[Equest-users] Equest-users Digest, Vol 74, Issue 6-Multiple Footprints in same Building
Ranojoy Dutta
rony_arc at yahoo.co.in
Mon May 5 14:06:12 PDT 2014
Sol
You need a new shell each time the footprint changes. So as per your email floors 1-10 will be one shell and 11-20 another and so on. You simply have to position the shell with floors 11-20 on top of the previous shell. Make sure to select "immediately above" for the field "Position this shell" on screen 1 of the DD wizard, assuming you are still in the wizard mode.
As for drawing the footprints, for each shell you need to draw the footprint only once and then enable floor multipliers , which is also on screen 1 provided you select the mid-rise or high-rise office as building type. so no need to draw 10 floors if 1-10 are the same size.
Hope this gets you going
Ronny
Ranojoy Dutta | Energy Analyst | Tempe , AZ
________________________________
From: "equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org" <equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org>
To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Monday, 5 May 2014 1:01 PM
Subject: Equest-users Digest, Vol 74, Issue 6
----- Forwarded Message -----
Send Equest-users mailing list submissions to
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
equest-users-owner at lists.onebuilding.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Equest-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Creating multiple footprints for a single building (Joe Huang)
2. Re: Significan?tly Higher Heating and Cooling Energy
Consumptio?n in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST (Simge Andolsun)
3. Re: Significan?tly Higher Heating and Cooling Energy
Consumptio?n in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST (Daniel Knapp)
4. Re: Significan?tly Higher Heating and Cooling Energy
Consumptio?n in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST (Jeff Haberl)
Use a FLOOR-MULTIPLIER
Sent from my iPhone
Joe Huang
White Box Technologies
346 Rheem Blvd Suite 108D
Moraga CA 94556
(o) 1(925)388-0265
(c) 1(510)928-2683
yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com
On May 4, 2014, at 12:01 PM, "Sol Rosenbaum" <solrosenbaum at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
>I am new to eQuest and am modelling a large office building that has a footprint that gets smaller on the higher floors. I have all of the footprints (17 in total) in a single CAD drawing and have uploaded it to eQuest. I was able to get the initial ground floor outline set up, but now I am not sure how to proceed from here . . .
>1. How can I set one outline to be floors 1-10 and a second outline to be floors 11-20 and so on?
>2. I was provided all of the outlines in one CAD drawing with them sitting side by side. Would it be easier if i had them supplied as separate files? Separate layers?
>Thanks,
>Sol
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
>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
>
Dear Dr. Haberl,
Thank you very much for your response. I would appreciate it very much if you could direct me to the results of the project you are mentioning. I think I managed to improve my files this weekend. Now, I am getting reasonably close results. It would be great if I could compare my results with the previously obtained differences between EnergyPlus and eQUEST.
Dear Joe Huang,
Sorry to ruin your Friday afternoon :). As I have deadlines coming up, weekends and weekdays are pretty much the same for me recently. Thanks for the studies you directed me to. I will definitely examine them.
Best Regards,
S. Andolsun, Ph.D.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Jeff Haberl <jhaberl at tamu.edu> wrote:
Hello Simge:,
>
>Unfortunately, I don't think you'll ever get EP+ and eQUEST to agree without significant effort. At best, you can get specific aspects of the program to agree, but the overall results can be very different unless you do extrodinary things to the input files.
>
>As part of RP1468 we developed a comparison simulation of the SAMP1E.INP file RUN3A from DOE-2.1e against eQUEST and EP+, which we could not get to agree very well. In fact, we could not even get eQUEST and DOE-2.1e to agree. The results can be found in the final report for 1468.
>
>In addition we developed a comparison tool the "RASR" that automatically chooses the correct variables to compare, which was a major problem with the comparisons...what to compare against what...not even clear between DOE-2.1e and DOE-2.2.
>
>Finally, the defaults all need to be "revealed" as well, since this can be one other areas where you think you're simulating the same thing...but don't know it because the defaults are set to X,Y,Z and you don't see it unless you have the program print all the defaults. In addition, you'll need to "reset" all the performance curves in one of the other programs to match.
>
>In the long run, it may be easier to solve clmate change than it may be to get the different simulations engines to agree.
>
>Jeff
>
>8=! 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=( 8=) 8=() 8=) 8=| 8=) :=') 8=) 8=?
>Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E.inactive,FASHRAE,FIBPSA,......mailto:........jhaberl at tamu.edu
>Professor........................................................................Office Ph: 979-845-6507
>Department of Architecture............................................Lab Ph:979-845-6065
>Energy Systems Laboratory...........................................FAX: 979-862-2457
>Texas A&M University...................................................77843-3581
>College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..............................URL:http://www.esl.tamu.edu/
>8=/ 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=() 8=) :=) 8=) 8=! 8=) 8=? 8=) 8=0
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] on behalf of Simge Andolsun [simgeandolsun at gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 3:35 PM
>To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>Subject: [Equest-users] Significantly Higher Heating and Cooling Energy Consumption in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST
>
>
>Dear eQUEST users (Particularly Dear Joe Huang),
>
>
>Please find the attached eQUEST and EnergyPlus files. They represent identical cases for comparison of the two programs. The runs are conducted for Los Angeles. The heating and cooling consumption of EnergyPlus file are, however, unreasonably higher than that of EQUEST. It is particularly strange that heating occurs in early morning time during the summer in EnergyPlus whereas no heating occurs in eQUEST during these hours.
>
>
>We need our results not to deviate extremely from eQUEST when we start using EnergyPlus. That is why, I am conducting this comparative analyses for cases representing identical conditions. I would appreciate it very much if you could examine these files and let me know whether there is anything I can do to make the results of these cases in the two programs as close as possible to each other.
>
>
>Dear Joe Huang,
>
>
>Please see the attached charts that show the hourly variation of temperatures in the system nodes and hourly energy consumption. There is definitely something weird going on in the early morning hours when the system just starts working. I have read your paper in the link below. Below is a section from your paper that I have paid particular attention to. Might I be having a similar issue in my case?
>http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirpubs/SB06/huang.pdf.
>
>"Heating to the cooling setpoint. Temperature plots revealed that at times during the shoulder seasons, EnergyPlus had difficulty in picking between the heating or cooling season control logic. This resulted in the supply air being heated to the cooling, rather than the heating, setpoint during the morning hours. This problem was corrected by improving the setpoint manager in EnergyPlus." Looking forward to hearing from you,
>Best Regards,
>Simge Andolsun, PhD.
Hi Joe,
Thank you for sharing this report with the list. It is very interesting to see a thorough comparison of EnergyPlus with DOE 2.2 results. I am an experienced user of eQUEST and I have been looking at EnergyPlus with some interest for future work.
Two things jumped out at me from your report, both of which you noted. One is that, as you point out on page 74, the heating load is relatively small in these climates. This would tend to amplify the effects of any discrepancies in how the heating loads are calculating and in how the plant responds to those heating loads. It would be very interesting to see the same comparison done in the same model in a different location with a much higher heating load. Would there still be a factor of 30 difference in the results in this case? The other is that it would help to see a comparison of the heating loads in the two models. Is the discrepancy coming in primarily in the calculation of the heating loads, the calculation of the energy required to meet those loads, or is it a combination of the two?
I have to say that the more alarming result appears to be the discrepancy in results for domestic hot water. I might have expected the domestic hot water load to be the same in both the DOE 2.2 and EnergyPlus models. Are the boiler models really so different as to entirely account for such a huge difference in natural gas consumption, or are there other loads showing up in the DOE 2.2 model that don’t appear in the EnergyPlus model?
With thanks and best wishes,
Dan
—
Daniel Knapp, PhD, P Phys, LEED® AP O+M
danielk at arborus.ca
Arborus Consulting
Energy Strategies for the Built Environment
www.arborus.ca
76 Chamberlain Avenue
Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9
Phone: (613) 234-7178 ext. 113
Fax: (613) 234-0740
On May 2, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Joe Huang <yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com> wrote:
> Simge,
>
> I feel compelled to respond since you mentioned me so prominently in your post :-)
>
> I think you're bringing up a very germaine question, and indeed it's one that in my opinion needs further study, i.e.,
> how does EnergyPlus compare with eQUEST or other building energy simulation programs in their modeling results?
>
> The LBNL paper you cited is a summary paper from a SimBuild Conference in 2008 that only skimmed the findings from a
> year-long effort supported by the California Energy Commission. I've put the full report on the Web, along with a later study
> I did last year as part of an EnergyPlus Feasibility Study by AutoDesk done for Southern California Edison that you might find
> equally interesting:
>
> http://www.whiteboxtechnologies.com/download_AutoDesk_EP_feasib_rpt.htm
>
> The second study was under wraps for a long time, but I received clearance from SCE to release it two months ago.
