[Equest-users] equest and energy plus outputs

Joe Huang yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com
Thu Apr 28 18:12:40 PDT 2011


I did not think my previous reply to Deepika would engender so much 
traffic on this topic, but after reading through the various posts
I feel compelled to add further comments because I think there's been 
some misunderstanding or misperceptions abou comparing results between  
two programs, in this case, specifically EnergyPlus and eQUEST or DOE-2:

1) Several people (some even in private e-mail) have mentioned  looking 
at the BESTTEST or SP-140 test runs that are repeated everytime there's 
a new EnergyPlus release. Those simulations are extremely simplified 
test cases, mostly of one-zone models designed to test fundamental heat 
transfer algorithms - the impact of solar gain, wall heat loss, thermal 
mass - across various programs. These test cases
do not begin to address the dynamic conditions found in any real 
building, particularly not a large commercial building.  Unfortunately, 
it's
these interactions between the transient loads and the HVAC system 
response that will color or dominate the resultant energy numbers.
In my opinion, a far more revealing test suite would be either the CEC 
Title 24 certification test suite or even the ten DOE-2 sample runs,
where the models are of realistic buildings with typical systems and 
operating controls (for more details on the Title-24 certification test 
suite, please see my  SimBuild 2006 paper, available for download at 
http://www.wbt/downloads/SimBuild2006_EPlusDOE2_translatorF.pdf ).  My 
point is that the BESTTEST/SP140 results may show that the basic heat 
transfer algorithms in the programs are (reasonably) consistent, but 
that doesn't mean the programs will show similar results when used to 
model actual buildings, particularly not commercial buildings with 
intermittent operations and complex HVAC systems and controls.

2) Several people sounded incredulous that the differences could be as 
much as 50%.  I can only say that if you try it, i.e., model the same 
building (preferably not a shoebox with a window on one side :-)) with 
two programs, you will quickly appreciate the difficulty. Actually, from 
my vantage point, 50% does not sound exaggerated at all. I just got back 
from a simulation workshop in China, where differences of several 
hundred percent were reported comparing programs such as DOE-2.1E, 
TRNSYS, and DeST, a Chinese program, even though they were looking only 
at residential apartment buildings. The dirty secret in our field is 
that even if you asked two reasonably competent modelers to model the 
same building with the same program, they're apt to come up with quite 
different results. Doing it with two different programs just makes that 
match exponentially more difficult.

3) Several people (including me) have alluded to the difficulty in 
making the inputs consistent. I cannot emphasize this enough. All 
programs have hundreds of hidden defaults or assumptions that aren't 
necessarily transferable. My paper highlights nine of the most prominent 
ones found in the CEC project, e.g., DOE-2 models drapes as a 
SHADING-FRACTION, EnergyPlus models them as internal shading surface 
requiring 10 inputs; DOE-2 allows a distribution loss in the water loop, 
EnergyPlus didn't; DOE-2 degrades the wind speed in its infiltration 
calculation, EnergyPlus didn't; DOE-2 allows a thermostat throttling 
range; EnergyPlus didn't; etc., etc. (some of these limitations in 
EnergyPlus may have been corrected since 2007).   Since I had access to 
both the DOE-2 and EnergyPlus source code at the time, I believe I did 
the most thorough job possible in matching inputs, but even so I had to 
"punt" in numerous places (no drapes, infiltration at raw wind speed, 
etc.) for the sake of an "apples-to-apples" comparison.  Yet, even under 
these ground rules, I was still seeing up to 40% differences in heating 
loads in some cases.

4) So which are the correct, or better, results?  I really can't say. 
When you look into the codes, there is room for questioning the solution 
techniques in both programs. Just by dint of having seen many more DOE-2 
results, I tended to regard them as the "conventional wisdom", but then 
conventional wisdom could always be wrong. Maybe we have been 
overestimating the heating energies in California all these years. After 
reading through this litany of problems, some may want to throw up their 
hands and say either, "it's hopeless" or even, "who cares?". That to me 
is a wrong and dangerous response, because it ultimately damages the 
credibility of simulations. Going back to China, many experts there have 
become disenchanted and distrustful of simulations,  and are calling for 
it NOT to be used for compliance calculations. The same can happen here, 
as well. So, I think we need to spend more effort to have a better sense 
of the relative performance of different programs, and what is the 
"ground truth". Doing a parallel set of calibrated simulations against 
good monitored data would be a good start. 

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"



