[BLDG-SIM] Invitation to Participate - Getting the Design Tea m to Use Energy Simulation from the Beginning

[Olsen, Erik]

I am unable to make the Kansas City meeting, so I am emailing my response as
requested.  

    1.    The most important or critical items that we need to discuss and
try to reach consensus in our meeting at Kansas City.

I have two points to discuss:

a) I hope that the we can avoid using the term "Building Simulation" as a
substitute for "Energy Simulation." I believe it is important embrace the
larger class of building simulation tools (CFD, network airflow models,
daylighting analysis, etc.), as mentioned at the beginning at some of the
presentations from the January ASHRAE meeting. Although I understand the
committee is termed "Energy Calculations," if the final goal is to see these
tools used in practice, they cannot be approached in isolation. Although
energy simulation is perhaps the most commonly used tool, and is clearly
very powerful, if we view the project form a designer's perspective, the
question is "What tools can I use to improve my design?" (and be sure it
will perform as intended). Sometimes energy simulation provides the answer,
sometimes another type of simulation may provide the answer.

b) My impression is that there is currently much focus on the technical
barriers to integration in the design process, especially improving
interoperability and interfaces.  Although these are important and worthy
efforts, perhaps a large problem is process barrier.  I sense that most of
the architectural design community won't integrate these tools into the
early design process until they understand what they can really do, and
especially that it makes designs that wouldn't have been possible without
out them possible.  If you're just talking about optimizing a few
architectural details, or the building orientation, or the mechanical
systems, you may have a hard time finding an architect that is interested,
especially in the early design stages (even if these are all great things to
do).  However, if you can explore a design concept that you couldn't before,
because you can demonstrate that it actually works, then the story may be
different. If we can demonstrate the power of building simulation tools to
allow truly innovative designs, then perhaps demand will increase. If the
demand exists, perhaps the technical problems mentioned above can be solved
more quickly.

    3.    The most important actions or programs our committee should get
ASHRAE to implement in the longer term (1 to 5 years)  This could well
include research projects.

OK, so what do you do about it? Well I have one concept that I will throw
out, which may not fall into the normal ASHRAE funding pot, but I want to at
least share the idea. This is what you might call a 'Modeler in Residence'
program (thanks to Mike Witte for coining the term). In order to demonstrate
what can be done, you provide funding for someone to work in-house at an
architecture or architecture/engineering firm. The Modeler in Residence
would identify opportunities within existing projects to apply building
simulation tools, essentially working as an externally funded member of the
design team. Hopefully most of the work performed makes an actual impact on
the design, but even if not, the goal is to demonstrate this process and the
its product to the design team (and the client).

These are my thought on this issue - I don't claim to know all the issues
involved, or have all the answers, but I hope that this provides valuable
input for further discussion.

Erik Olsen
OWP/P Engineers
HVAC / Energy Consulting
111 West Washington Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, Illinois 60602-2714
312.960.8313 Direct
312.827.8313 Fax
eolsen at owpp.com
 


   

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