Energyplus Hvac Global Tests

EnergyPlus Testing with
Global Energy Balance Test

EnergyPlus Version 8.2.0
October 2014
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office of Building Technologies
Washington, D.C.
Prepared by:
Robert H. Henninger and Michael J. Witte
115 S. Wilke Road, Suite 115

Arlington Heights, IL 60005
USA
www.gard.com
This report was developed based upon funding from the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC,
Managing and Operating Contractor for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S.
Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed
in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsor.
Earlier work was supported by the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and
by the National Energy Technology Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
by subcontract through the University of Central Florida/Florida Solar Energy Center.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or services by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The
views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof.
Table of Contents
Section Page
1 TEST OBJECTIVES AND OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 1

1.1 Test Type: Comparative ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Test Suite: EnergyPlus Global Energy Balance Test Description.................................... 1
1.2.1 Base Case Building Description ....................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Adiabatic Surfaces ............................................................................................ 2
1.3 Window Air Conditioner Global Energy Balance Test..................................................... 3
1.3.1 Internal Loads ................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1.1 Daily Comparison Test ................................................................... 3
1.3.1.2 Annual Comparison Test ................................................................ 3
1.3.2 Air Distribution System .................................................................................... 4
1.3.3 HVAC Cooling System..................................................................................... 5
1.3.4 Zone Heating System ........................................................................................ 5
1.3.5 Weather Data .................................................................................................... 5
1.3.6 Summary of Test Cases .................................................................................... 6
1.3.7 Simulation and Reporting Period ...................................................................... 6
1.3.8 Output Data Requirements ................................................................................ 6
1.4 Hydronic Heating/Cooling System Global Energy Balance Test ..................................... 6
1.4.1 Internal Loads ................................................................................................... 7
1.4.2 Air Distribution System .................................................................................... 8
1.4.3 Central Plant Heating Equipment ..................................................................... 9
1.4.4 Central Plant Cooling Equipment ..................................................................... 9
1.4.5 Weather Data .................................................................................................. 10
1.4.5.1 Design Day Conditions ................................................................. 10
1.4.5.2 Daily Comparison Test ................................................................. 11
1.4.5.3 Annual Comparison Test .............................................................. 11
1.4.6 Summary of Test Cases .................................................................................. 11
1.4.7 Simulation and Reporting Period .................................................................... 12
1.4.8 Output Data Requirements .............................................................................. 12
2 MODELER REPORT................................................................................................................ 13
2.1 Modeling Methodology ................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1 Window Air Conditioner ................................................................................ 13
2.1.2 Hydronic Heating/Cooling System ................................................................. 15
2.2 Modeling Difficulties ...................................................................................................... 19
2.2.1 Building Envelope Construction ..................................................................... 19
2.3 Software Errors Discovered ............................................................................................ 20
2.4 Results ............................................................................................................................. 20
2.4.1 Window Air Conditioner ................................................................................ 20
Global Energy Balance Test iii October 2014

Table of Contents
Section Page
2.4.2 Hydronic Heating/Cooling System ................................................................. 32

3 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................... 47
4 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 49
APPENDIX A CURVE FITTING OF MANUFACTURER CATALOG DATA

FOR YORK MODEL YCWZ33AB0 MILLENNIUM WATER COOLED
CHILLER
Global Energy Balance Test iv October 2014

1 TEST OBJECTIVES AND OVERVIEW
1.1 Test Type: Comparative
The EnergyPlus Global Energy Balance Test checks the accuracy of EnergyPlus in regards to
energy balances at various boundary volumes when simulating the operation of HVAC systems
and equipment. The test procedure makes use of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2011 procedures
for generating hourly equipment loads and ASHRAE Standard 140-2011 weather files. The test
suites described within this report are for testing of:
a) EnergyPlus DX cooling system referred to within EnergyPlus by the object named

ZoneHVAC:WindowAirConditioner with electric baseboard heat
(ZoneHVAC:Baseboard:Convective:Electric)
b) EnergyPlus hydronic heating/cooling system which utilizes chilled water, hot water and
condenser water loops along with an electric chiller (Chiller:Electric:EIR), cooling tower
(CoolingTower:SingleSpeed), and gas-fired boiler (Boiler:HotWater) to provide cooling
and heating to a 4-pipe fan coil system (ZoneHVAC:FourPipeFanCoil).
1.2 Test Suite: EnergyPlus Global Energy Balance Test Description
The EnergyPlus Global Energy Balance Test makes use of the basic test building geometry and
envelope described as Case E100 in Section 5.3.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2011,
Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs.
1.2.1 Base Case Building Description
The basic test building (Figure 1) is a rectangular 48 m2 single zone (8 m wide x 6 m long x 2.7
m high) with no interior partitions and no windows. The building as specified in Standard 140 is
intended as a near-adiabatic cell with cooling and heating loads driven by user specified internal
gains. For Global Energy Balance Test purposes, the building envelope is made totally adiabatic
so that the cooling or heating load in the space during any hour of the simulation is solely due to
internal loads. How this was done in EnergyPlus is discussed further in Section 1.2.2. Material
properties for the building envelope as specified in Standard 140 are described below. For
further details on building geometry and building envelope thermal properties refer to Section
5.3.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140.
Global Energy Balance Test 1 October 2014

Figure 1 Base Building Geometry - Isometric View of Southeast Corner
Wall, Roof and Floor Construction:
Element k Thickness U R
(W/m-K) (m) (W/m2-K) (m2-K/W)
Int. Surface Coeff. 8.290 0.121

Insulation 0.010 1.000 0.010 100.000
Ext. Surface Coeff. 29.300 0.034
Overall, air-to-air 0.010 100.155
Opaque Surface Radiative Properties:

Interior Surface Exterior Surface
Solar Absorptance 0.6 0.1
Infrared Emittance 0.9 0.9
Infiltration: None
1.2.2 Adiabatic Surfaces
An opaque exterior surface can be made adiabatic in EnergyPlus by specifying the outside face
environment of the exterior surface to be another surface and then setting the object of the
outside face environment to be the exterior surface itself. In other words, the surface is forced to
see itself. As an example, the input stream for specifying the east facing exterior wall as an
adiabatic surface is as follows:

BuildingSurface:Detailed,
ZONE SURFACE EAST, !- Name
WALL, !- Surface Type
LTWALL, !- Construction Name
ZONE ONE, !- Zone Name
Surface, !- Outside Boundary Condition
ZONE SURFACE EAST, !- Outside Boundary Condition Object
NoSun, !- Sun Exposure
NoWind, !- Wind Exposure
0.0, !- View Factor to Ground
4, !- Number of Vertices
8.00, 0.00, 2.70, !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 1 {m}
8.00, 0.00, 0.00, !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 2 {m}
8.00, 6.00, 0.00, !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 3 {m}
8.00, 6.00, 2.70; !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 4 {m}
This approach was used on all 6 exterior surfaces of the of the Base Case building to make the
building exterior adiabatic and ensure that the resulting cooling load or heating load in the space
each hour was always exactly equal to the total of the internal space gains.
1.3 Window Air Conditioner Global Energy Balance Test
1.3.1 Internal Loads
Two different types of tests were conducted with varying internal loads: a limited daily
comparison test with cooling only and an annual comparison test with cooling and heating.
1.3.1.1 Daily Comparison Test
In order to create a cooling load for the cooling system, various internal gain scenarios are
imposed on the building interior space according to a fixed schedule which holds the internal
load constant throughout a certain test duration. Five types of internal loads (lights, electric
equipment, other equipment, gas equipment and steam equipment) which can be modeled by
EnergyPlus are tested for sensible, latent, radiant, convective, etc. fractions to test the programs
ability to properly transfer these space loads to the HVAC system. Table 1 describes eight test
cases (A through H), each of two day duration, and the internal load schedule by day of the
simulation. The first day of each case is simulated to allow steady state to be achieved. Energy
balances are then done for the second day of each test case. Zone internal gains are assumed to
be distributed evenly throughout the zone air. These are internally generated sources of heat that
are not related to the operation of the mechanical cooling system or its air distribution fan.
1.3.1.2 Annual Comparison Test
A second test was also performed with internal loads that created either a heating load or cooling
load in the space for each month over a 12 month period. A constant space cooling load of 1,000
W/hr was scheduled for the cooling season which ran from May 1st through September 30th. A
constant space heating load of 1,000 W/hr was scheduled for the heating season which ran from
January 1st through April 30th and October 1st through December 31st. Zone internal gains are

assumed to be distributed evenly throughout the zone air. These are internally generated sources
of heat that are not related to the operation of the mechanical cooling system or its air
distribution fan. Table 2 describes the internal load schedules used for each month of the test
(Test Cases I through T).
Table 1 Schedule of Internal Loads for Daily Test Cases Window AC

System
Table 2 Schedule of Internal Loads for Annual Test Case Window AC

System with Baseboard Heat
Internal Load
Other Amount
Equip. Level Convective
Case Month (W) (%)
I Jan -1,000 100.0
J Feb -1,000 100.0
K Mar -1,000 100.0
L Apr -1,000 100.0
M May 1,000 100.0
N Jun 1,000 100.0
O Jul 1,000 100.0
P Aug 1,000 100.0
Q Sep 1,000 100.0
R Oct -1,000 100.0
S Nov -1,000 100.0
T Dec -1,000 100.0
1.3.2 Air Distribution System
A simple and ideal air distribution system is used with the following characteristics to provide
whatever cooling the space needs in order to maintain the setpoint temperature:
100% convective air system

