[BLDG-SIM] DOE 2.1 vs DOE 2.2

[Mark E. Case]

I must admit we miss the function capabilities of 2.1e. Not that I used
it very often but I've got a computer geek that did. We end up faking
things more often when we used to be able to plug our own patch into the
code. I seem to remember hearing that this ability was `almost' in 2.2
but the last bit of implementation is awaiting sufficient interest (i.e.
$). Perhaps Scott can update us. 

I'm also under the impression, from good sources, that the bulk of the
2.2 code is so closely based on 2.1e that the historical verification is
still valid. Perhaps not as much with new 2.2 features. 

 

Loop errors can be a pain, especially since they aren't caught in BDL
processing. We've managed to prevent most of them by careful review of
inputs but they still occasionally pop up. Other than that the latest
2.2 versions have rarely crashed and even the latest eQuest versions
crash much more infrequently than earlier versions. 

 

As for features - I'm sure we could all list a number that we'd love to
see. In a perfect world..

Let's keep up the discussion. 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: postman at gard.com [mailto:postman at gard.com] On Behalf Of Fred
Porter
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:30 PM
To: BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] DOE 2.1 vs DOE 2.2

 

The loops and plant in DOE 2.2 are great, the real OA HXs, and better
economizer ctrls are great, and the window module is nifty, and Equest
is amazing freeware, but .....

We still use DOE 2.1 in lots of commercial work. In my experience DOE
2.2 crashes much more often. Often this seems to be associated with
excessive flow demands on a loop, but the process of debugging is much
more frustrating than errors caught by the BDL processor. Perhaps some
checking is built into Equest or PowerDOE, and so is not done in BDL.
Recent versions are better, but not immune by any means. 

DOE 2.2 does not implement the custom "functions" which we use to input
better space daylight level correlations derived from Radiance, etc, to
the DOE2 daylighting routine. Occasionally we've used functions for
other things, but this usually did seem like an exercise better suited
to academia!

Only version 41j of DOE2.2 had tower free cooling, in 41i this feature
was removed. Perhaps there is a work-around I have not thought of; many
of our larger modeled buildings use flat-plate HXs for modest winter CHW
loads. (The Canadians use these extensively instead of air-side
economizers, for a variety of good reasons.)

We've never found a GUI or wizard that managed multiple ECM runs as well
as some spreadsheet or database methods we use. The available front-ends
for 2.1 and 2.2 do generate initial model inputs, particularly geometry,
nicely in most cases. As far as I know, both can be used for code
compliance, as long as the code or design does not require or use
waterside economizing.

Anyone else care to comment?

Chris Jones wrote:



We use DOE2.1e in our shop.  Primarily because of the significant
verification against measured data that has been done on DOE2.1e over
the years.  The other reason is that ASHRAE 90.1 and in particular LEED
require simulation using DOE2.1e.  

Here in Canada, the Model National Energy Code, Performance Option
required simulation using EE4 (a free compliance tool http://www.ee4.com
) that used the DOE2.1e engine from Hirsh and Associates.  Similar to
eQuest, you can use EE4 to quickly generate an input file then edit it
for you particular situation.





We use eQuest extensively, sometimes using the wizard mode to get
started, sometimes not. We began using DOE2.1d when it was first
available on PC platforms and kept with it through PowerDOE and the
`never officially released DOE2.2. We often use eQuest to create BDL
code which we then edit with a text editor.  I must admit I m sometimes
surprised to hear of modelers (often in Academic situations) still
working with 2.1e when `2.2 is a significant improvement and is
absolutely free via eQuest. 

I, like John, am holding off on EnergyPlus until I can justify the
tremendous expense of training my people on a new product that is still
not ready for prime time. Eventually, I hope, but not yet. I m guessing
five years before there is a product that is enough better than eQuest
to justify the investment. (And that s assuming eQuest doesn t continue
to improve). 

I imagine that there are numerous eQuest users that are not aware of the
BLDG-SIM forum. Too bad it would be nice to see more interaction around
the eQuest program.  Perhaps SCE/EDR could provide an information blurb
about this forum on their web site or to everyone who down loads eQuest.

 

 

Mark E. Case, P.E.

etc Group, Inc.

Salt Lake City, Utah

 

 
 

 





======================================================

You received this e-mail because you are subscribed 

to the BLDG-SIM at GARD.COM mailing list.  To unsubscribe 

from this mailing list send a blank message to 

BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at GARD.COM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20030207/d20df2b1/attachment-0010.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20030207/d20df2b1/attachment-0011.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20030207/d20df2b1/attachment-0012.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20030207/d20df2b1/attachment-0013.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20030207/d20df2b1/attachment-0014.htm>