How reliable is HVAC-Calc Residential?

[caterpillar]

Kind of following up on an earlier thread with a slightly different question.

I could not find a contractor willing to do a load calc for me, nor do I have the patience to screen them, so I did my own using HVAC-Calc, even accounting for kneewalls, insulating air pockets, kitchen cabinets, and future work. I figured nobody knows my house as well as I do, and with the cost of energy, I don't want my system supersized.

The final number surprised me: just under 60K BTU/H for an uninsulated 90 year old, 2000 square foot stick-and-shingle home in the Seattle area. It's surprising because the 22 year old locomotive in the basement says 105K @ a measured 78% efficiency (~80K). On the other hand, at nearly 30 BTU/sq. ft., it's almost 3X the published target for well-built new houses here.

Can I trust the software to be right, assuming my inputs are correct? I'm considering a new 75K unit @ 92%, giving me a 15% margin before insulating.

Thanks.

[beenthere]

Its as good as the data entered into it.

My brand doesn't have a 75,000, it comes in 60,000, then 80,000.
Got some old homes same size and a bit bigger with 80,000BTU furnaces. They heat fine.

[bobRitchie]

I've run HVCALC on two houses that I've owned, and my Mom's condo.

For my 1950's split level in New Jersey HVCALC actually came in on the
high side. This encouraged me to buy a 90% 120,000 BTU input furnace,
where a 100,000 would have been alright. I think the reason was there
was actually much better insulation than was apparent and the multiple
layers of siding, which couldn't be put into HVCALC really helped. This
house was about 1800 ft^2.

For my initially totally uninsulated glass 1960's home here in San Jose it
came out pretty close. This time I assume zero insulation and was right.
And I put in a 80% 100,000 btu in a house of 1700 ft^2.

For my Mom's 1978 originally all electric condo ( actually just one common
wall ) which is pretty well insulated HVCALC came out light. It was fortunate
the contractor refused to install a unit as it projected. Still the 80,000 BTU
80% unit for 1400 ft^2 is too big.

It sounds to me like you are on the light side. If you turn your thermostat
down at night, despite all you read on this board, you will need a bigger
unit to recover on cold mornings. The reality is in mild climates like San
Jose and Seattle that if you want to be able to recover quickly you still
need a pretty big furnace.

The other thing to point out is that both the units I bought here in San Jose are two stage. That helps quite a bit if the unit is too large.

So my personal belief is oversizing on a furnace is not a diaster. While
undersizing is. Now I'll be bombarded.

I do concede in humid climates ( which San Jose is not ) proper sizing
of A/C units is important for dehumidification.

[beenthere]

I've run HVCALC on two houses that I've owned, and my Mom's condo.

For my 1950's split level in New Jersey HVCALC actually came in on the
high side. This encouraged me to buy a 90% 120,000 BTU input furnace,
where a 100,000 would have been alright. I think the reason was there
was actually much better insulation than was apparent and the multiple
layers of siding, which couldn't be put into HVCALC really helped. This
house was about 1800 ft^2.

A 1950s 1800 sq ft shoudn't have needed 50 BTU per sq ft to be alright.

For my initially totally uninsulated glass 1960's home here in San Jose it
came out pretty close. This time I assume zero insulation and was right.
And I put in a 80% 100,000 btu in a house of 1700 ft^2.

For my Mom's 1978 originally all electric condo ( actually just one common
wall ) which is pretty well insulated HVCALC came out light. It was fortunate
the contractor refused to install a unit as it projected. Still the 80,000 BTU
80% unit for 1400 ft^2 is too big.

What size did HVAC calc say it needed. Houses with electric baseboard are easy to double check the calc on.

The reality is in mild climates like San
Jose and Seattle that if you want to be able to recover quickly you still
need a pretty big furnace.

And how quick is quick. At 0°F outside temp, your furnace isn't really suppose to recover 10° in 30 minutes. An oversized furnace will have a few short cycles after recovering quickly, since the walls, and contects don't heat up as quick as the air.

The other thing to point out is that both the units I bought here in San Jose are two stage. That helps quite a bit if the unit is too large.

You are aware that many 2 stage furnaces are not as efficient in first stage as they are in second, aren't you? So over sized 2 stage furnaces can cost more to heat with.

So my personal belief is oversizing on a furnace is not a diaster. While
undersizing is. Now I'll be bombarded.

Over sizing like you are suggesting tends to make people turn their stat higher to be comfortable, making them use more fuel, costing them more money to heat their house.

I do concede in humid climates ( which San Jose is not ) proper sizing
of A/C units is important for dehumidification.

Check the temp rise on your replacement units.

[bobRitchie]

Originally Posted by bobRitchie
I've run HVCALC on two houses that I've owned, and my Mom's condo.

