[Bldg-sim] IES-VE Energy

[Karen Walkerman]

Thanks Xiaobing.  How do we get involved in development?

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Xiaobing Liu <XLiu at climatemaster.com>wrote:

>  Just following the last sentence of Karen's massage: "Maybe we'll see it
> in 20 years..."
>
> The waiting period may be shorten if more bright, innovative, and hard
> working people take the gun from the veterans and work around the clock to
> create the virtual reality of the buildings, mechanical systems, and even
> the behavior of occupants... It is definitely hard work! I guess, unless
> this hard work can be rewarded in some way, we still have to endure with the
> slow pace, or even slower pace due to the aging factor, of the development
> of energy analysis software.
>
> Xiaobing
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org]*On Behalf Of *Karen Walkerman
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:17 PM
> *To:* Carol Gardner
> *Cc:* virtual-sim at lists.onebuilding.org; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] IES-VE Energy
>
>  Carol said most of it, and I definitely second the prohibitive cost for a
> program like IES-VE for a small shop, but I've used Trace700, which I assume
> uses an iterative algorithm (it took about 1-2 hours run-time).  So maybe
> using an iterative algorithm gives a little more accuracy, I'd guess on the
> order of 2-5%, BUT many of these programs don't allow you the flexibility in
> your inputs to take advantage of the iterative nature of the program.  For
> many systems, you don't need to use an iterative program, you just need to
> know the hourly space loads, hourly ventilation loads, and equipment
> operation efficiencies at the given conditions.  You need just a few layers:
> component load (walls, windows, internal loads, etc), zone loads, hvac
> system loads, loop loads and plant loads, in order to get pretty good
> results.  You need a few additional levels when your systems get more
> compliated, but it doesn't require a super-complicated algorithm.
>
> Bottom line is, many programs have their drawbacks.  eQuest is not good at
> modeling natural ventilation, precisely because it is not a CFD program.  If
> it were good at modeling natural ventilation, it wouldn't be able to run in
> 1-2 minutes.
>
> I'd love to see a program that could integrate into two simulation engines,
> one quick engine for trouble-shooting, doing DD models and running lots of
> alternatives, and then an interative simulation engine for more complex
> stuff, natural ventilation, complicated HVAC system configurations, etc.
> Add that one to the wish-list!  Maybe we'll see it in 20 years.
>
>
> --
> Karen
>
> On 2/26/09, Carol Gardner <gems at spiritone.com> wrote:
>>
>> It can be better because you only have to do the renaming process once and
>> then your done whereas you are going to have to do the rerunning way more
>> than once: at least 4 orientation runs, a run for each energy efficiency
>> measure, a run each time you realize you forgot to do the ____(fill it in).
>> You are way further ahead using eQUEST. I'm not sure what you mean by an
>> interactive 3D viewer, I find eQUEST's 3D views really helpful but I get the
>> impression you are talking about something else. At any rate, I have used
>> IESVE and E+ and I think they both excel in ways that eQUEST doesn't but
>> IESVE is just too expensive for a single shop person like me and E+ is just
>> too slow so far. I don't rule them out for use when I'm rich and they're
>> faster, though.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> Paul Carey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Karen and all,
>>>
>>> I’m confused here....how can a program that takes up to 3 hours to rename
>>> the zones but then takes minutes to get results, be better than something
>>> that takes a few minutes to rename, but then takes a couple of hours to run?
>>> They are about the same surely? The only advantage I can see is that further
>>> iteration might be quicker in the former assuming your geometry doesn’t
>>> change.
>>>
>>> I have been using various modelling tools such as IES VE, TAS and
>>> DesignBuilder as well as a few other tools when necessary (Fluent & CHAM CFD
>>> etc) since the late 90s. IES is good, it’s quick to produce models and
>>> excellent for dynamic natural ventilation design. TAS is better at the HVAC
>>> and natural ventilation design aspects than IES and I think it’s more
>>> accurate, but it’s front end still lacks some of the functionality of other
>>> tools. Hopefully that is being addressed by their links with Bentley. My
>>> colleague, Chris Yates (also on this list) has become a bit of a wiz with
>>> the sketchup plug in for IES and this appears to be much better than relying
>>> on the gbxml output of revit.
>>>
>>> DesignBuilder is the tool that I use most now in both SBEM (UK
>>> regulations format) and EnergyPlus for dynamic modelling. It takes a lot of
>>> the best features of both IES and TAS and then adds some other nice touches
>>> in terms of data application to speed up the process of setting up your
>>> models. The only sticking point with it is that EnergyPlus is painfully
>>> slow. The main thing I’d like is for that to be changed and improved.
>>> Carrying out simulations with all the lighting controls and calculated
>>> natural ventilation turned on for buildings with over 100 zones is nigh on
>>> impossible as I don’t fancy leaving it running for a week or two. I have to
>>> carry out major sub-division of models or calculate individual zones then
>>> schedule up the vent based on those results or just go with scheduled vent.
>>> Thankfully the reporting methodology from DesignBuilder is pretty good,
>>> though I have to admit I quite like some of the report wizard output by
>>> equest.
>>>
>>> The main advantage of the commercial tools as opposed to the free tools
>>> such as DOE and equest, is that they use an interactive 3d model to input
>>> the building and that you can interrogate much more easily for
>>> post-processing. This means you gain an understanding of the building form
>>> much more easily and many link with other tools for further analysis. I like
>>> some of what equest has to offer, but I much prefer the interactive model
>>> building tools that IES, TAS and DeisgnBuilder offer. They just make
