[Equest-users] equest and energy plus outputs
Paul Diglio
paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net
Thu Apr 28 04:54:41 PDT 2011
I thought E+ is a free program? I would be interested to hear from anyone who
has used Google SketchUp and the Open Studio Plug-in to generate a 3D view in
E+.
I would like to hear more about the discrepancies between eQuest and E+ from
those who use both programs.
Paul Diglio
________________________________
From: Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>
To: deepika khowal <deepika.khowal at gmail.com>
Cc: energyplus_support <EnergyPlus_Support at yahoogroups.com>;
equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
Sent: Thu, April 28, 2011 1:27:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] equest and energy plus outputs
Hmmm- an energy plus model showed 50% less energy use (EUI) than eQuest? Did
you use the same weather files? (i.e. convert the EPW you used in E+ to .bin
and use the same weather file in eQuest?)
If this is truly the case, this is unsettling as a simulator. Wouldn't it be
safer for our clients to error on the conservative side and give the eQuest
results instead of the E+ results?
Also--if this is the case, then what is the market advantage to spending
thousands of dollars on E+ software rather than use the FREE-ware eQuest
program??
I'd appreciate any commentary to help me "see the light" of this topic. And if
Deepika is willing to share a visual of his energy results output, I'm super
curious to see what it is showing...
Good question/good info...thanks,
Pasha
Korber Energy Consultants
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:11 PM, deepika khowal <deepika.khowal at gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks Joe
>Even I realized the same thing. the total energy use in Energy plus was almost
>50% less than equest.
>If this is the case, who would you know that you model is working fine?
>
>
>
>On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Joe Huang <yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com>
>wrote:
>
>I was involved in a two year project 2005-2007 to convert the Calif. Energy
>Commission's Title-24 certification suite of building tests from DOE-2.1E to
>EnergyPlus. There are some areas where it's difficult to get comparable inputs
>due to differences or limitations in the models. The differences between the two
>programs varied a lot depending on the building, weather, and HVAC system. For
>the CEC certification suite of 160 runs, cooling results were more consistent,
>within 10% in most cases, with EnergyPlus almost always on the high side; for
>heating, the differences were much greater, sometimes with EnergyPlus being
>40-60% lower than DOE-2.1E. I have a 120-page report on this comparison, but
>haven't bothered to put it on the Web.
>>
>>Joe
>>
>>Joe Huang
>>White Box Technologies, Inc.
>>346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 108D
>>Moraga CA 94556
>>yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com
>>www.whiteboxtechnologies.com
>>(o) (925)388-0265
>>(c) (510)928-2683
>>"building energy simulations at your fingertips"
>>
>>
>>
>>deepika khowal wrote:
>>
>>HI All
>>>I am trying to create same model in equest and energy plus to see whether i see
>>>same results and just to validate my simulation files.
>>>has anyone done this before?
>>>I would like to know what is the % difference in both software outputs?
>>>Thanks
>>>Deepika
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110428/aff241ab/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list