tcihvacff1
Mechanical
Is there any body having a document explaining or containing a practical example for how to use HAP software?[highlight #73D216][/highlight]
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations JStephen on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Practical example for using HAP SOFTWARE! 2
- Thread starter tcihvacff1
- Start date
- Status
-
1
- #2
See attached.
Also, go to and sign up as a HAP user (it's free). Post your request there.
And check out what Carrier offers under the Training link on this page:
Finally, ask the same question with an e-mail to HAP support at:
Software.Systems@carrier.utc.com
Best to you,
Goober Dave
Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies
Also, go to and sign up as a HAP user (it's free). Post your request there.
And check out what Carrier offers under the Training link on this page:
Finally, ask the same question with an e-mail to HAP support at:
Software.Systems@carrier.utc.com
Best to you,
Goober Dave
Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies
- Thread starter
- #3
ProcessHVAC
Mechanical
Use eQuest. Much more powerful than any of the equipment manufacturers' software (i.e. HAP or Trace)
Agreed, ProcessHVAC, but HAP has its place, if the building and systems are simple. We use both. eQuest is much more labor-intensive, but it can handle anything.
Contrast:
A 20,000 square foot rectangular 2-story office building, packaged VAV rooftop units. HAP input takes about 1/10 the time of eQuest. Results of each come out about the same.
Same building with external (adjacent building) shading, process chilled water loop, complex sequences of operation designed to save energy, or anything else that makes it "complicated" will require eQuest or (heaven forbid) building your own DOE2 input files![[banghead]](/data/assets/smilies/banghead.gif "[banghead] [banghead]")
.
If it's a LEED job, pretty much forget about HAP unless the building and systems are extra simple. Plus, you have to do service hot water and any strange process loads as an exceptional calculation if using HAP.
Best to you,
Goober Dave
Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies
Contrast:
A 20,000 square foot rectangular 2-story office building, packaged VAV rooftop units. HAP input takes about 1/10 the time of eQuest. Results of each come out about the same.
Same building with external (adjacent building) shading, process chilled water loop, complex sequences of operation designed to save energy, or anything else that makes it "complicated" will require eQuest or (heaven forbid) building your own DOE2 input files
. If it's a LEED job, pretty much forget about HAP unless the building and systems are extra simple. Plus, you have to do service hot water and any strange process loads as an exceptional calculation if using HAP.
Best to you,
Goober Dave
Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies
ProcessHVAC
Mechanical
Haven't used HAP in a while, I don't remember the inputs being that much less time consuming than eQuest, perhaps I didn't use it long enough prior to switching to eQuest. I am doing a small building, and will give HAP another try. 
-
1
- #8
ProcessHVAC
Mechanical
eQuest uses CTF/heat balance:
Although, I think the CTF factors are calculated using a different algorithm than the Laplace used in the original DOE (above).
I believe Trace, HAP and eQuest are all CTF/heat balance. CLTD has been "discontinued" as per ASHRAE handbook of fundamentals; although thousands of buildings are still designed with this method. There is another software tool that can do RTS, although results all are all about the same.
Although, I think the CTF factors are calculated using a different algorithm than the Laplace used in the original DOE (above).
I believe Trace, HAP and eQuest are all CTF/heat balance. CLTD has been "discontinued" as per ASHRAE handbook of fundamentals; although thousands of buildings are still designed with this method. There is another software tool that can do RTS, although results all are all about the same.
thanks, process hvac, i was mostly curious about scope it provides.
well, in recent years i rarely found the difference that would justify special attention to some of methods. i tried rts, but did not find much difference to cltd, and if you observe basic assumptions, sometimes it can go even to no-difference situation - if you have difference of 8-10% and that much you can influence by arbitrary decision about basic assumptions, than it is hardly worth spending time on those differences.
ctf should be somewhat wider in allowing more choice on construction elements.
well, in recent years i rarely found the difference that would justify special attention to some of methods. i tried rts, but did not find much difference to cltd, and if you observe basic assumptions, sometimes it can go even to no-difference situation - if you have difference of 8-10% and that much you can influence by arbitrary decision about basic assumptions, than it is hardly worth spending time on those differences.
ctf should be somewhat wider in allowing more choice on construction elements.
- Status
Similar threads
