied hours,

via Equest-users's picture
Joined: 2016-07-15
Reputation: 400

What type of HVAC systems do you have in the baseline vs. proposed?? As noted in the comment, the baseline system fans should run continuous during occupied hours and cycle at night.? If your proposed case system has dedicated outside air systems, those fans would run continuously during occupied hours but other fans could cycle on temperature.? I?ve done schools that use a DOAS unit coupled with fan coils or heat pumps.? In the proposed case I set the DOAS to run continuous and set the fan coils/heat pump fans to cycle on temperature, which would result in less fan hours.? I?m also surprised your proposed fan kW is that much higher than baseline, so you might check that.

From: Equest-users on behalf of Pasha Korber-Gonzalez via Equest-users
Reply-To: Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
Date: Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 3:51 PM
To: eQUEST Users List
Subject: [Equest-users] LEED Comment for FAN EFLH--help please

Hello fellow eQuesters,

I'm sure we all get the standard LEED review comment regarding Fan equivalent full load hours (EFHL).

I received this one on my current project (elementary school in Ohio with heat recovery units.) I have confirmed that my fan schedules for both models are exactly the same. But I do have drastically different EFLH values for the baseline (over 3,000) and proposed (less than 1,500).

I have made changes in my models, but I cannot seem to get the proposed hours over 1,600 of run time.

QUESTION: Do any of you have any experience of suggesting to the LEED Reviewer that it is possible to have this significant of difference between the two models hvac systems AND how can I show justification for these run hours?? Any advice & suggestions are welcomed at this time.

Here is the LEED comment I received with highlighted notes:

. Table EAp2-5 of the form indicates that the equivalent full load hours for interior fans in the Proposed and Baseline model are 1,200 hours (57,951 kWh/48.31 kW) and 3,702 hours (130,702 kWh/35.31 kW), respectively; however, it is unclear if the HVAC fans are modeled as cycling to meet the cooling and heating loads of the building during unoccupied hours. Table G3.1.4 in the Proposed building column requires that HVAC fans that provide ventilation air in the Proposed model must be modeled as operating continuously during occupied hours and cycled to meet the cooling and heating loads of the building during unoccupied hours, unless one of the exceptions of Table G3.1.4 are met. In addition, Section G3.1.2.4 requires that supply and return fans reflected in the Baseline model must be modeled as operating continuously during occupied hours and cycled to meet the cooling and heating loads of the building during unoccupied hours,

_______________________________________________ Equest-users mailing list http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG

via Equest-users's picture
Joined: 2016-07-15
Reputation: 400

Pasha,
In addition to my questions below, you can affect the air flow for VAV systems using different cooling controls.
Besides the minimum VAV box setting of 0.4 cfm/ft2 per G3.1.3.13, there is also the temperature reset requirement of G3.1.3.12.
The 5?F reset requirement can be set using a COOL-CONTROL of WARMEST and a 5?F difference between the COOL-MIN-RESET-T and the COOL-MAX-RESET-T.
Then, using a RESET-PRIORITY of AIRFLOW-FIRST, the system airflow will be reduced before the cooling SAT.
~Bill

via Equest-users's picture
Joined: 2016-07-15
Reputation: 400

thank you Bill & Michael for some insights.

The Baseline model is Pkg VAV units with hot water heating
The Proposed model is VAV with heat recovery chilled water and hot water
heating with condensing boilers.

When I read the SS-L reports I can see some differences in the run hours of
the fans, but I don't really know what to explain about the differences
that I'm seeing from the Proposed & Baseline models. All the eQuest
related info doesn't really tell me where these values in the SS-L reports
are generated from. Below is the Proposed SS-L for AHU-1 and the Baseline
SS-L for one of the Baseline systems. One thing at the bottom of the
report shows that the fan elec kWh is noticeably smaller for the proposed
system versus the baseline system.

[image: Inline image 1]

[image: Inline image 2]

via Equest-users's picture
Joined: 2016-07-15
Reputation: 400

To answer an unanswered (I think) part of your query: Yeah it?s totally fine to have substantially different FLEH?s for LEED projects ? you just need to be able to rationally explain the why to yourself and your reviewer. Be mindful diving a sum of instantaneous power draws into annual energy consumption is an arbitrary (if still useful for QC) metric ? can miss a lot of nuance. You should also in due diligence explore & address the cited requirements and ensure the actual prescriptive language is reflected in your models? behavior.

Suggested exercise before diving very deep into hypothetical causes ? Line up your hourly fan end-use draw on EM1 (library report: File --> Export --> Hourly results) for your proposed and baseline case in Excel, and plot a line graph overlaying both series together. Stretch the graph out so you can see what?s happening on a weekly/daily/hourly basis, and observe how the two lines are different. Should be visually pretty apparent if & to what extent one case is cycling more during the evening/daytime and weekdays/weekends.

You might also observe the curves are pretty darn similar in shape, just very different in magnitude, which would suggest their equivalent runtime hours are actually similar and the root cause is largely in the power inputs.

That should help you as a starting point to filter through the many possibilities of how & why your FLEH?s are different.

~Nick

[cid:image001.png at 01D2A973.29185780]
Nick Caton, P.E., BEMP
Senior Energy Engineer
Regional Energy Engineering Manager
Energy and Sustainability Services
Schneider Electric

D 913.564.6361
M 785.410.3317
F 913.564.6380
E nicholas.caton at schneider-electric.com

15200 Santa Fe Trail Drive
Suite 204
Lenexa, KS 66219
United States

[cid:image002.png at 01D2A973.29185780]

via Equest-users's picture
Joined: 2016-07-15
Reputation: 400

Pasha,

Are there envelope improvements to the proposed building that significantly reduce the need for overnight heating and cooling?

Keith Swartz, PE | Senior Energy Engineer
Seventhwave
608.210.7123 seventhwave.org

via Equest-users's picture
Joined: 2016-07-15
Reputation: 400