>>> it...easier...and generally quicker and more efficient when you consider the
>>> other studies that you can do (e.g daylighting, CFD, etc).
>>>
>>> In terms of asking for changes – having worked for IES (and with many
>>> other developers), the stock answer even to their own team was...yes it’s on
>>> the list. My guess is that will still be the same.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr Paul Carey
>>>
>>> Director
>>>
>>> Low Carbon Energy Assessor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Zero Energy Design Ltd
>>>
>>> 10A Portland Place
>>>
>>> 2-22 Mottram Road
>>>
>>> Stalybridge
>>>
>>> SK15 3AD
>>>
>>> T: 0161 3386200
>>>
>>> F: 0161 3031281
>>>
>>> M: 0789 4098012
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> E: paul at zed-uk.com
>>>
>>> W: www.zed-uk.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Certificate No: GB16647
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Certificate No: GB16646
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please carefully consider the environment before you print this email.
>>>
>>> Company Registered in England & Wales. Registration No. 5815068
>>>
>>> Registered Address: 10A Portland Place, 2-22 Mottram Road, Stalybridge,
>>> SK15 3AD, UK.
>>>
>>> _Privilege and Confidentiality Notice:___
>>>
>>> This email and any attachments to it are intended only for the party to
>>> whom they are addressed. They may contain privileged and/or confidential
>>> information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify
>>> the sender immediately and delete any digital copies and destroy any paper
>>> copies. Thank you.
>>>
>>> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:
>>> bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Karen Walkerman
>>> *Sent:* 25 February 2009 23:06
>>> *To:* Varkie C Thomas
>>> *Cc:* Varkie Thomas; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] IES-VE Energy
>>>
>>> Varkie,
>>>
>>> I disagree with your statement that eQuest is not appropriate for large
>>> buildings because you can't change space names to match architectural names
>>> in wizard mode, and the inputs created from the wizard aren't appropriate
>>> for all spaces. The wizards are called "Schematic Design Wizard" and "Design
>>> Development Wizard" for a reason. They aren't desinged for detail, they're
>>> designed to help you make big design decisions quickly. If you want the
>>> building to be modeled as closely as possible to the final design, this
>>> takes some extra work. Yeah, re-naming spaces is a pain, but at 5 seconds
>>> per space, re-naming 1,000 spaces takes about 1.5 hours, well worth the
>>> effort. If you re-name zones too, maybe it's 3 hours total.
>>>
>>> Yeah, some things about eQuest are clumsy, like why does it create one
>>> underground wall (and floor) consturction for each surface, when only 4-5
>>> are needed for the whole model? Why does it re-create occupancy, lighting
>>> and micellaneous equipment schedules for each shell, even if the use is the
>>> same? And why does it create tons of duplicate infiltration schedules?
>>> BUT... this takes an hour or two to clean up, and then you have a decently
>>> flexible model that gives you reasonable results in a matter of minutes.
>>> Versus a program that takes 1-2 hours to run. I've done a few LEED projects
>>> in Trace700 and it's painful modeling a design case and four (rotated) base
>>> cases at 1-2 hours each, especially if you then find you've left anything
>>> out.
>>>
>>> I definitely agree that there are some major things missing in all
>>> modeling programs, which is why I'm putting together a "Master Wish List" of
>>> modeler's desires. If you have things that you would like to be able to
>>> model, things you'd like to be able to model more easily, or things that you
>>> can do that you feel are very important, please send me your list. I
>>> currently have contact info for about 10 people representing various
>>> simulation programs who want to know what we want! Now's our chance to have
>>> some input!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Karen
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Varkie C Thomas <thomasv at iit.edu<mailto:
>>> thomasv at iit.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Graham,
>>>
>>> The comment below stands out which might also be the reason for not using
>>> EnergyPlus on large projects.
>>>
>>> - DOE-2.2 runs much quicker. For comparable 30,000 m2 buildings I would
>>> say DOE-2 runs in 1 minute and IES VE with an APhvac network probably 1-2
>>> hours. If you through in Macroflo it probably adds another hour of
>>> simulation time. As a result *iterative trial and error debugging* has to be
>>> done on a 1-2 week period.
>>>
>>> Large building projects (1 to 10 million sqft) with up to 1,000 zones and
>>> 70 systems ranging in size from 10,000 to 200,000 cfm (pardon the English
>>> units - the USA & the Bahamas are not going to switch to metric) require
>>> several iterative runs to get the input errors fixed. Breaking up the
>>> project into small pieces is not a solution since it affects demand costs,
>>> central plants and other components. I have worked on such projects using
>>> DOE2.1E and TRACE600/700.
>>>
>>> eQUEST is not suitable for such projects either. One of its limitations
>>> is that you cannot enter the space names shown on architectural drawings.
>>> Others include assuming all the input data and making all the decisions for
>>> you when you enter the type of building. 1000 zones means 1000 infiltration
>>> schedules and multiples of other building components. It is unrealistic to
>>> check all the input created by eQUEST for errors. Fixing everything to match
>>> the exact project data has to be done in detailed edit. Detailed edit means
>>> you lose access to the graphical method of creating the building model from
>>> AutoCAD drawings which is the main benefit of this program.
>>>
>>> Varkie
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bldg-sim mailing list
>>> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list send  a blank message to
>>> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database:
>>> 270.11.3/1971 - Release Date: 02/25/09 06:40:00
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20090226/d5f4f47a/attachment-0002.htm>