[Equest-users] Voodoo Engineering
Gregory Sarkisian, P.E.
greg at sarkassoc.com
Wed May 19 12:16:09 PDT 2010
For my two cents worth, all computer simulations are relative to something,
not absolute. Energy baseline models are relative to actual utility bills.
Anything within 5-10% is considered solid. All proposed models are relative
to this good baseline. But as one of the replies mentioned this proposed
model should always be verified in the real world.
Same is true from my days in the auto industry. We create finite element
models to predict low and high speed crash simulations. We had actual
performance of previous production models to baseline from, but must always
verify by actual test. You would be amazed at how close we could get. Once
the model is correlated to the actual test results all variances built into
the model can be deemed reliable.
Building simulation models are much simpler, and in my mind very reliable -
if the inputs are correct. I have not tried all of the different modeling
tools, but eQuest provides a relatively friendly user-interface.
Gregory Sarkisian, P.E.
President
P: 888-393-1470
F: 888-428-4492
www.sarkassoc.com
<http://www.sarkassoc.com/>
From: Carol Gardner [mailto:cmg750 at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:42 PM
To: Eurek, John S NWO
Cc: eQUEST Users List; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Voodoo Engineering
John, you army guy you...
I suggest that you embrace the art part and get good at the science. Your
model will be just as good as your input. Whats that old saw? When you point
the finger you have 3 others pointing back at you. While some modeling tools
might be close to beta and hard to use, eQUEST isn't one of them. Each new
version has bugs, but those are relatively few and are fixed quickly. You
use energy modeling to predict the energy use and energy cost of a baseline
and proposed buildings. Here in Oregon we actually do follow-up and make
sure the predicted came close to the actual. We call it model verification.
I would recommend that you spend more time learning the art, gathering the
info, creating an actual weather file if the typical one's aren't good
enough for you, and very carefully inputting the data into your modeling
tool of choice. I'd be happy to offer you peer review services if you ever
want to make sure your work is accurate.
Best,
Carol
PS I resent the heck out of LEED paperwork and am afraid they are rulemaking
creativity out of buildings. I've seen it happen over, and over, and
over.....
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Eurek, John S NWO
<John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil> wrote:
Varkie, I read your attached paper.
"Energy programs are external to the design process. The results are not
used
to generate construction drawings." This may be my #1 beef with energy
modeling. What is the purpose?
If you say, to save energy... It does not.
I think of an artist who "wants" a glass box building. Then some
intelligent
people come along and explain that this design would waste energy. They
convince him to have a smaller building with less glass. The change of
design
just saved a lot of energy..... Is this counted in the model? No.
Why do we compare our buildings to themselves? I can design a turd and
polish it to LEED standards. Where are the points for having a well
designed
building over a poor design? The baseline should have 20% glass... Period.
If I use 10% glass I am saving energy. Even better would be a set BTU/Ft^2,
you can do whatever you want as long as you meet the GPM like measure.
As an engineer, I think about the numbers a lot. With LEED (energy
modeling)
if I have very efficient equipment I can show more energy savings by
increasing windows. (The more my model uses the equipment, the more the
efficiency difference shows up.) Then I can play all day with people
schedules, infiltration, and ect. (All I have to do is justify what I used.)
I have been involved in only 4 buildings which required energy modeling. We
used innovative new technologies. 3 of the building could not be modeled
due
to limitations of the energy modeling programming. (One design used the
rejected heat from the heat pump for reheat instead of going into the loop
field. The other I used a split system and placed the condensing unit in
the
mechanical room for free heat.)
Why are we being made to follow LEED (energy modeling) when the tools to do
it are so primitive. Some (Blankety blank blank *$%#!&$) is having us go
someplace where the technology is not reached. (Beta testing sucks)
It feels like we are smoking unfiltered cigarettes, driving cars with no
seatbelts, and painting with lead paint. People are going to look back at
what we did and wonder how we couldn't see how dumb we were. I see it now.
There has got to be a better way. A better way to show we are saving
energy.
The sooner we find it, the better.
I found out last week that the person who's position I filled left because
of
LEED (energy modeling). I can't stand this obvious misguided attempt to
save
the world. As a person who values logic, every day suffering this ill-logic
is torturous.
John Eurek
LEEP AP
P.S. Eric the energy model IS a statistical analysis. You assume a weather
pattern, you assume a occupantacy schedule, you assume the activity level,
you assume the amount the printer is used, the computer use, the number of
times the elevator is used. You assume everything about a pretend senario
and get a pretend number.
There must be a better way to prove an energy efficient design. (My company
usually works late hours, most people do, are we to model this? We could,
we
could not, we can make up so much.) We need a solid baseline... Not
statistical models.
P.P.S. It will all be smoke and mirrors until start looking at actual
energy
usage per square foot. If you want to use models to predict it, okay.