Paul Diglio wrote:
> Mizra:
>
> Thank you for the time it took you to send the results of your study 
> to the forum.  Some of the top simulation firms in my area use Energy 
> Plus and I was confused when other people claimed a higher discrepancy 
> rate than you modeled.
>
> Paul Diglio
>
> *From:* Mirza Sajjal <Mirza.Sajjal at BuroHappold.com>
> *To:* Pasha Korber-Gonzalez <pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>; deepika 
> khowal <deepika.khowal at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; energyplus_support 
> <EnergyPlus_Support at yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Thu, April 28, 2011 5:55:09 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] equest and energy plus outputs
>
> This was a little study I did out of curiosity last year, and the 
> results between eQUEST (v3.63) and EnergyPlus (v4.0) matched quite 
> well (~1.4% difference). All the schedules, zone areas, surface areas 
> were exactly the same (I checked), but I also chose a simple system; 
> PTAC units for the comparison. I believe when I was doing this I had 
> checked the performance curves that were being used in EnergyPlus and 
> they matched the eQUEST curves.
>
>  
>
> I assume the results will begin to differ when the systems become more 
> complicated, but even then I believe if both models are calibrated to 
> match as much as possible the results shouldn’t vary significantly 
> (assuming all systems are native to the programs and we’re not 
> creating work-arounds i.e. DOAS in eQUEST using dummy zones or the like).
>
>  
>
> (FYI, the geometry was ported over to EnergyPlus through a tool I 
> wrote using Excel and VBA, but it’s a messy process)
>
>  
>
> Following are some of the results and graphical outputs:
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *____________________***
>
> *Mirza Sajjal*
> Engineer
>
>  
>
> Buro Happold
> 100 Broadway
> New York, NY 10005
>
> Tel: +1 212 334 2025
>
> Direct: +1 212 616 0380
>
>  
>
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
> [mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Pasha Korber-Gonzalez
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:46 PM
> *To:* deepika khowal
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org; energyplus_support
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] equest and energy plus outputs
>
>  
>
> As I understand it--Energy+ is free-ware in it's raw form.    I guess 
> I was wrong to make an assumption that Deepika is using it without an 
> interface.    If this is not the case it might explain such a variance 
> in results.     When I model in DOE-2 raw form---it is so much harder 
> for me to manage my data and inputs in my head and such----I was not 
> born to be a programmer, and it gives me nightmares from struggling to 
> pass FORTRAN so many years ago...ugh.
>
>  
>
> Therefore, I haven't looked at E+ myself for a very long time and 
> purchasing or putting out the cost for the user-interface programs is 
> not as desireable as using the eQuest free-ware.  or the future 
> CANQuest free-ware (future SI version).
>
>  
>
> BUT-- I know that E+ is supposed to have some great capabilities in 
> which we are limited with DOE-2 (to an extent.)    Has anyone else had 
> the time and desire to compare these program engines more closely 
> recently?   Also--why is it so difficult to "match" systems in eQuest 
> and E+....forgive my blase'-ness, but isn't a pkgd system a pkgd 
> system...a pkgd system???  :)
>
> Pasha
>
>
>  
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:39 AM, deepika khowal 
> <deepika.khowal at gmail.com <mailto:deepika.khowal at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> So based on my analysis, there is a difference of about 10% in results 
> of equest and E+. I would believe that because there are certain 
> parameters which are very difficult to match.
>
> this seems reasonable to me.
>
>  
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:09 AM, John Aulbach <jra_sac at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:jra_sac at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> I am sure EnergyPlus is a fine and well thought out program (consider 
> the sources and fine people involved).  However, since I am in 
> production mode (and don't have time to create a model in two 
> different programs-who pays for THAT), I chose to migrate to eQuest 
> after DOE-2.1 A, B, C, D, and E. There are plenty of resources to ask 
> questions of, the program started out in Windows (didn't need "add 
> ons"), and gives me a 3-D rendering on the building immediately.
>
>  
>
> I dealt with 20 years of "raw" DOE-2, where I didn't know what my 
> building really looked like (until Joe Huang came along with BDL 
> Draw..). So I would need at age (you guess..) to not relearn an 
> entirely new program and stick with what I had learned over the past 
> 25+ years.
>
>  
>
> John R. Aulbach, PE, CEM
>
> Senior Energy Engineer
>
> *Partner** **Energy*
>
> 1990 E. Grand Avenue, El Segundo, CA 90245
> W: 888-826-1216, X254| D: 310-765-7295 | F: 310-817-2745
>
> www.ptrenergy.com <http://www.ptrenergy.com/> | jaulbach at ptrenergy.com 
> <mailto:%7C%20jaulbach at ptrenergy.com>
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* deepika khowal <deepika.khowal at gmail.com 
> <mailto:deepika.khowal at gmail.com>>
> *To:* Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net 
> <mailto:paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>>
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org 
> <mailto:equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>; energyplus_support 
> <EnergyPlus_Support at yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:EnergyPlus_Support at yahoogroups.com>>
> *Sent:* Thu, April 28, 2011 8:56:34 AM
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] equest and energy plus outputs
>
>
> As Joe and others mentioned, its really difficult to create all 
> parameters same in both softwares.
>
> I am still working on it .
>
> For ex, which system should I use in equest as equivalent to unitary 
> system in E+?
>
> I understand its difficult to match every input and hence, getting 
> same results is very tricky.
>
> Thanks all for their inputs
>
>  
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Paul Diglio 
> <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net <mailto:paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>
> 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 
> <mailto:pasha.pkconsulting at gmail.com>>
> *To:* deepika khowal <deepika.khowal at gmail.com 
> <mailto:deepika.khowal at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* energyplus_support <EnergyPlus_Support at yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:EnergyPlus_Support at yahoogroups.com>>; 
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com>
> www.whiteboxtechnologies.com <http://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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:EQUEST-USERS-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG>
>
>  
>
> This message has been scanned by MailController - 
> portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk <http://portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk> |
>
> This message has been scanned by MailController 
> <http://portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk/>.
>
>  
>
> This message has been scanned by MailController - 
> portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk |
>
> This message has been scanned by MailController 
> <http://portal1.mailcontroller.co.uk/>.
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110428/9910b27b/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 52713 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110428/9910b27b/attachment-0018.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 22695 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110428/9910b27b/attachment-0019.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12136 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110428/9910b27b/attachment-0020.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10595 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110428/9910b27b/attachment-0021.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10289 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110428/9910b27b/attachment-0022.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18621 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110428/9910b27b/attachment-0023.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 33966 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110428/9910b27b/attachment-0024.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 53001 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110428/9910b27b/attachment-0025.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 75984 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20110428/9910b27b/attachment-0026.jpeg>


More information about the Equest-users mailing list