100% efficient with no duct losses and no capacity limitation

Zone air is perfectly mixed
Supply air fan has the following characteristics
Cycles on when compressor operates
Flow rate = 0.425 m3/s
Located in the air stream and adds heat to the air stream
Fan efficiency = 0.5
Delta pressure = 10 Pa
Motor efficiency = 0.9
No outside air; no exhaust air
Non-proportional-type thermostat, heat always off, cooling on if zone air temperature
>22.2C (72F)
1.3.3 HVAC Cooling System

The mechanical cooling system specified in Standard 140 is a simple unitary vapor compression
cooling system with air cooled condenser and indoor evaporator coil, 100% convective air
system, no outside air or exhaust air, single speed, draw-through air distribution fan, indoor and
outdoor fans cycle on/off with compressor, no cylinder unloading, no hot gas bypass, crankcase
heater and other auxiliary energy = 0. Performance characteristics at ARI rating conditions of
35.0C outdoor dry-bulb, 26.7C cooling coil entering dry-bulb and 19.4C cooling coil entering
wet-bulb as presented in Table 26c of Standard 140 is:
Gross Total Capacity 8,818 W
Airflow 0.425 m3/s
Compressor Power 1858 W
Outdoor Fan Power 108 W
Indoor Fan Power 230 W
COP (includes outdoor fan) 4.16
1.3.4 Zone Heating System
For the annual comparison test, an electric baseboard convective heating system was added to
the zone to provide any hourly heating that the zone required. The heating capacity of the
baseboard was set to 1100 W and was assumed to be 100% efficient.
1.3.5 Weather Data
A three-month long (January March) TMY format weather file provided as part of
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2011 with the file name of CE100A.TM2 was used for the daily
test case simulations. The outdoor dry-bulb temperature of 46.1C is constant for every hour of
the three-month long period.

For the 12 month annual simulation test case, a TMY2 format weather file for Chicago Ohare
converted to EnergyPlus epw format (IL_Chicago_TMY2.epw) was used for the simulation.
1.3.6 Summary of Test Cases
Eight test cases (A through H) as summarized in Table 1 are designed to test the accuracy of the
EnergyPlus Window AC system to handle internal space gains and the ability of the cooling
system to satisfy these loads. Twelve additional test cases (I through T) as summarized in Table
2 perform a similar series of tests but for a one year period.
1.3.7 Simulation and Reporting Period
A 16 day simulation period from January 1 through January 16 was used to cover the full range
of scheduled internal loads as described in Table 1. The 12 month annual simulation period
which used the internal load schedule described in Table 2 was January 1 through December 31.
1.3.8 Output Data Requirements

The following hourly output data as a minimum are required to test the accuracy of EnergyPlus
using the Global Energy Balance Test:
Hourly internal load (sensible, latent and total) for each type of internal space gain
which is present in Wh
Hourly space cooling load (sensible, latent and total) in Wh
Hourly amount of cooling performed by the DX cooling coil (sensible, latent and total)
in Wh
Hourly HVAC system cooling (sensible, latent and total) delivered to the space in Wh
Hourly resulting space temperature in C
Hourly electric cooling energy used by the HVAC system
Hourly electric energy used by the HVAC system supply fan
1.4 Hydronic Heating/Cooling System Global Energy Balance Test
Similar to the Global Energy Balance Test described in Section 1.3 for the Window Air
Conditioner, a limited daily comparison test and annual comparison test with varying internal
space loads are also prescribed for a typical hydronic heating/cooling system as further described
below which contains:

Hot water loop containing
Simple hot water boiler
Hot water pump
Chilled water loop containing

Water chiller
Chilled water pump
Condenser water loop containing

Single speed cooling tower
Condenser water pump
Air loop containing

Four-pipe fan coil unit serving one zone
Constant speed fan
Water heating coil
Water cooling coil.
1.4.1 Internal Loads
Two different types of tests were conducted with varying internal loads: a limited daily
comparison test and an annual comparison test.
The same eight internal load schedules that were used for the Window Air Conditioner global
energy test (see Section 1.3.1.1) are also used here for the limited daily comparison test for the
hydronic heating/cooling system except that the magnitude of the internal load is increased to a
constant 10,000 W each hour. Table 3 describes Test Cases A through H.
A constant space cooling load of 10,000 W/hr was scheduled for the cooling season which ran
from May 1st through September 30th. A constant space heating load of 10,000 W/hr was
scheduled for the heating season which ran from January 1st through April 30th and October 1st
through December 31st. Zone internal gains are assumed to be distributed evenly throughout the
zone air. These are internally generated sources of cooling and heating that are not related to the
operation of the mechanical heating or cooling equipment or the 4-pipe fan coil HVAC system.
Table 4 describes the internal load schedules used for each month of the test (Test Cases I
through T).

Table 3 Schedule of Internal Loads for Daily Test Cases Hydronic
Heating/Cooling System
Internal Load Internal Load
Electric Electric Other Gas Steam Fraction Fraction
Light Level Equip. Level Equip. Level Equip. Level Equip. Level Latent Radiant
Case Day Hours (W) (W) (W) (W) (W)
1-Jan 1 - 24 0 0 -10,000 0 0 0.0 0.0
A 2-Jan 1 - 24 0 0 -10,000 0 0 0.0 0.0
3-Jan 1 - 24 10,000 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
B 4-Jan 1 - 24 10,000 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
5-Jan 1 - 24 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
C 6-Jan 1 - 24 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0
7-Jan 1 - 24 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 0.0 0.0
D 8-Jan 1 - 24 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 0.0 0.0
9-Jan 1 - 24 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0.0 0.0
E 10-Jan 1 - 24 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0.0 0.0
11-Jan 1 - 24 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0.0 0.0
F 12-Jan 1 - 24 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0.0 0.0
13-Jan 1 - 24 0 0 10,000 0 0 0.0 0.2
G 14-Jan 1 - 24 0 0 10,000 0 0 0.0 0.2
15-Jan 1 - 24 0 0 10,000 0 0 0.3 0.0
H 16-Jan 1 - 24 0 0 10,000 0 0 0.3 0.0
Table 4 Schedule of Internal Loads for Annual Test Case Hydronic

Heating/Cooling System
Internal Load
Other Amount
Equip. Level Convective
Case Month (W) (%)
I Jan -10,000 100.0
J Feb -10,000 100.0
K Mar -10,000 100.0
L Apr -10,000 100.0
M May 10,000 100.0
N Jun 10,000 100.0
O Jul 10,000 100.0
P Aug 10,000 100.0
Q Sep 10,000 100.0
R Oct -10,000 100.0
S Nov -10,000 100.0
T Dec -10,000 100.0
1.4.2 Air Distribution System
A simple air distribution system was modeled as a 4-pipe fan coil HVAC system (EnergyPlus
object ZoneHVAC:FourPipeFanCoil) with the following characteristics to provide whatever
heating or cooling the space needs in order to maintain the setpoint temperature:
100% convective air system

100% efficient with no duct losses and no capacity limitation
Zone air is perfectly mixed
No outside air; no exhaust air

Indoor circulating fan autosized based on heating and cooling design day conditions
(total efficiency = 50%) which operates against a 100 Pa delta pressure and has its
motor (motor efficiency = 90%) located in the air stream
Non-proportional-type single heating/cooling setpoint thermostat set at a temperature of
22.2C (72F)
Heating provided by hot water heating coil and cooling provided by chilled water
cooling coil, both of which are autosized based on heating and cooling design
conditions.
1.4.3 Central Plant Heating Equipment

The central plant heating equipment was a constant flow natural gas-fired hot water boiler
(EnergyPlus object Boiler:HotWater) whose full load heating efficiency is assumed to be 80%.
The boiler was autosized by EnergyPlus based on winter design day conditions. Hot water is
supplied to a hot water loop which includes the HVAC system heating coil.
Other simulation assumptions for the heating plant included:
Hot water pump with a motor efficiency of 90% was autosized to operate against a
500,000 Pa head. Motor located outside of fluid and adds no heat to fluid..
Hot water loop piping is assumed to be perfectly insulated such that the entire amount of
heating provided by the boiler plus the pump heat during each time increment goes
completely to heat the space.
Hot water flow is assumed to be constant.
Boiler was oversized by 10%.
1.4.4 Central Plant Cooling Equipment

Cooling was provided by a water cooled electric water chiller whose full load performance is
described by a York Model YCWZ33AB0 water cooled reciprocating chiller as indicated below
in Table 5 where data are in English units. Although the performance data shown in Table 5 is
for a chiller of specific rated cooling capacity (56.5 tons), it is assumed that a set of capacity and
electric consumption performance curves normalized to the standard rated conditions of 44F
(6.67C) leaving chilled water temperature and 95F (29.44C) entering condenser water
temperature can be developed and used to simulate the full load and part load conditions of a
similar chiller of this type and any cooling capacity rating. The water chiller provides chilled
water to a chilled water loop which includes the HVAC system cooling coil. Condenser water is
supplied to the chiller condenser from a condenser water loop which includes a cooling tower.