> My part of the study is strictly the EnergyPlus to DOE-2.2 comparison pp. 57 -98, and I have no opinions one way or
> the other in respect to the rest of the study. My task was to take several DEER prototypes (office, residential, and retail)
> modeled in eQUEST/DOE-2.2 and convert them to EP 7.X. Compared to what I saw in the 2007 study, the discrepancies
> in heating energy consumption were even more striking, probably because all the buildings were modeled in southern
> California climates. I was getting consistently from a 5:1 to a 20:1 difference in heating energies (DOE-2 high, EP low).
>
> Following up on Jeff's earlier comment, diagnosing the differences between two simulation programs requires a lot of
> time, experimentation, and often in-depth study of the source codes. In the 2007 paper, I mentioned somewhere between
> 15 and 20 areas of modeling differences with significant effects on the results.
>
> It's been 7 years since the first study, and I've been disappointed by the lack of progress. Some of it is understandable, since
> speaking frankly, there are a very limited number of people with sufficient knowledge and interest across two programs to make heads or tails out of these comparisons. But it is a very important issue, not just from technical curiosity, but because a lot of
> money have been invested based on what these programs say, so if they give significantly different results, policy makers would
> like to know what's going on and ideally, what is the ground truth?
>
> I don't want to sound like a modern-day Cassandra, and I don't have enough resources or time to pursue this as a private
> adventure. However, I hope that public institutions will see the need and benefit, and support some serious work in this area.
>
> I know that you (Simge) or I are not the only people who've wrestled with this problem. I would like to hear the experiences of
> others (not you, Jeff, I already know what you would say :-) ). Since all the efforts I've heard of are going from eQUEST
> to EnergyPlus, not the other way around, the domain knowledge is probably higher on the eQUEST/DOE-2 side. Therefore,
> it would be most valuable to get the EnergyPlus experts to chime in on the nuances of EnergyPlus modeling of which we
> may be lacking. For the same reason, you might consider posting your message to the EnergyPlus_Support bulletin board
> as well.
>
> See, Simge, now you got me wasting a couple of hours on a Friday afternoon!
>
> I'm not sure when I would have time to look at your input files, but if I see anything I'll let you know.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
> On 5/1/2014 1:35 PM, Simge Andolsun wrote:
>> Dear eQUEST users (Particularly Dear Joe Huang),
>>
>> Please find the attached eQUEST and EnergyPlus files. They represent identical cases for comparison of the two programs. The runs are conducted for Los Angeles. The heating and cooling consumption of EnergyPlus file are, however, unreasonably higher than that of EQUEST. It is particularly strange that heating occurs in early morning time during the summer in EnergyPlus whereas no heating occurs in eQUEST during these hours.
>>
>> We need our results not to deviate extremely from eQUEST when we start using EnergyPlus. That is why, I am conducting this comparative analyses for cases representing identical conditions. I would appreciate it very much if you could examine these files and let me know whether there is anything I can do to make the results of these cases in the two programs as close as possible to each other.
>>
>> Dear Joe Huang,
>>
>> Please see the attached charts that show the hourly variation of temperatures in the system nodes and hourly energy consumption. There is definitely something weird going on in the early morning hours when the system just starts working. I have read your paper in the link below. Below is a section from your paper that I have paid particular attention to. Might I be having a similar issue in my case?
>> http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirpubs/SB06/huang.pdf.
>> "Heating to the cooling setpoint. Temperature plots revealed that at times during the shoulder seasons, EnergyPlus had difficulty in picking between the heating or cooling season control logic. This resulted in the supply air being heated to the cooling, rather than the heating, setpoint during the morning hours. This problem was corrected by improving the setpoint manager in EnergyPlus."
>>
>> Looking forward to hearing from you,
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Simge Andolsun, PhD.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
Hello Simge:
The final report for RP1468 can be obtained by contacting Mike Vaughn at ASHRAE.
Included in the report are the results of the BIM-to-thermal analysis and the RASR, which is an MS spreadsheet that you cut and paste output into from the different programs (i.e., DOE-2.1e, DOE-2.2 & EP+) to get exact results (i.e., the correct variables for comparison). Also included are all input/output files for the BEM and BIM programs evaluated, which is quite a bit of stuff.
Several (overdue) ASHRAE papers on the project are forthcoming.
Jeff
8=! 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=( 8=) 8=() 8=) 8=| 8=) :=') 8=) 8=?
Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E.inactive,FASHRAE,FIBPSA,......mailto:........jhaberl at tamu.edu
Professor........................................................................Office Ph: 979-845-6507
Department of Architecture............................................Lab Ph:979-845-6065
Energy Systems Laboratory...........................................FAX: 979-862-2457
Texas A&M University...................................................77843-3581
College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..............................URL:www.esl.tamu.edu
8=/ 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=() 8=) :=) 8=) 8=! 8=) 8=? 8=) 8=0
________________________________
From: Simge Andolsun [simgeandolsun at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 3:35 AM
To: Jeff Haberl; Joe Huang
Cc: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Significantly Higher Heating and Cooling Energy Consumption in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST
Dear Dr. Haberl,
Thank you very much for your response. I would appreciate it very much if you could direct me to the results of the project you are mentioning. I think I managed to improve my files this weekend. Now, I am getting reasonably close results. It would be great if I could compare my results with the previously obtained differences between EnergyPlus and eQUEST.
Dear Joe Huang,
Sorry to ruin your Friday afternoon :). As I have deadlines coming up, weekends and weekdays are pretty much the same for me recently. Thanks for the studies you directed me to. I will definitely examine them.
Best Regards,
S. Andolsun, Ph.D.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Jeff Haberl <jhaberl at tamu.edu> wrote:
Hello Simge:,
>
>Unfortunately, I don't think you'll ever get EP+ and eQUEST to agree without significant effort. At best, you can get specific aspects of the program to agree, but the overall results can be very different unless you do extrodinary things to the input files.
>
>As part of RP1468 we developed a comparison simulation of the SAMP1E.INP file RUN3A from DOE-2.1e against eQUEST and EP+, which we could not get to agree very well. In fact, we could not even get eQUEST and DOE-2.1e to agree. The results can be found in the final report for 1468.
>
>In addition we developed a comparison tool the "RASR" that automatically chooses the correct variables to compare, which was a major problem with the comparisons...what to compare against what...not even clear between DOE-2.1e and DOE-2.2.
>
>Finally, the defaults all need to be "revealed" as well, since this can be one other areas where you think you're simulating the same thing...but don't know it because the defaults are set to X,Y,Z and you don't see it unless you have the program print all the defaults. In addition, you'll need to "reset" all the performance curves in one of the other programs to match.
>
>In the long run, it may be easier to solve clmate change than it may be to get the different simulations engines to agree.
>
>Jeff
>
>8=! 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=( 8=) 8=() 8=) 8=| 8=) :=') 8=) 8=?
>Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E.inactive,FASHRAE,FIBPSA,......mailto:........jhaberl at tamu.edu
>Professor........................................................................Office Ph: 979-845-6507
>Department of Architecture............................................Lab Ph:979-845-6065
>Energy Systems Laboratory...........................................FAX: 979-862-2457
>Texas A&M University...................................................77843-3581
>College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..............................URL:http://www.esl.tamu.edu/
>8=/ 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=() 8=) :=) 8=) 8=! 8=) 8=? 8=) 8=0
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] on behalf of Simge Andolsun [simgeandolsun at gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 3:35 PM
>To: equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>Subject: [Equest-users] Significantly Higher Heating and Cooling Energy Consumption in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST
>
>
>Dear eQUEST users (Particularly Dear Joe Huang),
>
>
>Please find the attached eQUEST and EnergyPlus files. They represent identical cases for comparison of the two programs. The runs are conducted for Los Angeles. The heating and cooling consumption of EnergyPlus file are, however, unreasonably higher than that of EQUEST. It is particularly strange that heating occurs in early morning time during the summer in EnergyPlus whereas no heating occurs in eQUEST during these hours.
>
>
>We need our results not to deviate extremely from eQUEST when we start using EnergyPlus. That is why, I am conducting this comparative analyses for cases representing identical conditions. I would appreciate it very much if you could examine these files and let me know whether there is anything I can do to make the results of these cases in the two programs as close as possible to each other.
>
>
>Dear Joe Huang,
>
>
>Please see the attached charts that show the hourly variation of temperatures in the system nodes and hourly energy consumption. There is definitely something weird going on in the early morning hours when the system just starts working. I have read your paper in the link below. Below is a section from your paper that I have paid particular attention to. Might I be having a similar issue in my case?
>http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirpubs/SB06/huang.pdf.
>
>"Heating to the cooling setpoint. Temperature plots revealed that at times during the shoulder seasons, EnergyPlus had difficulty in picking between the heating or cooling season control logic. This resulted in the supply air being heated to the cooling, rather than the heating, setpoint during the morning hours. This problem was corrected by improving the setpoint manager in EnergyPlus." Looking forward to hearing from you,
>Best Regards,
>Simge Andolsun, PhD.
_______________________________________________
Equest-users mailing list
Equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20140506/cc88f708/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list