[Equest-users] Equest-users Digest, Vol 74, Issue 6-Multiple Footprints in same Building
Aung Myat
zephyr923 at gmail.com
Tue May 6 01:15:31 PDT 2014
Hi
Thank for sharing the procedure for constructing multi shell.
I am also very new to e-quest and just started using last week.
I am doing modeling for 3 storey office building using DD wizard.
Since The rooftop is flat, I would like to add on addition viewing gallery
at the corner of the rooftop.
I added in a new shell selecting immediately above function.
Unfortunately, viewing gallery sits on the middle of the rooftop.
I used the " specify exact coordinate" function too.
Can anyone advise me how to locate the new shell at the corner of the
building which I highlight in red circle in the attached file.
Thank in advance,
Aung Myat
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Ranojoy Dutta <rony_arc at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> Sol
>
> You need a new shell each time the footprint changes. So as per your email
> floors 1-10 will be one shell and 11-20 another and so on. You simply have
> to position the shell with floors 11-20 on top of the previous shell. Make
> sure to select "immediately above" for the field "Position this shell"
> on screen 1 of the DD wizard, assuming you are still in the wizard mode.
>
> As for drawing the footprints, for each shell you need to draw the
> footprint only once and then enable floor multipliers , which is also on
> screen 1 provided you select the mid-rise or high-rise office as building
> type. so no need to draw 10 floors if 1-10 are the same size.
>
>
> Hope this gets you going
>
> Ronny
>
>
> Ranojoy Dutta | Energy Analyst | Tempe , AZ
>
> *From:* "equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org" <
> equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org>
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Sent:* Monday, 5 May 2014 1:01 PM
> *Subject:* Equest-users Digest, Vol 74, Issue 6
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>
> Send Equest-users mailing list submissions to
> equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-onebuilding.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> equest-users-request at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> equest-users-owner at lists.onebuilding.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Equest-users digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Creating multiple footprints for a single building (Joe Huang)
> 2. Re: Significan?tly Higher Heating and Cooling Energy
> Consumptio?n in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST (Simge Andolsun)
> 3. Re: Significan?tly Higher Heating and Cooling Energy
> Consumptio?n in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST (Daniel Knapp)
> 4. Re: Significan?tly Higher Heating and Cooling Energy
> Consumptio?n in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST (Jeff Haberl)
> Use a FLOOR-MULTIPLIER
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> Joe Huang
> White Box Technologies
> 346 Rheem Blvd Suite 108D
> Moraga CA 94556
> (o) 1(925)388-0265
> (c) 1(510)928-2683
> yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com
>
> On May 4, 2014, at 12:01 PM, "Sol Rosenbaum" <solrosenbaum at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am new to eQuest and am modelling a large office building that has a
> footprint that gets smaller on the higher floors. I have all of the
> footprints (17 in total) in a single CAD drawing and have uploaded it to
> eQuest. I was able to get the initial ground floor outline set up, but now
> I am not sure how to proceed from here . . .
> 1. How can I set one outline to be floors 1-10 and a second outline to be
> floors 11-20 and so on?
> 2. I was provided all of the outlines in one CAD drawing with them sitting
> side by side. Would it be easier if i had them supplied as separate
> files? Separate layers?
> Thanks,
> Sol
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-UNSUBSCRIBE at ONEBUILDING.ORG
>
> Dear Dr. Haberl,
>
> Thank you very much for your response. I would appreciate it very much if
> you could direct me to the results of the project you are mentioning. I
> think I managed to improve my files this weekend. Now, I am getting
> reasonably close results. It would be great if I could compare my results
> with the previously obtained differences between EnergyPlus and eQUEST.
>
> Dear Joe Huang,
>
> Sorry to ruin your Friday afternoon :). As I have deadlines coming up,
> weekends and weekdays are pretty much the same for me recently. Thanks for
> the studies you directed me to. I will definitely examine them.
>
> Best Regards,
> S. Andolsun, Ph.D.
>
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Jeff Haberl <jhaberl at tamu.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello Simge:,
>
> Unfortunately, I don't think you'll ever get EP+ and eQUEST to agree
> without significant effort. At best, you can get specific aspects of the
> program to agree, but the overall results can be very different unless you
> do extrodinary things to the input files.
