Dear Users,

I would like to get clarifications on the followings related to a LEEDS submission using eQUEST

1. The base case building sizing runs are done using "unspecified" capacities for 0,90,180, 270 orientations and the average of these is taken as the sized capacity using the values in SV-A. Then for Appendix G requirements these numbers are multiplied by 1.15 & 1.25 for cooling and heating respecively for basecase simulations.

However, the Appendix G further states about a possibility of adjusting these simulating capacities to suit the unmet met cooling hour requirements with respect to both proposed & base cases (the ASHRAE 90.1 user maual too specifies 02 steps). After meeting values less than 300 hours for both cases and basecase being 50 hrs less. The issues is that I would be violating the 1.15 oversizing condition if the sizes are now adjusted to meet unmet cooling hour requirement as mentioned in Appendix G.

How to Address this issues?

Having oversized as it is with 0 unmet cooling hours with 50 hours unmet cooling hours is a possible solution. But it looks sub optimal. Is this an acceptable soltions to LEEDs?

A response is highly appreciated.

2. The outside air requirement is calculated using ASHRAE 62.1 requirements for min supply air volumes using ventilation rate procedures. But the reviewer indicates that it is not reflected in output files. ASHRAE 62.1 values are the input values for the simulations. How to check this in output files? I understand the values of air flow rates shown in SV-A are the design values taken by eQUEST on 20 F design temp diff. Is that correct?

Can anyone indicate the possible error? Where can it go wrong

A response is highly appreciated.

Anura