Results matter, but not in LEED (energy modeling).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvCP3s7Xq48
-----Original Message-----
From: Varkie C Thomas [mailto:thomasv at iit.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:08 AM
To: Eurek, John S NWO
Subject: Voodoo Engineering
Academia institutions and research centers tend to attach disproportionate
amount of importance to energy modeling. Most them have not dealt with real
buildings. Attached are my views on energy modeling.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eurek, John S NWO" <John.S.Eurek at usace.army.mil>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:14 am
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set for Oregon
>
> I would prefer Lynn work to ban/destroy/do-away-with energy modeling.
>
> Any chance this voo-doo engineering will go away any time soon?
> It is only
> statistical analysis with no meaningful/useful results for anyone.
>
> As a community I think we are going in the wrong direction for the
> rightgoals.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Carol
> Gardner
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:30 AM
> To: Scott Criswell
> Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; curt.strobehn at eesinet.com
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set for Oregon
>
> All,
>
> Lynn Bellenger will soon be the first female president of
> ASHRAE..ASHRAE is
> 117 years young. Lynn's goal is to improve energy modeling. She is a
> PE and a BEMP and a LEED AP. She has even more letters after her name
> but you will have to ask her. She deserves every one of them. Lynn
> rocks. If I was a betting woman, I would bet on Lynn to try to get
> this done. You will see I have attempted to cc her on this. I have
> also bcc'd her to make sure she gets the message.
>
> A good night to all and to all a good night!
>
> Carol
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Scott Criswell
> <scott.criswell at doe2.com>wrote:
>
>
> There is no work to my knowledge either proposed or under
development
> that would result in 90.1-2004 or 2007 compliance analysis.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> Paul Buchheit wrote:
>
> Hello Scott,
>
> Thanks for the help on this question.
> Is there anything available now or in the works for ASHRAE
> 90.1-2004 or 2007 compliance analysis?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Buchheit
> Mechanical Engineer
> EESI
> phone: 541-754-1062
> fax: 541-753-3948
> paul.buchheit at eesinet.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Criswell
<mailto:scott.criswell at doe2.com>
>
> To: curt.strobehn at eesinet.com
> Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Compliance rule set for
> Oregon
>
> Correction on Carol's response -
> There is no "compliance analysis" ruleset for either
> Oregon or 90.1-2004. What Carol was referring to in eQUEST v3.63 (and
> later) is a jurisdiction-based defaulting mechanism within the
> building
> creationwizard(s) that includes Oregon-specific selections and
> defaults (which are based on the Oregon energy code).
>
> Compliance Analysis is quite a different feature.
> The CA Title-24 compliance analysis feature enables users to press the
> compliance analysis button in the interface (the button Curt pressed
> which resulted in the message he circulated) to initiate a mechanism
> that performs a complete, performance-based compliance analysis on the
> proposed buildingdesign loaded into eQUEST.
> Two additional features are on the near horizon with
> regards to compliance analysis in eQUEST -
> (1) a LEED baseline generation ruleset which does
not
> perform a complete LEED analysis but does generate a LEED (90.1-2007
> Appendix-G) baseline model based on a user's proposed design.
> This is
> included in v3.64 which should be made available in the coming weeks
> (pending CEC certification).
> (2) compliance analysis based on Canada's MNECB
> ruleset - to be included in a Canadian derivative of eQUEST, called
> CAN-QUEST. Not sure of the exact release date for CAN-QUEST, but I
> can tell you that users are training on it today @ the eSIM conference
> in
> Winnipeg.
> There is nothing in the works to my knowledge in
terms
> of developing a compliance analysis capability for Oregon.
>
> - Scott
>
>
> Carol Gardner wrote:
>
> Hi Curt.
>
> The Oregon rule set is in VS 3.63. I helped
> Scott put it there. When you select your city in Oregon you will see
> the Oregon rules. In your email you say 90.1-2004. The Oregon
> compliance rule set is probably 2004 I just don't have time to confirm
> for sure.
>
> Good Luck,
> Carol
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Curtis
> Strobehn <curt.strobehn at eesinet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello all,
> Need help.
> Is there an ASHRAE 90.1-2004 rule
set
> file that can be downloaded and used
> for compliance
> analysis.
>
> See attachment
>
> Thanks,
>
> Curt
>
>
> EESI
> phone: 541-754-1062
> fax: 541-753-3948
> Curt.strobehn at eesinet.com
> paul.buchheit at eesinet.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing
list
> send a blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carol Gardner PE
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send
a
> blank message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank
> message to EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
>
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carol Gardner PE
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send a blank message to
> EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
--
Carol Gardner PE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100519/409a2214/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 182 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100519/409a2214/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 7256 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20100519/409a2214/attachment-0003.png>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list