8

Fan:VariableVolume Minimum Flow Input

I have taught other EnergyPlus users and observed my own evidence that the Fan:VariableVolume minimum flow inputs, Fan Power Minimum Flow Fraction and Fan Power Minimum Air Flow Rate pertain only to the fan power calculation and do not impact that actual flow during operation. This is consistent with the documentation, but I recently discovered that there seems to be a contradiction when the fan is a return fan located before the outdoor air system.

Here are three idf files. Each has a single VAV air handler with a supply fan and a return fan. This one has no minimum on any fan. This one has a minimum fraction on the supply fan. Finally, this one has a minimum on the return fan, as pictured in the OpenStudio screen shot.

image description

If I graph the supply outlet node mass flow, the simulations with no minimum and a supply minimum stack right on top of each other, however the simulation that has a return fan with a minimum fraction of 0.75 is clearly flow limited. This seems in direct conflict with my expectations and the documentation. Can anyone justify this behavior or confirm that this is an EnergyPlus bug?

image description

Kyle Benne's avatar
6k
Kyle Benne
asked 2015-10-02 11:13:57 -0500, updated 2015-10-02 11:48:12 -0500
edit flag offensive 0 remove flag close merge delete

Comments

Hey K, did you ever get/find an answer to this question? I've experienced the same link

NickC's avatar NickC (2016-03-18 12:42:51 -0500) edit
add a comment see more comments

1 Answer

1

I think this has more to do with fan heat than an issue with the program. When you limited the fan power at the return node of the OA mixer, you also limited the fan delta T, and therefore the response of the OA controller to the mixed air temperature set point.

image description

The supply air temperature hasn't changed significantly so it's not the TUs that are causing the change in air flow.

image description

rraustad's avatar
13.8k
rraustad
answered 2016-03-23 20:56:56 -0500, updated 2016-03-23 22:10:36 -0500
edit flag offensive 0 remove flag delete link

Comments

add a comment see more comments