For my 1950's split level in New Jersey HVCALC actually came in on the
high side. This encouraged me to buy a 90% 120,000 BTU input furnace,
where a 100,000 would have been alright. I think the reason was there
was actually much better insulation than was apparent and the multiple
layers of siding, which couldn't be put into HVCALC really helped. This
house was about 1800 ft^2.[/COLOR]

A 1950s 1800 sq ft shoudn't have needed 50 BTU per sq ft to be alright.

As I said it was definately way oversized. However I was not eaten alive
by gas bills. However it was probably even more difficult to maintain
even temperatures in the lower level of the split than it would have
been with a correctly sized unit. Its funny my 1950's split in Poughkeepsie
NY had next to nothing for insulation, but my similiar house in Berkeley Heights apparently had good insulation in the walls, and under the attic
floorboards. ( Something I found out when I did some tearing up of things
after the furnace was installed. )

For my initially totally uninsulated glass 1960's home here in San Jose it
came out pretty close. This time I assume zero insulation and was right.
And I put in a 80% 100,000 btu in a house of 1700 ft^2.

For my Mom's 1978 originally all electric condo ( actually just one common
wall ) which is pretty well insulated HVCALC came out light. It was fortunate
the contractor refused to install a unit as it projected. Still the 80,000 BTU
80% unit for 1400 ft^2 is too big.

What size did HVAC calc say it needed. Houses with electric baseboard are easy to double check the calc on.

It had a heat pump originally. I can't find the one I did for her, its probably
at her place. For my 1700 ft^2 home in San Jose with design temps
of winter 30 and summer 96 with the original case of only a tiny bit
of attic insulation, tons of single pane glass, an uninsulated Living room
ceiling I got 50,000 BTU AC 66,000 BTU Heat.

I put in a 4 ton SEER 12 Trane A/C and a 80% 100,000 BTU input
furnace. I have since added attic insulation and double pane windows.
I think HVCALC was pretty close. But even with that size furnace it
takes more than an hour to recover a 7 degree setback on the coldest
mornings, which here are in the low 30's. The A/C will hold 75 degrees
when it is over 100. An event that normally happens once a year, but
has happened several times this year already.




The reality is in mild climates like San
Jose and Seattle that if you want to be able to recover quickly you still
need a pretty big furnace.

And how quick is quick. At 0°F outside temp, your furnace isn't really suppose to recover 10° in 30 minutes. An oversized furnace will have a few short cycles after recovering quickly, since the walls, and contects don't heat up as quick as the air.

The other thing to point out is that both the units I bought here in San Jose are two stage. That helps quite a bit if the unit is too large.

You are aware that many 2 stage furnaces are not as efficient in first stage as they are in second, aren't you? So over sized 2 stage furnaces can cost more to heat with.

The specs on my 80% Trane say it has the same efficiency on both
stages. I would think the first stage would inherently be more efficient
since you have more heat exhanger area per BTU. The trick with an
80% is to prevent condensation in the flue on low stage.

So my personal belief is oversizing on a furnace is not a diaster. While
undersizing is. Now I'll be bombarded.

Over sizing like you are suggesting tends to make people turn their stat higher to be comfortable, making them use more fuel, costing them more money to heat their house.

If you have a poorly insulated house, you save quite a bit from turning it
down at night and when you are not there. When you turn it up it runs
for a good solid period which is quite efficient. If you have a super-insulated
modern house it takes a long time for the temperature to drop when you
set it back, and there is probably little point in setting it back when you
leave for several hours. But if you are going to set back, you want a unit
that can recover pretty fast. In dry climates like this one setting A/C
up when you leave makes sense, and turning it down when you get home.
This argues for a bigger A/C. In humid climates you want a small A/C running
a lot for the dehumidification.


I do concede in humid climates ( which San Jose is not ) proper sizing
of A/C units is important for dehumidification.

[beenthere]

2 stage units do get the same AFUE rating in both stages.(Its based on a few unreal parameters.)
That is not a combustion efficiency though.
The flame is much cooler, so heat transfer rate from flame to HX is reduced.

In first stage, they lose a few percent. Some more then just a few percent.
And some people have found that their oversized 2 stage cost less to use when it is set to work as a single stage by going to second stage right away.(thses are usually oversized by 40 plus percent)

If you think of it sometime. When your at your mothers place. See if you can fnd that load calc, and then if you can find out how much aux heat the HP had.
See how close the calc and the HP were. Many contractors are afraid of complaints that the furnace doesn't heat any quicker then the HP did, so they size the furnace bigger.

A furnace that takes an hour to recover 7° at OD design temp, is sized about right. And uses less fuel then one that does it in 30 minutes.

I have an oversized oil furnace. If I fired it at its full rating, I could recover 10 in 30 minutes. But I have it down fired, and use 30% less oil.