>
> As part of RP1468 we developed a comparison simulation of the SAMP1E.INP
> file RUN3A from DOE-2.1e against eQUEST and EP+, which we could not get to
> agree very well. In fact, we could not even get eQUEST and DOE-2.1e to
> agree. The results can be found in the final report for 1468.
>
> In addition we developed a comparison tool the "RASR" that automatically
> chooses the correct variables to compare, which was a major problem with
> the comparisons...what to compare against what...not even clear between
> DOE-2.1e and DOE-2.2.
>
> Finally, the defaults all need to be "revealed" as well, since this can be
> one other areas where you think you're simulating the same thing...but
> don't know it because the defaults are set to X,Y,Z and you don't see it
> unless you have the program print all the defaults. In addition, you'll
> need to "reset" all the performance curves in one of the other programs to
> match.
>
> In the long run, it may be easier to solve clmate change than it may be to
> get the different simulations engines to agree.
>
> Jeff
>
> 8=! 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=( 8=) 8=() 8=) 8=| 8=) :=') 8=) 8=?
> Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E.inactive,FASHRAE,FIBPSA,......
> mailto:........jhaberl at tamu.edu <........jhaberl at tamu.edu>
> Professor........................................................................Office
> Ph: 979-845-6507
> Department of Architecture............................................Lab
> Ph:979-845-6065
> Energy Systems Laboratory...........................................FAX:
> 979-862-2457
> Texas A&M
> University...................................................77843-3581
> College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..............................URL:
> http://www.esl.tamu.edu/
> 8=/ 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=() 8=) :=) 8=) 8=! 8=) 8=? 8=) 8=0
> *From:* equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] on behalf of Simge Andolsun [
> simgeandolsun at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 01, 2014 3:35 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] Significantly Higher Heating and Cooling
> Energy Consumption in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST
>
> Dear eQUEST users (Particularly Dear Joe Huang),
>
> Please find the attached eQUEST and EnergyPlus files. They represent
> identical cases for comparison of the two programs. The runs are conducted
> for Los Angeles. The heating and cooling consumption of EnergyPlus file
> are, however, unreasonably higher than that of EQUEST. It is particularly
> strange that heating occurs in early morning time during the summer in
> EnergyPlus whereas no heating occurs in eQUEST during these hours.
>
> We need our results not to deviate extremely from eQUEST when we
> start using EnergyPlus. That is why, I am conducting this comparative
> analyses for cases representing identical conditions. I would appreciate it
> very much if you could examine these files and let me know whether there is
> anything I can do to make the results of these cases in the two programs as
> close as possible to each other.
>
> Dear Joe Huang,
>
> Please see the attached charts that show the hourly variation of
> temperatures in the system nodes and hourly energy consumption. There is
> definitely something weird going on in the early morning hours when the
> system just starts working. I have read your paper in the link below. Below
> is a section from your paper that I have paid particular attention to.
> Might I be having a similar issue in my case?
> http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirpubs/SB06/huang.pdf.
> *"Heating to the cooling setpoint*. Temperature plots revealed that at
> times during the shoulder seasons, *EnergyPlus *had difficulty in picking
> between the heating or cooling season control logic. This resulted in the
> supply air being heated to the cooling, rather than the heating, setpoint
> during the morning hours. This problem was corrected by improving the
> setpoint manager in *EnergyPlus*."
> Looking forward to hearing from you,
> Best Regards,
> Simge Andolsun, PhD.
>
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Thank you for sharing this report with the list. It is very interesting to
> see a thorough comparison of EnergyPlus with DOE 2.2 results. I am an
> experienced user of eQUEST and I have been looking at EnergyPlus with some
> interest for future work.
>
> Two things jumped out at me from your report, both of which you noted. One
> is that, as you point out on page 74, the heating load is relatively small
> in these climates. This would tend to amplify the effects of any
> discrepancies in how the heating loads are calculating and in how the plant
> responds to those heating loads. It would be very interesting to see the
> same comparison done in the same model in a different location with a much
> higher heating load. Would there still be a factor of 30 difference in the
> results in this case? The other is that it would help to see a comparison
> of the heating loads in the two models. Is the discrepancy coming in
> primarily in the calculation of the heating loads, the calculation of the
> energy required to meet those loads, or is it a combination of the two?