Table 5 Performance Data for Model Water Cooled
Electric Reciprocating Chiller (York)
TONS = total cooling capacity, 12,000 Btu/Hr

KW = electric input, kilowatts
MBH = condenser heat rejection rate, 1000 Btu/Hr
EER = energy efficiency ratio, Btu/W
Water chiller performance data shown in Table 5 is for a 10F range on both the chilled water
and condenser water temperatures. Other simulation assumptions included:
Chilled water and condenser water pumps are autosized by EnergyPlus using summer
design day conditions with chilled water pump operating against a 500,000 Pa head and
the condenser water pump operating against a 500,000 Pa head. Motors located outside
of fluid and add no heat to the fluid.
Chilled water and condenser water loop piping are assumed to be perfectly insulated such
that the entire amount of cooling provided by the chiller, less any heat added by the
chilled water pump during each time increment, goes completely to cool the space.
Chilled water and condenser water flows are assumed to be constant.
Water chiller was oversized by 10%.
1.4.5 Weather Data
1.4.5.1 Design Day Conditions
Chicago design day weather conditions were used to size the heating and cooling equipment for
both of the daily and annual comparison tests. Those conditions are as follows:
Location: CHICAGO-OHARE
Latitude: 41.98 deg
Longitude: -87.9 deg
Time Zone: -6.0
Elevation: 201.0 m

Annual Heating 99% Design Conditions DB
-17.3 Maximum Dry-Bulb Temperature {C}
0.0 Daily Temperature Range {deltaC}
99063. Barometric Pressure {Pa}
4.9 Wind Speed {m/s}
270 Wind Direction {deg}
0.0 Sky Clearness
21 Day Of Month
1 Month
Annual Cooling 1% Design Conditions DB/MCWB

31.5 Maximum Dry-Bulb Temperature {C}
10.7 Daily Temperature Range {deltaC}
23.0 Humidity Indicating Conditions (wet-bulb) at Max Dry-Bulb
99063. Barometric Pressure {Pa}
5.3 Wind Speed {m/s}
230 Wind Direction {deg}
1.0 Sky Clearness
21 Day Of Month
7 Month
A three-month long (January March) TMY2 format weather file provided as part of
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2011 with the file name of CE100A.TM2 was used for the daily
test case simulations. The numeric code that is part of the file name represents the outdoor dry-
bulb temperature (without the decimal) used in the weather file. The outdoor dry-bulb
temperature of 46.1C is constant for every hour of the three-month long period.
A TMY2 format weather file for Chicago OHare converted to EnergyPlus epw format
(IL_Chicago_TMY2.epw) was used for the simulations required as part of this 12-month test
series.
1.4.6 Summary of Test Cases
The eight test cases (A through H), as summarized in Table 3, are designed to test the accuracy
of an EnergyPlus hydronic heating/cooling system with four pipe fan coil HVAC system to
handle internal space gains and the ability of the heating and cooling equipment to satisfy these
loads. Twelve additional test cases (I through T), as summarized in Table 4, perform a similar
series of tests but for a one year period.

1.4.7 Simulation and Reporting Period
A 16 day simulation period from January 1 through January 16 was used to cover the full range
of scheduled internal loads as described in Table 3. The 12 month annual simulation period
which used the internal load schedule described in Table 4 was January 1 through December 31.
1.4.8 Output Data Requirements

The following hourly output data as a minimum are required to test the accuracy of EnergyPlus
using this Global Energy Balance Test:
Hourly internal load (sensible, latent and total) for each type of internal space gain
which is present in Wh
Hourly space cooling or heating load (sensible, latent and total) in Wh
Hourly amount of cooling performed by the cooling coil (sensible, latent and total) in
Wh
Hourly amount of heating performed by the heating coil in Wh
Hourly HVAC system cooling (sensible, latent and total) delivered to the space in Wh
Hourly HVAC system heating delivered to the space in Wh
Hourly electric consumption of the HVAC fan and amount of fan heat added to the air
stream in Wh
Hourly resulting space temperature in C
Hourly resulting space humidity ratio
Hourly cooling output by the central plant water chiller
Hourly heating output by the central plant hot water boiler
Hourly cooling load on the cooling tower in Wh
Hourly electric consumption of the water chiller in Wh
Hourly electric consumption of the chilled water pump, hot water pump and condenser
water pump and amount of heat added to water loop in Wh

2 MODELER REPORT
2.1 Modeling Methodology
2.1.1 Window Air Conditioner

The EnergyPlus Window Air Conditioner model is a simple unitary vapor compression cooling
system. This system is specified in EnergyPlus as ZoneHVAC:WindowAirConditioner and
consists of three modules for which specifications can be entered: DX cooling coil, indoor fan
and outside air mixer. The outside air quantity was set to 0.0 m3/s. The indoor fan delta
pressure was set to 0.0 Pa in order to zero out the possibility of any fan motor heat being added
to the air stream. EnergyPlus has several DX cooling coil models to select from. The
Coil:Cooling:DX:SingleSpeed model was used for this test. The performance characteristics of
this DX coil model were set as described below in accordance with performance characteristics
presented in Standard 140. The zone thermostat was modeled as a
ThermostatSetpoint:SingleHeatingOrCooling type with a constant setting of 22.2C throughout
the simulation period.
The building internal loads are simulated each hour to determine the zone load that the
mechanical HVAC system must satisfy. The DX coil model then uses performance information
at rated conditions along with curve fits for variations in total capacity, energy input ratio and
part load fraction to determine performance at part load conditions. Sensible/latent capacity
splits are determined by the rated sensible heat ratio (SHR) and the apparatus dewpoint/bypass
factor approach.
Five performance curves are required by the EnergyPlus window air conditioner model as
described below. Performance data for a range of operating conditions as presented in Table 26c
of Standard 140 was used along with the Excel LINEST function to perform a least squares
curve fit of the performance data and determine the coefficients of the curves.
1) The total cooling capacity modifier curve (function of temperature) is a bi-quadratic
curve with two independent variables: wet bulb temperature of the air entering the
cooling coil, and dry bulb temperature of the air entering the air-cooled condenser. The
output of this curve is multiplied by the rated total cooling capacity to give the total
cooling capacity at specific temperature operating conditions (i.e., at temperatures
different from the rating point temperatures).
CoolCapFT = a + b*wb + c*wb**2 + d*edb + e*edb**2 + f*wb*edb

where
wb = wet-bulb temperature of air entering the cooling coil
edb = dry-bulb temperature of the air entering the air-cooled condenser
a = 0.43863482
b = 0.04259180
c = 0.00015024
d = 0.00100248

e = -0.00003314
f = -0.00046664
Data points were taken from first three columns of Table 26c of Standard 140.
CoolCap data was normalized to ARI rated net capacity of 8,181 W, i.e.
CoolCapFT = 1.0 at 19.4 C wb and 35.0 C edb.
2) The energy input ratio (EIR) modifier curve (function of temperature) is a bi-
quadratic curve with two independent variables: wet bulb temperature of the air entering
the cooling coil, and dry bulb temperature of the air entering the air-cooled condenser.
The output of this curve is multiplied by the rated EIR (inverse of the rated COP) to give
the EIR at specific temperature operating conditions (i.e., at temperatures different from
the rating point temperatures).
EIRFT = a + b*wb + c*wb**2 + d*edb + e*edb**2 + f*wb*edb

where:
wb = wet-bulb temperature of air entering the cooling coil
edb = dry-bulb temperature of the air entering the air-cooled condenser
a = 0.77127580
b = -0.02218018
c = 0.00074086
d = 0.01306849
e = 0.00039124
f = -0.00082052
edb and wb data points were taken from the first two columns of Table 26c of
Standard 140. Energy input data points for corresponding pairs of edb and wb
were taken from column labeled Compressor Power in Table 26c of Standard
140 with an additional 108 W added to them for outdoor fan power. EIR is
energy input ratio [(compressor + outdoor fan power)/cooling capacity]
normalized to ARI rated conditions, i.e. EIRFT = 1.0 at 19.4 C wb and 35.0 C
edb.
3) The total cooling capacity modifier curve (function of flow fraction) is a quadratic
curve with one independent variable: ratio of the actual air flow rate across the cooling
coil to the rated air flow rate (i.e., fraction of full load flow). The output of this curve is
multiplied by the rated total cooling capacity and the total cooling capacity modifier
curve (function of temperature) to give the total cooling capacity at the specific
temperature and air flow conditions at which the coil is operating.
CAPFFF = a + b*ff + c*ff**2

where:
ff = fraction of full load flow
Since the indoor fan always operates at constant volume flow, the modifier will be
1.0, therefore:
a = 1.0
b = 0.0
c = 0.0

4) The energy input ratio (EIR) modifier curve (function of flow fraction) is a quadratic
curve with one independent variable: ratio of the actual air flow rate across the cooling
coil to the rated air flow rate (i.e., fraction of full load flow). The output of this curve is
multiplied by the rated EIR (inverse of the rated COP) and the EIR modifier curve
(function of temperature) to give the EIR at the specific temperature and airflow
conditions at which the coil is operating.
EIRFFF = a + b*ff + c*ff**2

where:
ff = fraction of full load flow
Since the indoor fan always operates at constant volume flow, the modifier will be
1.0, therefore:
a = 1.0
b = 0.0
c = 0.0
5) The part load fraction correlation (function of part load ratio) is a quadratic curve
with one independent variable: part load ratio (sensible cooling load / steady-state
sensible cooling capacity). The output of this curve is used in combination with the rated
EIR and EIR modifier curves to give the effective EIR for a given simulation time step.
The part load fraction correlation accounts for efficiency losses due to compressor
cycling.
PLFFPLR = a + b*PLR + c*PLR**2

where:
PLR = part load ratio
Part load performance was specified in Figure 10 of Standard 140, therefore:

a = 0.771
b = 0.229
c = 0.0
2.1.2 Hydronic Heating/Cooling System
To simulate the Bolier:HotWater model in EnergyPlus requires that a fuel use/part load ratio
curve be defined. EnergyPlus uses the following equation to calculate fuel use.
TheoreticalFuelUsed
FuelUsed
C1 C 2 OperatingPartLoadRatio C 3 OperatingPartLoadRatio2
where
BoilerLoad
TheoreticalFuelUse
BoilerEfficiency