I start it a little sooner in the morning to get the house up to temp.
Simple and economical.

[hangfirew8]

The final number surprised me: just under 60K BTU/H for an uninsulated 90 year old, 2000 square foot stick-and-shingle home in the Seattle area. It's surprising because the 22 year old locomotive in the basement says 105K @ a measured 78% efficiency (~80K). On the other hand, at nearly 30 BTU/sq. ft., it's almost 3X the published target for well-built new houses here.

Can I trust the software to be right, assuming my inputs are correct? I'm considering a new 75K unit @ 92%, giving me a 15% margin before insulating.

Thanks.

I suspect a right-sized unit will run continuously, but do the job, at the low design temp for Seattle. Old oil furnaces were typically oversized.

Try running some what-if versions of your house, lowering the R values and seeing if the answer changes much.

-HF

[mchild]

caterpiller,

Unless you have had a blower door test done on the home, the figure you used for infiltration is a total guesstimate. Infiltration has a significant impact on your heat load. Play with that number a bit to see what it does to the load. You may even want to have a test done before you finalize your decision.

[air2spare]

HVAC-CALC is not ACCA approved, most municipalities require approved software.....and yes I own HVAC-CALC also

[caterpillar]

caterpiller,

Unless you have had a blower door test done on the home, the figure you used for infiltration is a total guesstimate. Infiltration has a significant impact on your heat load. Play with that number a bit to see what it does to the load. You may even want to have a test done before you finalize your decision.

I have not had a blower test done, nor do I think I will, but I selected the leakiest setting that HVAC-Calc would allow. IIRC, that's 1.2 ACH.

I start it a little sooner in the morning to get the house up to temp.
Simple and economical.

This is exactly what I assumed one would need to do with a furnace sized closer to actual loss than what I have now. Last winter, the locomotive would kick on at 5:30, and have the house from 57 to 67 in about an hour on cold days (35-40F). I figured I might have to now start at 4:30 or 5, but use less energy despite that. Or, just raise the overnight low a few degrees.

[mchild]

I have not had a blower test done, nor do I think I will, but I selected the leakiest setting that HVAC-Calc would allow. IIRC, that's 1.2 ACH.

I used one of the default settings (I thought it was the leakiest at 1.0ACH) and found it to be way more than I actually had (more like .25ACH) so the calc was significantly overstated.

[bobRitchie]

I have not had a blower test done, nor do I think I will, but I selected the leakiest setting that HVAC-Calc would allow. IIRC, that's 1.2 ACH.



This is exactly what I assumed one would need to do with a furnace sized closer to actual loss than what I have now. Last winter, the locomotive would kick on at 5:30, and have the house from 57 to 67 in about an hour on cold days (35-40F). I figured I might have to now start at 4:30 or 5, but use less energy despite that. Or, just raise the overnight low a few degrees.

I would say for my taste your locomotive is about the right size.
I think you are going to be suffering to save pennies. And if you
end up reducing the setback since the new unit can't recover fast
enough you end up paying more for gas than you need.

[beenthere]

2 stage is for comfort, not savings. So over sizing a 2 stage effectly means you paid for what your not getting.
So it becomes a waste of money.

If you use a massive furnace for quick recovery. You just putting more money out the chimney/flue.

A larger then needed furnace, requires larger duct. More money up front.
If the old duct is left inplace. Then your heat rise across the HX is higher then it should be, and you lose efficiency from that. Your flue temp goes up, meaning more money wasted.

Its a balancing act between size and comfort.

The earlier start, will help the walls and furniture to warm up to room air temp, instead of remaining cooler.

Just because the room air gets to temp quickly, doesn't mean the furniture warmed up that quick also.

[caterpillar]

I would say for my taste your locomotive is about the right size.

How about if we look at it this way:

The locomotive is delivering roughly an effective maximum 82K BTUs, which is just about the same as a new 90K @ 92%. I have 7 runs in the house, and installing that bigger unit will be pushing 1200-2500 CFM through them in order to keep the HX rise in check (I know this has been a problem with the locomotive for the house's previous owners, because the blower motor was downsized from 3/4hp to 1/3hp to reduce noise. Come to think of it, the BTU output would have been derated to match, no?)

Anyway, my experience is that the locomotive cycles about 2-3x an hour on most average winter days, and 1-2X on the cold ones, at whatever rate it's actually burning at. Right away, that suggests it's over, doesn't it?

Second, I have a relatively modest sized house. At 2000 square feet including the basement, it's half the size of an average McMansion, and furnace manufacturers must be offering sizes roughly in proportion to homes. So, a match between a house in the lower end of the scale (in a mild climate) to a furnace in the upper end of the scale, with the largest blower offered, just doesn't feel right.