>
> I have to say that the more alarming result appears to be the discrepancy
> in results for domestic hot water. I might have expected the domestic hot
> water load to be the same in both the DOE 2.2 and EnergyPlus models. Are
> the boiler models really so different as to entirely account for such a
> huge difference in natural gas consumption, or are there other loads
> showing up in the DOE 2.2 model that don’t appear in the EnergyPlus model?
>
> With thanks and best wishes,
> Dan
>
>
>
> —
> Daniel Knapp, PhD, P Phys, LEED® AP O+M
> danielk at arborus.ca
>
> Arborus Consulting
> Energy Strategies for the Built Environment
> www.arborus.ca
> 76 Chamberlain Avenue
> Ottawa, ON, K1S 1V9
> Phone: (613) 234-7178 ext. 113
> Fax: (613) 234-0740
>
>
>
>
> On May 2, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Joe Huang <yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Simge,
> >
> > I feel compelled to respond since you mentioned me so prominently in
> your post :-)
> >
> > I think you're bringing up a very germaine question, and indeed it's one
> that in my opinion needs further study, i.e.,
> > how does EnergyPlus compare with eQUEST or other building energy
> simulation programs in their modeling results?
> >
> > The LBNL paper you cited is a summary paper from a SimBuild Conference
> in 2008 that only skimmed the findings from a
> > year-long effort supported by the California Energy Commission. I've
> put the full report on the Web, along with a later study
> > I did last year as part of an EnergyPlus Feasibility Study by AutoDesk
> done for Southern California Edison that you might find
> > equally interesting:
> >
> > http://www.whiteboxtechnologies.com/download_AutoDesk_EP_feasib_rpt.htm
> >
> > The second study was under wraps for a long time, but I received
> clearance from SCE to release it two months ago.
> > My part of the study is strictly the EnergyPlus to DOE-2.2 comparison
> pp. 57 -98, and I have no opinions one way or
> > the other in respect to the rest of the study. My task was to take
> several DEER prototypes (office, residential, and retail)
> > modeled in eQUEST/DOE-2.2 and convert them to EP 7.X. Compared to what
> I saw in the 2007 study, the discrepancies
> > in heating energy consumption were even more striking, probably because
> all the buildings were modeled in southern
> > California climates. I was getting consistently from a 5:1 to a 20:1
> difference in heating energies (DOE-2 high, EP low).
> >
> > Following up on Jeff's earlier comment, diagnosing the differences
> between two simulation programs requires a lot of
> > time, experimentation, and often in-depth study of the source codes. In
> the 2007 paper, I mentioned somewhere between
> > 15 and 20 areas of modeling differences with significant effects on the
> results.
> >
> > It's been 7 years since the first study, and I've been disappointed by
> the lack of progress. Some of it is understandable, since
> > speaking frankly, there are a very limited number of people with
> sufficient knowledge and interest across two programs to make heads or
> tails out of these comparisons. But it is a very important issue, not just
> from technical curiosity, but because a lot of
> > money have been invested based on what these programs say, so if they
> give significantly different results, policy makers would
> > like to know what's going on and ideally, what is the ground truth?
> >
> > I don't want to sound like a modern-day Cassandra, and I don't have
> enough resources or time to pursue this as a private
> > adventure. However, I hope that public institutions will see the need
> and benefit, and support some serious work in this area.
> >
> > I know that you (Simge) or I are not the only people who've wrestled
> with this problem. I would like to hear the experiences of
> > others (not you, Jeff, I already know what you would say :-) ). Since
> all the efforts I've heard of are going from eQUEST
> > to EnergyPlus, not the other way around, the domain knowledge is
> probably higher on the eQUEST/DOE-2 side. Therefore,
> > it would be most valuable to get the EnergyPlus experts to chime in on
> the nuances of EnergyPlus modeling of which we
> > may be lacking. For the same reason, you might consider posting your
> message to the EnergyPlus_Support bulletin board
> > as well.
> >
> > See, Simge, now you got me wasting a couple of hours on a Friday
> afternoon!