User inputs include the Boiler Efficiency and the coefficients C1, C2 and C3. The EnergyPlus
model of the Boiler:HotWater determines the Boiler Load and Operating Part Load Ratio for
each simulated time increment. The Operating Part Load is calculated as the Boiler Load
divided by the Boiler Rated Heating Capacity. For the hot water boiler described here the Boiler
Heating Capacity was autosized based on winter design day conditions and the Boiler Efficiency
was set to 80%. The resulting boiler and hot water pump capacities and flows were as follows:
For Daily Comparison Test
Boiler capacity 10,996 W

Hot water pump flow rate 0.000239 m3/s
Hot water pump size 170.3 W
For Annual Comparison Test
Boiler capacity 10,996 W

Hot water pump flow rate 0.000239 m3/s
Hot water pump size 170.3 W
The boiler capacity is the same for both tests since the maximum heating load for each test plus a
10% oversize factor results in the same design load (see Tables 3 and 4).
The Fuel Used equation which describes the part load performance of the hot water boiler has
coefficient values of:
C1 = 0.97
C2 = 0.0633
C3 = -0.0333
Some additional input parameters required by EnergyPlus included:
Design boiler water outlet temperature, parameter left to default to 81C

Maximum design boiler water flow rate, parameter set to autosize
Minimum part load ratio, parameter left to default to 0.0
Maximum part load ratio, parameter set to 1.1
Boiler flow mode, parameter set to constant flow
Parasitic electric load, parameter set to 0.0 W
To simulate the Chiller:Electric:EIR model in EnergyPlus requires three performance curves:

1) Cooling Capacity Function of Temperature Curve - The total cooling capacity
modifier curve (function of temperature) is a bi-quadratic curve with two independent
variables: leaving chilled water temperature and entering condenser fluid temperature.
The output of this curve is multiplied by the design capacity to give the total cooling
capacity at specific temperature operating conditions (i.e., at temperatures different from
the design temperatures). The curve has a value of 1.0 at the design temperatures.

2) Energy Input to Cooling Output Ratio Function of Temperature - The energy input
ratio (EIR) modifier curve (function of temperature) is a bi-quadratic curve with two
independent variables: leaving chilled water temperature and entering condenser fluid
temperature. The output of this curve is multiplied by the design EIR (inverse of the
COP) to give the EIR at specific temperature operating conditions (i.e., at temperatures
different from the design temperatures). The curve has a value of 1.0 at the design
temperatures.
3) Electric Input to Cooling Output Ratio Function of Part Load Ratio - The energy
input ratio (EIR) modifier curve (function of part load ratio) is a quadratic curve that
parameterizes the variation of the energy input ratio (EIR) as a function of part load
ratio.. The EIR is the inverse of the COP, and the part load ratio is the actual cooling
load divided by the chillers available cooling capacity. The output of this curve is
multiplied by the design EIR and the Energy Input to Cooling Output Ratio Function of
Temperature Curve to give the EIR at the specific temperatures and part-load ratio at
which the chiller is operating. The curve has a value of 1.0 when the part-load ratio
equals 1.0.
Before the curve fitting of the performance data could be done the performance data as available
from the manufacturers catalog (see Table 2) which is in IP units was converted to SI units. A
least squares curve fit was then performed using the Excel LINEST function to determine the
coefficients of the curves. Appendix A presents the details of this exercise for the first two
curves. The following results were obtained:
1) Cooling Capacity Function of Temperature Curve

Form: Bi-quadratic curve
curve = a + b*tchwl + c*tchwl**2 + d*tcnwe + e*tcnwe**2 + f*tchwl*tcnwe
Independent variables: tchwl, leaving chilled water temperature, and tcnwe, entering
condenser water temperature.
a = 1.018907198 Adjusted a = 1.018707198
b = 0.035768388
c = 0.000335718
d = -0.006886487
e = -3.51093E-05
f = -0.00019825
The resulting R2 for this curve fit of the catalog data was 0.999. The value of the a-
coefficient was adjusted by -0.0002 so that the value given by the quadratic curve would
exactly equal the catalog value at rated conditions.
2) Energy Input to Cooling Output Ratio Function of Temperature

Form: Bi-quadratic curve
curve = a + b*tchwl + c*tchwl**2 + d*tcnwe + e*tcnwe**2 + f*tchwl*tcnwe
Independent variables: tchwl, leaving chilled water temperature, and tcnwe, entering
condenser water temperature. The value of the a-coefficient was adjusted by -0.0021 so
that the value given by the quadratic curve would exactly equal the catalog value at rated
conditions.

a = 0.54807728 Adjusted a = 0.54597728
b = -0.020497
c = 0.000456
d = 0.015890
e = 0.000218
f = -0.000440
The resulting R2 for this curve fit of the catalog data was 0.999.
3) Electric Input to Cooling Output Ratio Function of Part Load Ratio

Form: Quadratic curve
curve = a + b*plr + c*plr**2
Independent variable: part load ratio (sensible cooling load/steady state sensible cooling
capacity)
Since part load performance as required by EnergyPlus was not available from the
catalog for this piece of equipment, the part load curve from the DOE-2 program for a
hermetic reciprocating chiller was used. The coefficients for the DOE-2 curve specified
as EIRPLR4 in the DOE-2 documentation (DOE-2 1993a) are as follows:
a = 0.88065
b = 1.137742
c = -0.225806
Some additional inputs required by EnergyPlus included:
Design capacity (W), set to autosize

Design COP, set at 3.926 based on catalog data at rated conditions of 6.67C leaving
chilled water temperature and 29.44C entering condenser water temperature
Design leaving chilled water temperature (C), set at 6.67C (44F)
Design entering condenser water temperature (C), set at 29.44C (85F)
Design evaporator volumetric water flow rate (m3/s), parameter set to autosize
Design condenser volumetric water flow rate (m3/s), parameter set to autosize
Minimum part-load ratio, left to default to 0.1
Maximum part-load ratio, set at 1.2
The cooling tower was modeled using the EnergyPlus object CoolingTower:SingleSpeed. All
size related parameters were left to autosize.
The resulting chiller, cooling tower, chilled water pump and condenser water pump capacities
and flows were as follows:
For Daily Comparison Test

Chiller capacity 55,005 W
Chilled water pump flow rate 0.00197 m3/s
Chilled water pump size 1,405.2 W
Cooling tower fan size 724.7 W
Cooling tower fan flow rate 1.907 m3/s
Condenser water pump size 2,100 W
Condenser water pump flow rate 0.00295 m3/s
For Annual Comparison Test
Chiller capacity 11,005 W

Chilled water pump flow rate 0.000395 m3/s
Chilled water pump size 281.1 W
Cooling tower fan size 144.9 W
Cooling tower fan flow rate 0.390 m3/s
Condenser water pump size 420.1 W
Condenser water pump flow rate 0.000590 m3/s
The chiller capacity for the daily comparison test is five times greater than that for the annual
comparison test because of the difference in internal load schedules (see Tables 3 and 4). A 10%
oversize factor was also included when calculating the cooling design load for each test.
2.2 Modeling Difficulties
2.2.1 Building Envelope Construction
The specification for the building envelope indicates that the exterior walls, roof and floor are
made up of one opaque layer of insulation (R=100) with differing radiative properties for the
interior surface and exterior surface (ref. Table 24 of Standard 140). To allow the surface
radiative properties to be set at different values, the exterior wall, roof and floor had to be
simulated as two insulation layers. In addition, the wall layers were defined using the Material
feature of EnergyPlus. The wall, roof and floor constructions described in Section 5.3.1 from
Standard 140 are massless and typically these constructions would be defined using the
Material:NoMass feature of EnergyPlus where only the thermal resistance of the material layer
along with surface absorptances are required. When this approach was used however,
EnergyPlus generated a severe warning as indicated below:
** Severe ** This building has no thermal mass which can cause an unstable solution.
** ~~~ ** Use Material for all opaque material types except very light
insulation layers.
To avoid this possible severe error, the wall, roof and floor materials were defined using the
construction as follows:
Material,

INSULATION-EXT, !- Name
VeryRough, !- Roughness
1.0, !- Thickness {m}
3.9999999E-02, !- Conductivity {w/m-K}
32.03, !- Density {kg/m3}
830.0, !- Specific Heat {J/kg-K}
0.0000001, !- Thermal Emittance
0.0000001, !- Solar Absorptance
0.0000001; !- Visible Absorptance
Material,
INSULATION-INT, !- Name
VeryRough, !- Roughness
1.0, !- Thickness {m}
3.9999999E-02, !- Conductivity {w/m-K}
32.03, !- Density {kg/m3}
830.0, !- Specific Heat {J/kg-K}
0.0000001, !- Thermal Emittance
0.0000001, !- Solar Absorptance
0.0000001; !- Visible Absorptance
Construction,
LTWALL, ! Construction Name
INSULATION-EXT, !- Outside layer
INSULATION-INT; !- Layer 2
2.3 Software Errors Discovered
During the initial testing of EnergyPlus with the new global energy balance test suite, one
software error was discovered as part of the testing which was subsequently corrected:
The sensible and latent cooling coil loads did not agree with the sensible and latent
cooling loads reported by the Window AC HVAC system. There was agreement
however with the total cooling load. This discrepancy was corrected in EnergyPlus
version 1.4.0.020.
Plant solver routines were reworked which caused minor changes in some results
(changed in EnergyPlus version 7.0.0.036)
2.4 Results
2.4.1 Window Air Conditioner
For the Window AC Global Energy Balance Test energy balances were performed at the
following boundary volumes:

