[BLDG-SIM] DOE 2.1E validation

[Varkie Thomas]

In order to level the playing field in showing ECB compliance, it is
also necessary to explain how the programs (that have passed the STD140
test) are used in modeling different Energy Conservation Measures
(ECMs).  

For example the use of the DOE2.1E program for: under-floor air
distribution; occupancy based ventilation control using CO2 sensors in
the return air system; reduced ventilation with high efficiency
(carbon/ionization) filters; lake water cooling; occupancy based
lighting control.  Occupancy based ventilation & lighting control are
done with schedules, which are approximated by the program user.  In
this office we re-use the occupancy schedule.  There are several other
ECMs that require user determined schedules.  The validity of the demand
cost depends on entering all electricity consuming equipment in the
building such as elevators and the operating schedule of each equipment,
which is also approximated by the program user.  Establishing
recommended standard schedules will help.

The space perimeter depth and the location of light sensor in the space
affect energy savings from daylighting controls.  In the case of a space
with a high perimeter depth, the internal heat gains will cancel out the
heat losses through the envelope in winter and it is possible eliminate
heating energy entirely when it is -40 outside.  It is also possible to
show energy savings with incorrect and inappropriate input data.  The
program will produce results if the input is within a certain range.
Recently I tried to compare packaged VAV DX units (gas heating) with
GSHP.  I made all the changes required in the "System" module of DOE2.1E
for ground source heat pumps, but I forgot to change the system type
from PVAVS to HP.  I got results that sort of looked right.

I have been comparing the results from the DOE2.1E, TRACE-700 and HAP-4
programs for specific ECMs and a liberal conclusion would be that they
are approximately in the same ballpark.  This has to do with the way I
use these programs, my inexperience with some of the programs, the
incorrect use of the programs, and my lack of understanding of the
details of how each program models the various ECMs.  It is possible to
use these programs the way people drive cars without knowing the theory
of internal combustion engines.  In this office, mechanical engineers
are responsible for energy analysis and they have to follow up their
energy analysis decisions through final design and the responsibility
extends through construction and operation.

In order to level the playing field, the code authorities will have to
check the ECB compliance submittal program input data from different
programs that have passed the STD140 test to make sure that the ECMs
were modeled correctly. I think that this might require some
predetermined standard input and output reports from all programs.  The
best way of expressing the "intent" of the ECB method is with examples
and case studies of the use of programs.  I also think that
certification of those responsible for showing energy code compliance
might be necessary.  Are there any plans to check the results of the
energy analysis after the building is built and in operation?  What
happens to those who break building energy codes?  There is a self
imposed penalty of paying higher energy bills.  There is no risk to
life, health or safety.


-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Neymark [mailto:neymarkj at msn.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 3:20 PM
To: BLDG-SIM at gard.com
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] DOE 2.1E validation

Peter.

ANSI has just recently approved addendum 90.1p.  Addendum p adds the
following language to Section 11.2.1.4 of Standard 90.1-2001: "The
simulation program shall be tested according to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140
and
the results shall be furnished by the software provider."

This implies that for a building energy analysis tool to be allowed for
90.1
"Energy Cost Budget" analysis, the software provider must document their
Standard 140 test results.  ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140 is "Standard Method
of
Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs",
available from ASHRAE.

Joel Neymark, P.E.,
Vice Chair, ASHRAE SSPC 140
J. Neymark & Associates
2140 Ellis St.
Golden, Colorado, USA  80401
Tel: (1) 303 384 3672
Fax: (1) 303 384 9427
email: neymarkj at msn.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Simmonds" <peter.simmonds at ibece.net>
To: <BLDG-SIM at gard.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:02 PM
Subject: [BLDG-SIM] DOE 2.1E validation


Can anyone help me in providing any information regarding ASHRAE
approving
DOE 2.1 as an energy simulation tool?
I know this might sound strange, even many years after the predictor
shootout and knowing that 90.1 uses DOE 2 for most of the energy
simulation,
but is it written in blood anywhere.


Peter Simmonds, Ph.D.
IBE Consulting Engineers
5910 Lemona Ave. 3rd Floor
Van Nuys, CA 91411

tel: 818-947-0000 #246
fax:818-947-0047
cell: 818-219-1284

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

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

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