> >
> > I'm not sure when I would have time to look at your input files, but if
> I see anything I'll let you know.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/1/2014 1:35 PM, Simge Andolsun wrote:
> >> Dear eQUEST users (Particularly Dear Joe Huang),
> >>
> >> Please find the attached eQUEST and EnergyPlus files. They represent
> identical cases for comparison of the two programs. The runs are conducted
> for Los Angeles. The heating and cooling consumption of EnergyPlus file
> are, however, unreasonably higher than that of EQUEST. It is particularly
> strange that heating occurs in early morning time during the summer in
> EnergyPlus whereas no heating occurs in eQUEST during these hours.
> >>
> >> We need our results not to deviate extremely from eQUEST when we start
> using EnergyPlus. That is why, I am conducting this comparative analyses
> for cases representing identical conditions. I would appreciate it very
> much if you could examine these files and let me know whether there is
> anything I can do to make the results of these cases in the two programs as
> close as possible to each other.
> >>
> >> Dear Joe Huang,
> >>
> >> Please see the attached charts that show the hourly variation of
> temperatures in the system nodes and hourly energy consumption. There is
> definitely something weird going on in the early morning hours when the
> system just starts working. I have read your paper in the link below. Below
> is a section from your paper that I have paid particular attention to.
> Might I be having a similar issue in my case?
> >> http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirpubs/SB06/huang.pdf.
> >> "Heating to the cooling setpoint. Temperature plots revealed that at
> times during the shoulder seasons, EnergyPlus had difficulty in picking
> between the heating or cooling season control logic. This resulted in the
> supply air being heated to the cooling, rather than the heating, setpoint
> during the morning hours. This problem was corrected by improving the
> setpoint manager in EnergyPlus."
> >>
> >> Looking forward to hearing from you,
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Simge Andolsun, PhD.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
> Hello Simge:
>
> The final report for RP1468 can be obtained by contacting Mike Vaughn at
> ASHRAE.
>
> Included in the report are the results of the BIM-to-thermal analysis and
> the RASR, which is an MS spreadsheet that you cut and paste output into
> from the different programs (i.e., DOE-2.1e, DOE-2.2 & EP+) to get exact
> results (i.e., the correct variables for comparison). Also included are all
> input/output files for the BEM and BIM programs evaluated, which is quite a
> bit of stuff.
>
> Several (overdue) ASHRAE papers on the project are forthcoming.
>
> Jeff
>
> 8=! 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=( 8=) 8=() 8=) 8=| 8=) :=') 8=) 8=?
> Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E.inactive,FASHRAE,FIBPSA,......
> mailto:........jhaberl at tamu.edu <........jhaberl at tamu.edu>
> Professor........................................................................Office
> Ph: 979-845-6507
> Department of Architecture............................................Lab
> Ph:979-845-6065
> Energy Systems Laboratory...........................................FAX:
> 979-862-2457
> Texas A&M
> University...................................................77843-3581
> College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..............................URL:
> www.esl.tamu.edu
> 8=/ 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=() 8=) :=) 8=) 8=! 8=) 8=? 8=) 8=0
> *From:* Simge Andolsun [simgeandolsun at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 05, 2014 3:35 AM
> *To:* Jeff Haberl; Joe Huang
> *Cc:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Equest-users] Significantly Higher Heating and Cooling
> Energy Consumption in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST
>
> Dear Dr. Haberl,
>
> Thank you very much for your response. I would appreciate it very much
> if you could direct me to the results of the project you are mentioning. I
> think I managed to improve my files this weekend. Now, I am getting
> reasonably close results. It would be great if I could compare my results
> with the previously obtained differences between EnergyPlus and eQUEST.
>
> Dear Joe Huang,
>
> Sorry to ruin your Friday afternoon :). As I have deadlines coming up,
> weekends and weekdays are pretty much the same for me recently. Thanks for
> the studies you directed me to. I will definitely examine them.
>
> Best Regards,
> S. Andolsun, Ph.D.
>
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Jeff Haberl <jhaberl at tamu.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello Simge:,
>
> Unfortunately, I don't think you'll ever get EP+ and eQUEST to agree
> without significant effort. At best, you can get specific aspects of the
> program to agree, but the overall results can be very different unless you
> do extrodinary things to the input files.