Zone boundary
Coil boundary
HVAC system boundary
At each level all energy flows into and out of the boundary volume are assessed using standard
output variables and node values to determine energy balances. Before such energy balances are
performed, the results of the simulation are first examined to ensure that the space temperature
setpoint is maintained for all hours and space humidity ratios are constant for all hours indicating
that all space loads have been met.
Daily comparison results from running the Global Energy Balance Test with EnergyPlus 8.2.0
for the one-zone building described in Section 1 which is cooled by an EnergyPlus Window AC
system are shown in spreadsheet format on the following three pages for:
Zone Level Energy Balance
Coil Level Energy Balance
HVAC Cooling System Energy Balance
Equipment Performance Summary

The following is observed from examining the results:
a) For each hour of the second day of each test case the zone setpoint temperature of
22.2 C was maintained and the zone humidity level remained constant
b) 100% of the internal loads showed up as sensible and latent cooling loads in the
space, therefore energy balance at the zone level was achieved.
a) For all test cases the amount of sensible cooling performed by the cooling coil was
equal to the zone sensible cooling requirement plus fan heat except for Case H where
there was a very small difference of 0.26%. Sensible energy balance was therefore
achieved for all cases except Case H.
b) For Case H when space latent gains did occur within the space, the amount of latent
cooling performed by the cooling coil was less than that required by 0.01% while the
total cooling by the cooling coil was differing by only 0.18%. For Case H the internal
load is 30% latent and surface temperatures did not reach steady state condition until
late in the second day.
a) When comparing the HVAC system cooling delivered to the zone versus the cooling
required by the zone, energy balance was achieved for all cases as shown below.

In previous versions of EnergyPlus there were differences between the sensible and
latent cooling coil loads versus the sensible and latent cooling loads indicated for the
Window AC system for all cases. This error was corrected in EnergyPlus 1.4.0.025.
a) The Window AC system average COP during each of the test cases ranged from 1.97
to 2.36 while the outdoor drybulb temperature remained constant at 46.1C. Entering
coil wet-bulb temperature for Tests B through F when there was no latent load was
about 14C (dry coil). Full load COP and gross cooling capacity at these conditions
for this equipment are 6,250 kW and 2.81. During Test B when the hourly space
sensible load was held constant at 1,000 kW and the hourly fan heat was 48 W (PLR
= 0.16), the COP degradation factor according to Standard 140 is 0.81. It is expected
that the resulting COP during these tests would then be 2.81 x 0.81 = 2.27 which falls
within the range of COPs reported above.
Monthly comparison results from running the Global Energy Balance Test with EnergyPlus 8.2.0
for the one-zone building described in Section 1 which is cooled by an EnergyPlus Window AC
system and heated by electric baseboard are shown in spreadsheet format on the following four
pages for:

HVAC Cooling and Heating System Energy Balance.
a) For each month of the simulation the zone setpoint temperature of 22.2 C was
maintained.
b) During the summer cooling months the HVAC system did not maintain constant
humidity ratios in the space. The largest difference occurred during May when the
latent cooling load occurred for the first time and several hours were required during
the first day in May for semi steady-state humidity conditions to be achieved.
c) 100% of the internal loads were showing up as sensible and latent cooling loads in the
Coil Level Energy Balance for Cooling Months
a) For all five of the cooling months there were very small differences between the
amount of sensible cooling performed by the cooling coil and the zone sensible
cooling requirement plus fan heat. The percentage difference was less than 0.35% for
these months.
b) For each of the cooling months when latent cooling loads were present, the amount of
latent cooling performed by the cooling coil was less than that required by as much as
0.48% while the total cooling by the cooling coil was differing by as much as 0.38%.
Coil Level Energy Balance for Heating Months
a) During the heating months the baseboard heater output equaled the space heating
requirement except for January and October where small differences occurred (0.05%
or less).
a) When comparing the HVAC system cooling delivered to the zone versus the cooling
required by the zone, energy balance was achieved for all cases as shown below.

In previous versions of EnergyPlus there were differences between the sensible and
latent cooling coil loads versus the sensible and latent cooling loads indicated for the
Window AC system for all cases. This error was corrected in EnergyPlus 1.4.0.025.
a) The Window AC system average COP during each of the test cases ranged from 3.57
to 3.94 with varying outdoor drybulb temperature. Nominal cooling capacity and full
load COP for the system at ARI conditions is 8,181 W and 4.16. The average PLR
for the cooling system which had an hourly cooling load of 1,000 kW plus hourly fan
heat of 34 W is 0.13. The corresponding COP degradation factor is 0.80 resulting in
an operating COP of 4.16 x 0.80 = 3.33. Outdoor temperatures in Chicago during the
cooling season would typically be less than the 35 C ARI condition and therefore
COPs higher than the nominal would be expected as was the case.
2.4.2 Hydronic Heating/Cooling System
For the hydronic heating/cooling system Global Energy Balance Test energy balances were
performed for the following:
Hot Water Loop Energy Balance
Chilled Water Loop Energy Balance
Condenser Water Loop Energy Balance
For each heating/cooling coil, HVAC system and water loop energy flows into and out of the
boundary volume are assessed using standard output variables and node values to determine

energy balances. Before such energy balances are performed, the results of the simulation are
first examined to ensure that the space temperature setpoint is maintained for all hours and space
humidity ratios are constant for all hours indicating that all space loads have been met.
Daily comparison results from running the Global Energy Balance Test with EnergyPlus 8.2.0
for the one-zone building described in Section 1 which is cooled by an EnergyPlus four-pipe fan
coil system with water supplied to the coils by a water chiller and hot water boiler are shown in
spreadsheet format on the following five pages.
a) For each hour of the second day of each test case the zone setpoint temperature of
22.2 C was maintained and the zone humidity level remained constant
b) 100% of the internal loads showed up as sensible and latent cooling loads in the

a) For the test cases where cooling was required (Cases B through H) there were small
amounts of differences between the sensible, latent and total cooling performed by
the cooling coil versus what was required for some cases with the maximum
difference being 1.65%.
b) For the heating test case (Case A), the output of the heating coil was 0.03% greater
than that required.
a) For Case A where the zone had a heating requirement, energy balance was achieved
when comparing the heating output of the boiler to the heating coil output less the
monthly hot water pump heat added to the hot water loop.
b) For Case A where the zone had a heating requirement, energy balance was also
achieved when comparing the heating output of the boiler to the zone monthly
heating requirement less the monthly fan heat added to the air stream less the hot
water pump heat added to the hot water loop.
a) For each Case B through H where zone cooling was required, energy balance was
achieved when comparing the cooling output of the chiller to the monthly total
cooling coil output plus the chilled water pump heat added to the chilled water loop.
b) Very small energy balance differences (0.42% or less) occurred for four out of seven
cooling cases when comparing the cooling output of the chiller to the monthly zone
total cooling requirement plus the fan heat added to the air stream plus the chilled
water pump heat added to the chilled water loop.
a) For each of the seven cooling cases, energy balance was achieved when comparing
the monthly cooling tower load to the monthly chiller load plus the chiller electric
consumption plus the condenser water pump heat added to the condenser water loop.
a) For the heating day (Case A) the boiler average efficiency was 79.9% comparing
favorably to the rated steady state efficiency of 80%.
b) During the seven cooling cases (Cases B through H) the average chiller COP ranged
from 2.65 to 3.87. The rated cooling capacity and COP of the chiller at ARI
conditions is 55,005 W and 3.926. The chiller entering condenser water temperature

and leaving chilled water temperature was held constant at the ARI standard
conditions of 29.44 C and 6.67 C for all test cases. For Case B where the hourly
chiller load was 10,000 W space load plus 1,090 W fan heat plus 1,265 W pump heat
for a total cooling load of 12,355 W, the PLR is 0.22. The EIRfPLR at this PLR is
0.332. The COP at this PLR is therefore 12,355 / (0.332 * 55,005/3.926) = 2.65
which is the resulting average COP for Test B.
The following is observed from examining the results (see following five pages) of the hydronic
heating/cooling energy balance test performed with the annual comparison tests:
a) For each month of each test case the zone setpoint temperature of 22.2 C was
maintained and the zone humidity level remained constant except for Case I
b) 100% of the internal loads showed up in the space, therefore energy balance at the
zone level was achieved.
Coil Level Energy Balance for Cooling Months
a) For all five of the cooling months the amount of sensible cooling performed by the
cooling coil equaled the zone sensible cooling requirement plus fan heat. Energy
balance was therefore achieved at the cooling coil level.
Coil Level Energy Balance for Heating Months
a) During each of the heating months the heating coil output equaled the space heating
requirement less the fan heat, therefore, energy balance at the heating coil level was
achieved.
a) For each month of the seven month heating season, energy balance was achieved
when comparing the heating output of the boiler to the heating coil output less the
monthly hot water pump heat added to the hot water loop.
b) For each month of the seven month heating season, energy balance was also achieved
when comparing the heating output of the boiler to the zone monthly heating
requirement less the monthly fan heat added to the air stream less the hot water
pump heat added to the hot water loop.

a) For each month of the five month cooling season, energy balance was achieved when
comparing the cooling output of the chiller to the monthly total cooling coil output
plus the chilled water pump heat added to the chilled water loop.
b) For each month of the five month cooling season, energy balance was also achieved
when comparing the cooling output of the chiller to the monthly zone total cooling
requirement plus the fan heat added to the air stream plus the chilled water pump heat
added to the chilled water loop.
a) For each month of the five month cooling season, energy balance was achieved when
comparing the monthly cooling tower load to the monthly chiller load plus the chiller
electric consumption plus the condenser water pump heat added to the condenser
water loop
a) For the heating months (Cases I throughL and R through T) the boiler average
efficiency was 80.0% each month matching the rated steady state efficiency of 80%.
b) During the five cooling cases (Cases M through Q) the average chiller COP was 3.87.
The rated cooling capacity and COP of the chiller at ARI conditions is 11,005 W and
3.926. The chiller entering condenser water temperature and leaving chilled water
temperature was held constant at the ARI standard conditions of 29.44 C and 6.67
C for all test cases. For each cooling month the hourly chiller load was 10,000 W
space load plus 223 W fan heat plus 253 W pump heat for a total cooling load of
10,476 W, the PLR is 0.95. The EIRfPLR at this PLR is 0.966. The COP at this PLR
is therefore 10,476 / (0.966 * 11,005 / 3.926) = 3.87 which is the resulting average
COP for each of the cooling months.

