[Equest-users] Equest Base Model vs. ASHRAE 90.1

[Sam Mason]

There is also a 90.1 compliance tool associated with the new version of Hevacomp Simulator which runs energy plus. I have not yet tried it, but it is a feature they list on the website and in their online tutorial.  If anyone has used it, comments/feedback would be greatly appreciated. 

 

Sam

--

Sam Mason

Atelier Ten

 

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Lopez, Phylroy
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:18 PM
To: Equest Forum
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Equest Base Model vs. ASHRAE 90.1

 

Interesting topic. 

 

I know there is work being done on these fronts in Canada for the A90.1 equivalent in the MNECB. 

 

EE4 does an automatic reference case for it's building simulation. It is a double edge sword.. It provides consistency and prevents gaming from a compliance point of view, but workarounds can be ugly and requires editing both proposed and reference files. But at the very least you have a starting point where most of the mundane tasks of creating a reference case is taken care of. 

 

I know a bunch of people, myself included, that have scripts written in Perl or Ruby to, say, automatically rotate the building and average the results as required in a90.1, or change all the constructions to A90.1 standard for my region. It would be nice to have a place to share / keep some scripts that tweak a DOE inp files. Or even better yet have a post-processor feature in eQuest that users. For that matter an Energyplus scripts repository would be nice as well.

 

Phylroy Lopez
Sustainable Building Specialist B.ENG LEED AP
Stantec
1100 - 111 Dunsmuir Street
Vancouver BC V6B 6A3
Ph: (604) 696-8000
Fx: (604) 696-8100

stantec.com <http://www.stantec.com/>  

 

The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.

 

ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

 

________________________________

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of David S Eldridge
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:05 AM
To: Equest Forum
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Equest Base Model vs. ASHRAE 90.1

I know there is some work on a document to provide a framework for developers to implement automated (or even semi-automated!) generation of base cases within their software for various purposes.

 

Keep an eye out for that, I'm not sure of the current status or timing of it.  Even prior to implementation by any developers it will be a great resource for our community when we make these comparisons manually.

 

David

http://www.grummanbutkus.com

 

From: equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Nick Caton
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:20 AM
To: jwearstler at larseneng.com; Equest Forum
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] Equest Base Model vs. ASHRAE 90.1

 

At the moment, it's up to the end-user to be sure your baseline model is meeting the 90.1 minimum baseline criteria.  If you haven't already checked it out, Appendix G explains how the model is to be set up and calibrated to a level of performance (measured via unmet load hours) that's to be in the same ballpark as your proposed design.  If you apply all design criteria there into eQuest, then you're following 90.1.

...

Until the day comes when software developers are producing "intelligent" energy modeling software that makes evaluative decisions as effectively as a human being, I don't think the task of "generate a baseline energy model per 90.1" is even a feasible concept.  Even if such a (complex) feature was around to use, you'd still have to do a complete proposed model for the baseline to reference for geometries/occupancies/zoning/etc - building the baseline after that is not a huge relative investment of time in my experience... 

 

In summary, I don't think effective/useful energy modeling for 90.1-based compliance is conceptually possible without involvement from a human that's at least somewhat familiar with 90.1's Appendix G - it cannot be automated without a degree of accuracy loss that I think most would find unacceptable.  

...

For the record, I do think a good "wishlist" item for the coming versions of eQuest, to facilitate easier, more consistent and less error-prone 90.1 baseline modeling for users of all experience levels, would be to create a library of 8 systems for use during HVAC system wizard-level definition (See attached screenshot/paint masterpiece for when/where/what I'm thinking).  These would define a set of defaults for one of the 8 standard baseline systems, but would still require the end-user to determine project specific wizard-level criteria (such as climate zone-specific economizer/high limit requirements and such).  I've noted that the recent 90.1-2007 and 90.1-2004 are identical in these definitions, so that lends some consolation that such efforts would not become "out-of-date" for some time to come.

 


________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20091124/a3c25854/attachment-0002.htm>