>
> As part of RP1468 we developed a comparison simulation of the SAMP1E.INP
> file RUN3A from DOE-2.1e against eQUEST and EP+, which we could not get to
> agree very well. In fact, we could not even get eQUEST and DOE-2.1e to
> agree. The results can be found in the final report for 1468.
>
> In addition we developed a comparison tool the "RASR" that automatically
> chooses the correct variables to compare, which was a major problem with
> the comparisons...what to compare against what...not even clear between
> DOE-2.1e and DOE-2.2.
>
> Finally, the defaults all need to be "revealed" as well, since this can be
> one other areas where you think you're simulating the same thing...but
> don't know it because the defaults are set to X,Y,Z and you don't see it
> unless you have the program print all the defaults. In addition, you'll
> need to "reset" all the performance curves in one of the other programs to
> match.
>
> In the long run, it may be easier to solve clmate change than it may be to
> get the different simulations engines to agree.
>
> Jeff
>
> 8=! 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=( 8=) 8=() 8=) 8=| 8=) :=') 8=) 8=?
> Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E.inactive,FASHRAE,FIBPSA,......
> mailto:........jhaberl at tamu.edu <........jhaberl at tamu.edu>
> Professor........................................................................Office
> Ph: 979-845-6507
> Department of Architecture............................................Lab
> Ph:979-845-6065
> Energy Systems Laboratory...........................................FAX:
> 979-862-2457
> Texas A&M
> University...................................................77843-3581
> College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..............................URL:
> http://www.esl.tamu.edu/
> 8=/ 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=() 8=) :=) 8=) 8=! 8=) 8=? 8=) 8=0
> *From:* mailto:equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>[
> equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] on behalf of Simge Andolsun [
> simgeandolsun at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 01, 2014 3:35 PM
> *To:* equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* [Equest-users] Significantly Higher Heating and Cooling
> Energy Consumption in EnergyPlus When Compared to eQUEST
>
> Dear eQUEST users (Particularly Dear Joe Huang),
>
> Please find the attached eQUEST and EnergyPlus files. They represent
> identical cases for comparison of the two programs. The runs are conducted
> for Los Angeles. The heating and cooling consumption of EnergyPlus file
> are, however, unreasonably higher than that of EQUEST. It is particularly
> strange that heating occurs in early morning time during the summer in
> EnergyPlus whereas no heating occurs in eQUEST during these hours.
>
> We need our results not to deviate extremely from eQUEST when we
> start using EnergyPlus. That is why, I am conducting this comparative
> analyses for cases representing identical conditions. I would appreciate it
> very much if you could examine these files and let me know whether there is
> anything I can do to make the results of these cases in the two programs as
> close as possible to each other.
>
> Dear Joe Huang,
>
> Please see the attached charts that show the hourly variation of
> temperatures in the system nodes and hourly energy consumption. There is
> definitely something weird going on in the early morning hours when the
> system just starts working. I have read your paper in the link below. Below
> is a section from your paper that I have paid particular attention to.
> Might I be having a similar issue in my case?
> http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirpubs/SB06/huang.pdf.
> *"Heating to the cooling setpoint*. Temperature plots revealed that at
> times during the shoulder seasons, *EnergyPlus *had difficulty in picking
> between the heating or cooling season control logic. This resulted in the
> supply air being heated to the cooling, rather than the heating, setpoint
> during the morning hours. This problem was corrected by improving the
> setpoint manager in *EnergyPlus*."
> Looking forward to hearing from you,
> Best Regards,
> Simge Andolsun, PhD.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Equest-users mailing list
> Equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org
> http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/equest-users-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
>
>
--
with best regards
Dr.Aung Myat <aung_myat at ices.a-star.edu.sg>
Scientist
Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR)
Institute of Chemical and Engineering Science (ICES)
Experimental Power Grid Centre (EPGC)
3 Pesek road
Jurong Island
Singapore 627833
TEL : 67967370
FAX: 6316 6186
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20140506/503a567e/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Building.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 29924 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20140506/503a567e/attachment-0002.jpeg>
More information about the Equest-users
mailing list