3 CONCLUSIONS
EnergyPlus version 8.2.0 was used to model the operation of a DX cooling system and hydronic
heating/cooling system and perform global energy balances across various energy boundaries to
determine how accurately energy was being transferred between the building space being cooled
and various components of the HVAC system and equipment for various types of internal loads.
The Global Energy Balance Test suite as described in this report makes use of the basic test
building geometry and envelope described as Case E100 in Section 5.3.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 140-2011, Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis
Computer Programs to generate a set of controlled heating and cooling loads on the HVAC
system. The global energy balance test was performed for the DX cooling system in EnergyPlus
referred to as ZoneHVAC:WindowAirConditioner. Energy balances and flows into and out of
three boundary volumes were performed for the zone boundary, coil boundary and HVAC
system boundary for both daily comparison cases and annual comparison cases with the
following results.
Zone Level Energy Balance exact agreement was obtained between the internal loads
generated within the space and the resulting cooling load in the space
Coil Level Energy Balance sensible cooling coil energy balance was achieved between
the sensible cooling performed by the cooling coil and the zone sensible cooling
requirement plus fan heat. Small differences (1.36% or less) occurred when comparing
the amount of latent cooling performed by the cooling coil versus what was required.
Small differences (0.02%) also occurred when comparing the sensible cooling performed
by the cooling coil versus what was required.
HVAC Cooling System Level Energy Balance energy balance was achieved when
comparing the HVAC system cooling provided to the zone to the cooling coil output.
Equipment Performance Summary the resulting cooling system COPs and heating
system efficiencies were within range of expected results.
The global energy balance test was also performed for a hydronic heating/cooling system which
utilized chilled water, hot water and condenser water loops, electric chiller, gas-fired hot water
boiler, cooling tower and 4-pipe fan coil HVAC system. Energy balances performed for each of
the three water loops for both daily comparison cases and annual comparison cases yielded the
following results:
Zone Level Energy Balance exact agreement was obtained between the internal loads
generated within the space and the resulting cooling load in the space
Coil Level Energy Balance small differences (1.65% or less) occurred when comparing
the amount of sensible or latent cooling performed by the cooling coil versus what was
required. Heating coil energy output compared favorably with the space required
heating.

Hot Water Loop Energy Balance for each day or month when heating was required
exact agreement was obtained between the heating required and delivered to the space by
the hot water loop and the boiler after accounting for pump heat added to the hot water
loop
Chilled Water Loop Energy Balance for each day or month during the both the daily
and annual comparison tests when cooling was required exact agreement was obtained
between the cooling required and delivered to the space by the chilled water loop and
water chiller after accounting for pump heat added to the chilled water loop. Small
differences (0.42% or less) when comparing the chiller output to the zone cooling load
plus fan heat plus chilled water pump heat.
Condenser Water Loop Energy Balance - for each day or month when cooling was
required, exact agreement was obtained between the cooling performed by the cooling
tower and that required by the water chiller condenser and condenser water pump.
Equipment Performance Summary the resulting chiller COPs and heating system
efficiencies were within range of expected results.
As a result of the testing several discrepancies were uncovered that need to be investigated:
differences between amount of sensible and latent cooling done by water cooling coils
versus that required by the zone (-1.65% to 0.88%)
differences between the amount of cooling provided by the chilled water loop versus the
zone cooling plus fan heat plus chilled water pump heat added to the fluid (-0.18% to
0.42%)
differences between the amount of heating done by water heating coils versus that
required by the zone (-0.03 to 0.0%)
As discussed in this report, one discrepancy, the difference between the sensible and latent loads
reported for the DX cooling coil versus the sensible and latent cooling loads reported for the
Window AC system, was discovered and corrected.

4 REFERENCES
ANSI/ASHRAE 2011. Standard 140-2011, Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of
Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs.
EnergyPlus 2014. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office
of Building Technologies. www.energyplus.gov
York, Millennium Liquid Chillers, Water Cooled Chiller & Remote Condenser Models, 60 to
250 Tons, Models YCWZ, YCRZ, YCWJ and YCRJ, Engineering Guide, Form 150.24-
EG2(899).

Appendix A
Curve Fitting of Manufacturer Catalog Data for York

Model YCWZ33AB0 Millennium Water Cooled Chiller
Performance Curves
Manufacturer: York
Class: Reciprocating Water Chiller
Type: Water-Cooled, Electric
Source of Data: YORK Millennium Liquid Chillers, 60 to 250 tons, Form 150.24-EG2 (899)
EnergyPlus Curve: RecipCapFt CHWS=Chilled Water Supply Temperature (F) CWS=Entering Condenser Water Temperature (F)
English Units
Normalized CAP-FT % Diff CAP-FT
Manufacturer Model CHWS CHWS**2 CWS CWS**2 CHWS*CWS Capacity (tons) CAP From Curve
York YCWZ33AB0 40 1600 75 5625 3000 55.3 0.979 0.9787 0.00% f e d c b a Adjusted a
York YCWZ33AB0 42 1764 75 5625 3150 57.5 1.018 1.0169 -0.08% -6.11884E-05 -1.08362E-05 -0.001174282 0.000103617 0.015197888 0.537801492 0.537601492
York YCWZ33AB0 44 1936 75 5625 3300 59.7 1.057 1.0560 -0.06% 3.53229E-06 1.88809E-06 0.000358351 7.82061E-06 0.000765626 0.024830849
York YCWZ33AB0 45 2025 75 5625 3375 60.8 1.076 1.0758 -0.03% r2 0.999966506 0.000467278 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
York YCWZ33AB0 46 2116 75 5625 3450 61.9 1.096 1.0958 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 48 2304 75 5625 3600 64.2 1.136 1.1365 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 50 2500 75 5625 3750 66.6 1.179 1.1781 -0.06%
York YCWZ33AB0 40 1600 80 6400 3200 53.8 0.952 0.9522 0.00%
York YCWZ33AB0 42 1764 80 6400 3360 55.9 0.989 0.9898 0.04%
York YCWZ33AB0 44 1936 80 6400 3520 58.1 1.028 1.0282 -0.01%
York YCWZ33AB0 45 2025 80 6400 3600 59.2 1.048 1.0478 0.00%
York YCWZ33AB0 46 2116 80 6400 3680 60.3 1.067 1.0675 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 48 2304 80 6400 3840 62.6 1.108 1.1076 -0.04%
York YCWZ33AB0 50 2500 80 6400 4000 64.9 1.149 1.1485 -0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 40 1600 85 7225 3400 52.3 0.926 0.9252 -0.05%
York YCWZ33AB0 42 1764 85 7225 3570 54.4 0.963 0.9621 -0.07%
York YCWZ33AB0 44 1936 85 7225 3740 56.5 1.000 1.0000 0.00%
York YCWZ33AB0 45 2025 85 7225 3825 57.6 1.019 1.0192 -0.03%
York YCWZ33AB0 46 2116 85 7225 3910 58.7 1.039 1.0386 -0.03%
York YCWZ33AB0 48 2304 85 7225 4080 60.9 1.078 1.0781 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 50 2500 85 7225 4250 63.2 1.119 1.1184 -0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 40 1600 90 8100 3600 50.7 0.897 0.8976 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 42 1764 90 8100 3780 52.8 0.935 0.9339 -0.06%
York YCWZ33AB0 44 1936 90 8100 3960 54.9 0.972 0.9711 -0.06%
York YCWZ33AB0 45 2025 90 8100 4050 56 0.991 0.9901 -0.11%
York YCWZ33AB0 46 2116 90 8100 4140 57 1.009 1.0092 0.03%
York YCWZ33AB0 48 2304 90 8100 4320 59.2 1.048 1.0480 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 50 2500 90 8100 4500 61.5 1.088 1.0877 -0.07%
York YCWZ33AB0 40 1600 95 9025 3800 49.1 0.869 0.8694 0.05%
York YCWZ33AB0 42 1764 95 9025 3990 51.2 0.906 0.9052 -0.11%
York YCWZ33AB0 44 1936 95 9025 4180 53.2 0.942 0.9418 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 45 2025 95 9025 4275 54.3 0.961 0.9604 -0.07%
York YCWZ33AB0 46 2116 95 9025 4370 55.3 0.979 0.9792 0.05%
York YCWZ33AB0 48 2304 95 9025 4560 57.5 1.018 1.0175 -0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 50 2500 95 9025 4750 59.7 1.057 1.0565 -0.01%
Metric Units
CHWS=Chilled Water Supply Temperature (C) CWS=Entering Condenser Water Temperature (C)
Normalized CAP-FT % Diff CAP-FT
Manufacturer Model CHWS CHWS**2 CWS CWS**2 CHWS*CWS Capacity (kW) CAP From Curve
York YCWZ33AB0 4.4 19.8 23.9 570.7 106.2 194.4 0.98 0.9787 0.00% f e d c b a Adjusted a
York YCWZ33AB0 5.6 30.9 23.9 570.7 132.7 202.2 1.02 1.0169 -0.08% -0.00019825 -3.51093E-05 -0.006886487 0.000335718 0.035768388 1.018907198 1.018707198
York YCWZ33AB0 6.7 44.4 23.9 570.7 159.3 209.9 1.06 1.0560 -0.06% 1.14446E-05 6.1174E-06 0.000370154 2.53388E-05 0.000499536 0.005921788
York YCWZ33AB0 7.2 52.2 23.9 570.7 172.5 213.8 1.08 1.0758 -0.03% r2 0.999966506 0.000467278 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
York YCWZ33AB0 7.8 60.5 23.9 570.7 185.8 217.6 1.10 1.0958 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 8.9 79.0 23.9 570.7 212.3 225.7 1.14 1.1365 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 10.0 100.0 23.9 570.7 238.9 234.2 1.18 1.1781 -0.06%
York YCWZ33AB0 4.4 19.8 26.7 711.1 118.5 189.2 0.95 0.9522 0.00%
York YCWZ33AB0 5.6 30.9 26.7 711.1 148.1 196.5 0.99 0.9898 0.04%
York YCWZ33AB0 6.7 44.4 26.7 711.1 177.8 204.3 1.03 1.0282 -0.01%
York YCWZ33AB0 7.2 52.2 26.7 711.1 192.6 208.1 1.05 1.0478 0.00%
York YCWZ33AB0 7.8 60.5 26.7 711.1 207.4 212.0 1.07 1.0675 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 8.9 79.0 26.7 711.1 237.0 220.1 1.11 1.1076 -0.04%
York YCWZ33AB0 10.0 100.0 26.7 711.1 266.7 228.2 1.15 1.1485 -0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 4.4 19.8 29.4 867.0 130.9 183.9 0.93 0.9252 -0.05% CHWS CWS
York YCWZ33AB0 5.6 30.9 29.4 867.0 163.6 191.3 0.96 0.9621 -0.07% 21.5 23.9 26.7 29.4 32.2 35.0
York YCWZ33AB0 6.67 44.4 29.44 867.0 196.3 198.7 1.00 1.0000 0.00% 3.2 0.9587 0.9369 0.9111 0.8847 0.8578 0.8304
York YCWZ33AB0 7.2 52.2 29.4 867.0 212.7 202.5 1.02 1.0192 -0.03% 4.4 1.0011 0.9787 0.9522 0.9252 0.8976 0.8694
York YCWZ33AB0 7.8 60.5 29.4 867.0 229.0 206.4 1.04 1.0386 -0.03% 5.6 1.0398 1.0169 0.9898 0.9621 0.9339 0.9052
York YCWZ33AB0 8.9 79.0 29.4 867.0 261.7 214.1 1.08 1.0781 0.02% 6.7 1.0794 1.0560 1.0282 1.0000 0.9711 0.9418
York YCWZ33AB0 10.0 100.0 29.4 867.0 294.4 222.2 1.12 1.1184 -0.02% 7.2 1.0995 1.0758 1.0478 1.0192 0.9901 0.9604
York YCWZ33AB0 4.4 19.8 32.2 1038.3 143.2 178.3 0.90 0.8976 0.02% 7.8 1.1198 1.0958 1.0675 1.0386 1.0092 0.9792
York YCWZ33AB0 5.6 30.9 32.2 1038.3 179.0 185.6 0.93 0.9339 -0.06% 8.9 1.1610 1.1365 1.1076 1.0781 1.0480 1.0175
York YCWZ33AB0 6.7 44.4 32.2 1038.3 214.8 193.0 0.97 0.9711 -0.06% 10.0 1.2031 1.1781 1.1485 1.1184 1.0877 1.0565
York YCWZ33AB0 7.2 52.2 32.2 1038.3 232.7 196.9 0.99 0.9901 -0.11% 11.2 1.2494 1.2238 1.1936 1.1628 1.1315 1.0997
York YCWZ33AB0 7.8 60.5 32.2 1038.3 250.6 200.4 1.01 1.0092 0.03%
York YCWZ33AB0 8.9 79.0 32.2 1038.3 286.4 208.1 1.05 1.0480 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 10.0 100.0 32.2 1038.3 322.2 216.2 1.09 1.0877 -0.07%
York YCWZ33AB0 4.4 19.8 35.0 1225.0 155.6 172.6 0.87 0.8694 0.05%
York YCWZ33AB0 5.6 30.9 35.0 1225.0 194.4 180.0 0.91 0.9052 -0.11%
York YCWZ33AB0 6.7 44.4 35.0 1225.0 233.3 187.0 0.94 0.9418 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 7.2 52.2 35.0 1225.0 252.8 190.9 0.96 0.9604 -0.07%
Appendix A -York YCWZ33AB0
RecipChillerPerf 7.8 60.5 35.0
Curve Data-CatalogVsCalc.xls/WaterCool-Recip-CAP-FT 1225.0 272.2 194.4 0.98 0.9792 0.05% 6/29/2006
York YCWZ33AB0 8.9 79.0 35.0 1225.0 311.1 202.2 1.02 1.0175 -0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 10.0 100.0 35.0 1225.0 350.0 209.9 1.06 1.0565 -0.01%
Performance Curves
Manufacturer: York
Class: Reciprocating Water Chiller
Type: Water-Cooled, Electric
Source of Data: YORK Millennium Liquid Chillers, 60 to 250 tons, Form 150.24-EG2 (899)
EnergyPlus Curve: RecipEIRFt CHWS=Chilled Water Supply Temperature (F) CWS=Entering Condenser Water Temperature (F)
English Units EER includes compressor power
EIR = 3.413/EER
Total Unit EER Normalized EIR-FT % Diff EIR-FT
Manufacturer Model CHWS CHWS**2 CWS CWS**2 CHWS*CWS Capacity (tons) BTU/Watt EIR EIR From Curve
York YCWZ33AB0 40 1600 75 5625 3000 55.3 14.5 0.24 0.92 0.9211 -0.33% f e d c b a Adjusted a
York YCWZ33AB0 42 1764 75 5625 3150 57.5 15.0 0.23 0.89 0.8917 -0.18% -0.00013587 6.72502E-05 0.008871755 0.000140632 -0.016039968 0.703719087 0.701619
York YCWZ33AB0 44 1936 75 5625 3300 59.7 15.5 0.22 0.86 0.8634 -0.13% 1.5715E-05 8.40004E-06 0.001594294 3.47937E-05 0.003406248 0.110471781
York YCWZ33AB0 45 2025 75 5625 3375 60.8 15.7 0.22 0.85 0.8497 -0.45% r2 0.999709348 0.002078905 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
York YCWZ33AB0 46 2116 75 5625 3450 61.9 16.0 0.21 0.84 0.8363 -0.15%
York YCWZ33AB0 48 2304 75 5625 3600 64.2 16.5 0.21 0.81 0.8103 -0.23%
York YCWZ33AB0 50 2500 75 5625 3750 66.6 17.0 0.20 0.79 0.7854 -0.37%
York YCWZ33AB0 40 1600 80 6400 3200 53.8 13.5 0.25 0.99 0.9904 -0.22%
York YCWZ33AB0 42 1764 80 6400 3360 55.9 13.9 0.25 0.96 0.9596 -0.46%
York YCWZ33AB0 44 1936 80 6400 3520 58.1 14.4 0.24 0.93 0.9300 -0.06%
York YCWZ33AB0 45 2025 80 6400 3600 59.2 14.6 0.23 0.92 0.9156 -0.24%
York YCWZ33AB0 46 2116 80 6400 3680 60.3 14.8 0.23 0.91 0.9015 -0.43%
York YCWZ33AB0 48 2304 80 6400 3840 62.6 15.3 0.22 0.88 0.8741 -0.19%
York YCWZ33AB0 50 2500 80 6400 4000 64.9 15.8 0.22 0.85 0.8479 -0.03%
York YCWZ33AB0 40 1600 85 7225 3400 52.3 12.6 0.27 1.06 1.0631 -0.04%
York YCWZ33AB0 42 1764 85 7225 3570 54.4 13.0 0.26 1.03 1.0309 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 44 1936 85 7225 3740 56.5 13.4 0.25 1.00 1.0000 0.00%
York YCWZ33AB0 45 2025 85 7225 3825 57.6 13.6 0.25 0.99 0.9849 -0.04%
York YCWZ33AB0 46 2116 85 7225 3910 58.7 13.8 0.25 0.97 0.9701 -0.10%
York YCWZ33AB0 48 2304 85 7225 4080 60.9 14.2 0.24 0.94 0.9414 -0.24%
York YCWZ33AB0 50 2500 85 7225 4250 63.2 14.6 0.23 0.92 0.9137 -0.44%
York YCWZ33AB0 40 1600 90 8100 3600 50.7 11.7 0.29 1.15 1.1391 -0.54%
York YCWZ33AB0 42 1764 90 8100 3780 52.8 12.1 0.28 1.11 1.1056 -0.16%
York YCWZ33AB0 44 1936 90 8100 3960 54.9 12.5 0.27 1.07 1.0733 0.12%
York YCWZ33AB0 45 2025 90 8100 4050 56 12.6 0.27 1.06 1.0575 -0.56%
York YCWZ33AB0 46 2116 90 8100 4140 57 12.8 0.27 1.05 1.0420 -0.46%
York YCWZ33AB0 48 2304 90 8100 4320 59.2 13.2 0.26 1.02 1.0119 -0.32%
York YCWZ33AB0 50 2500 90 8100 4500 61.5 13.6 0.25 0.99 0.9830 -0.24%
York YCWZ33AB0 40 1600 95 9025 3800 49.1 11.0 0.31 1.22 1.2185 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 42 1764 95 9025 3990 51.2 11.3 0.30 1.19 1.1836 -0.19%
York YCWZ33AB0 44 1936 95 9025 4180 53.2 11.6 0.29 1.16 1.1499 -0.45%
York YCWZ33AB0 45 2025 95 9025 4275 54.3 11.8 0.29 1.14 1.1335 -0.18%
York YCWZ33AB0 46 2116 95 9025 4370 55.3 12.0 0.28 1.12 1.1174 0.06%
York YCWZ33AB0 48 2304 95 9025 4560 57.5 12.3 0.28 1.09 1.0859 -0.32%
York YCWZ33AB0 50 2500 95 9025 4750 59.7 12.7 0.27 1.06 1.0556 0.04%
Metric Units
Total Unit EER Normalized EIR-FT % Diff EIR-FT
Manufacturer Model CHWS CHWS**2 CWS CWS**2 CHWS*CWS Capacity (tons) BTU/Watt EIR EIR From Curve
York YCWZ33AB0 4.4 19.8 23.9 570.7 106.2 55.3 14.5 0.24 0.92 0.9211 -0.33% f e d c b a Adjusted a
York YCWZ33AB0 5.6 30.9 23.9 570.7 132.7 57.5 15.0 0.23 0.89 0.8917 -0.18% -0.000440218 0.000217891 0.015890292 0.000455648 -0.020497212 0.54807728 0.545977
York YCWZ33AB0 6.7 44.4 23.9 570.7 159.3 59.7 15.5 0.22 0.86 0.8634 -0.13% 5.09167E-05 2.72161E-05 0.001646805 0.000112732 0.002222422 0.026345877
York YCWZ33AB0 7.2 52.2 23.9 570.7 172.5 60.8 15.7 0.22 0.85 0.8497 -0.45% r2 0.999709348 0.002078905 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
York YCWZ33AB0 7.8 60.5 23.9 570.7 185.8 61.9 16.0 0.21 0.84 0.8363 -0.15%
York YCWZ33AB0 8.9 79.0 23.9 570.7 212.3 64.2 16.5 0.21 0.81 0.8103 -0.23%
York YCWZ33AB0 10.0 100.0 23.9 570.7 238.9 66.6 17.0 0.20 0.79 0.7854 -0.37%
York YCWZ33AB0 4.4 19.8 26.7 711.1 118.5 53.8 13.5 0.25 0.99 0.9904 -0.22%
York YCWZ33AB0 5.6 30.9 26.7 711.1 148.1 55.9 13.9 0.25 0.96 0.9596 -0.46%
York YCWZ33AB0 6.7 44.4 26.7 711.1 177.8 58.1 14.4 0.24 0.93 0.9300 -0.06%
York YCWZ33AB0 7.2 52.2 26.7 711.1 192.6 59.2 14.6 0.23 0.92 0.9156 -0.24%
York YCWZ33AB0 7.8 60.5 26.7 711.1 207.4 60.3 14.8 0.23 0.91 0.9015 -0.43%
York YCWZ33AB0 8.9 79.0 26.7 711.1 237.0 62.6 15.3 0.22 0.88 0.8741 -0.19%
York YCWZ33AB0 10.0 100.0 26.7 711.1 266.7 64.9 15.8 0.22 0.85 0.8479 -0.03%
York YCWZ33AB0 4.4 19.8 29.4 867.0 130.9 52.3 12.6 0.27 1.06 1.0631 -0.04%
York YCWZ33AB0 5.6 30.9 29.4 867.0 163.6 54.4 13.0 0.26 1.03 1.0309 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 6.7 44.4 29.4 867.0 196.3 56.5 13.4 0.25 1.00 1.0000 0.00% COP=EER/3.413= 3.926164665
York YCWZ33AB0 7.2 52.2 29.4 867.0 212.7 57.6 13.6 0.25 0.99 0.9849 -0.04%
York YCWZ33AB0 7.8 60.5 29.4 867.0 229.0 58.7 13.8 0.25 0.97 0.9701 -0.10%
York YCWZ33AB0 8.9 79.0 29.4 867.0 261.7 60.9 14.2 0.24 0.94 0.9414 -0.24%
York YCWZ33AB0 10.0 100.0 29.4 867.0 294.4 63.2 14.6 0.23 0.92 0.9137 -0.44%
York YCWZ33AB0 4.4 19.8 32.2 1038.3 143.2 50.7 11.7 0.29 1.15 1.1391 -0.54%
York YCWZ33AB0 5.6 30.9 32.2 1038.3 179.0 52.8 12.1 0.28 1.11 1.1056 -0.16%
York YCWZ33AB0 6.7 44.4 32.2 1038.3 214.8 54.9 12.5 0.27 1.07 1.0733 0.12%
York YCWZ33AB0 7.2 52.2 32.2 1038.3 232.7 56 12.6 0.27 1.06 1.0575 -0.56%
York YCWZ33AB0 7.8 60.5 32.2 1038.3 250.6 57 12.8 0.27 1.05 1.0420 -0.46%
York YCWZ33AB0 8.9 79.0 32.2 1038.3 286.4 59.2 13.2 0.26 1.02 1.0119 -0.32%
York YCWZ33AB0 10.0 100.0 32.2 1038.3 322.2 61.5 13.6 0.25 0.99 0.9830 -0.24%
York YCWZ33AB0 4.4 19.8 35.0 1225.0 155.6 49.1 11.0 0.31 1.22 1.2185 0.02%
York YCWZ33AB0 5.6 30.9 35.0 1225.0 194.4 51.2 11.3 0.30 1.19 1.1836 -0.19%
York YCWZ33AB0 6.7 44.4 35.0 1225.0 233.3 53.2 11.6 0.29 1.16 1.1499 -0.45%
York YCWZ33AB0 7.2 52.2 35.0 1225.0 252.8 54.3 11.8 0.29 1.14 1.1335 -0.18%
York YCWZ33AB0 7.8 60.5 35.0 1225.0 272.2 55.3 12.0 0.28 1.12 1.1174 0.06%
York YCWZ33AB0 8.9 79.0 35.0 1225.0 311.1 57.5 12.3 0.28 1.09 1.0859 -0.32%
York YCWZ33AB0 10.0 100.0 35.0 1225.0 350.0 59.7 12.7 0.27 1.06 1.0556 0.04%
Appendix A - RecipChillerPerf Curve Data-CatalogVsCalc.xls/WaterCool-Recip-EIR-FT 6/29/2006

Energyplus Hvac Global Tests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energyplus Hvac Global Tests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energyplus Hvac Global Tests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EnergyPlus Testing with

Global Energy Balance Test

115 S. Wilke Road, Suite 115

1 TEST OBJECTIVES AND OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 1

Global Energy Balance Test iii October 2014

2.4.2 Hydronic Heating/Cooling System ................................................................. 32

APPENDIX A CURVE FITTING OF MANUFACTURER CATALOG DATA

Global Energy Balance Test iv October 2014

1.1 Test Type: Comparative

a) EnergyPlus DX cooling system referred to within EnergyPlus by the object named

1.2 Test Suite: EnergyPlus Global Energy Balance Test Description

1.2.1 Base Case Building Description

Global Energy Balance Test 1 October 2014

Wall, Roof and Floor Construction:

Int. Surface Coeff. 8.290 0.121

Overall, air-to-air 0.010 100.155

Opaque Surface Radiative Properties:

1.2.2 Adiabatic Surfaces

Global Energy Balance Test 2 October 2014

1.3 Window Air Conditioner Global Energy Balance Test

1.3.1 Internal Loads

1.3.1.1 Daily Comparison Test

1.3.1.2 Annual Comparison Test

Global Energy Balance Test 3 October 2014

Table 1 Schedule of Internal Loads for Daily Test Cases Window AC

Table 2 Schedule of Internal Loads for Annual Test Case Window AC

1.3.2 Air Distribution System

100% convective air system

Global Energy Balance Test 4 October 2014

1.3.3 HVAC Cooling System

1.3.4 Zone Heating System

1.3.5 Weather Data

1.3.5.1 Daily Comparison Test

Global Energy Balance Test 5 October 2014

1.3.6 Summary of Test Cases

1.3.7 Simulation and Reporting Period

1.3.8 Output Data Requirements

1.4 Hydronic Heating/Cooling System Global Energy Balance Test

Global Energy Balance Test 6 October 2014

Chilled water loop containing

Condenser water loop containing

Air loop containing

1.4.1 Internal Loads

1.4.1.1 Daily Comparison Test

1.4.1.2 Annual Comparison Test

Global Energy Balance Test 7 October 2014

Table 4 Schedule of Internal Loads for Annual Test Case Hydronic

1.4.2 Air Distribution System

100% convective air system

Global Energy Balance Test 8 October 2014

1.4.3 Central Plant Heating Equipment

1.4.4 Central Plant Cooling Equipment

Global Energy Balance Test 9 October 2014

TONS = total cooling capacity, 12,000 Btu/Hr

1.4.5 Weather Data

1.4.5.1 Design Day Conditions

Global Energy Balance Test 10 October 2014

Annual Cooling 1% Design Conditions DB/MCWB

1.4.5.2 Daily Comparison Test

CoolCapFT = a + bwb + cwb**2 + dedb + eedb**2 + fwbedb

EIRFT = a + bwb + cwb**2 + dedb + eedb**2 + fwbedb

CAPFFF = a + bff + cff**2

EIRFFF = a + bff + cff**2

PLFFPLR = a + bPLR + cPLR**2