[Bldg-sim] Solar gains differences between Design Builder and IES VE....

[Graham Carter & Megan Lyall]

I would support everything a number of replies have indicated,  
including Timothy's.

We recently had a need to validate the effectiveness of shading in  
EnergyPlus versus IES VE.  Once input assumptions were aligned, the  
output was very similar for clear sunny days which is what you would  
expect given they have both been  BESTEST'd.  We did observe  
differences under highly diffuse conditions or where shortwave gains  
were dominated by ground reflectance or sky model differences.  Think  
of a north facade in summer at 30 Degrees latitude with a horizontal  
shade fully shading from beam radiation.  In these cases there were  
differences which at those points in time appeared significant, but  
the differences were small in the context of the shading that was  
occurring on the beam component or on the annual solar gains.  If you  
looked at annual cooling numbers the differences observed under  
diffuse or ground reflected conditions were noise compared to  
differences that may arise in the simulation due to other factors ...

Regards
Graham

On 27/11/2012, at 6:27 AM, Timothy Moore wrote:

> David,
>
> I would caution you not to be so quick to use the term  
> “underestimate,” which implies that you are certain that your test  
> is set up correctly and that know the EnergyPlus calcs to be  
> accurate. Furthermore, given the magnitude of the disparity you’ve  
> described—which does not show up either in the published ASHRAE 140  
> tests comparing results for the VE and EnergyPlus or in the SimBuild  
> paper from Cassie Waddell and Shruti Kaserekar that Javed Iqbal  
> attached to his reply—there may be something significantly amiss in  
> your comparison.
>
> You need to ensure that you are consistent with your glazing  
> properties and you may want to be running the “detailed solar  
> calculations” in EnergyPlus and, likewise, linking the simulation to  
> results from the SunCast module within the VE if you want a suitably  
> consistent basis for the comparison. This will facilitate  
> calculation of incident solar radiation on specific surfaces, etc.
>
> While I’m not sure how this works in EnergyPlus, when you run  
> simulations coupled to the SunCast module in the VE, you need to be  
> cognizant of the relative placement of glazing in your “test cell,”  
> as low-angle direct-beam radiation striking an east window in the  
> early morning, for example, can pass through the space and out the  
> other side, in keeping with the location and solar transmission of  
> glazing on the façades through which the solar gain is entering and  
> exiting.
>
> On a related note, whereas the paper from Waddell and Kaserekar  
> attributes the calculation of interior inter-surface radiant  
> exchanges to the SunCast module of the VE, this is actually a  
> function of the ApacheSim engine used for all dynamic thermal  
> simulations in the VE. SunCast determines which surface the solar  
> gain will fall upon and what fraction of each surface is shaded from  
> direct-beam radiation at any given time step, as well as how much of  
> those surfaces are shaded from the cooling effects of the night sky;  
> however, regardless of SunCast, the hot interior surface of a piece  
> of glass having absorbed solar gain, for example, will always  
> exchange radiant energy with any interior surfaces of lower  
> temperature during the simulation run. Conversely, the cold interior  
> surface of a window or exterior wall in winter will always act as a  
> sink for radiant energy from warmer interior surfaces.
>
> Finally, if you’re interested in digging deeper into the comparison,  
> I was told by researchers at the Technical University at Eindhoven  
> in The Netherlands attending the last SimBuild conference that their  
> current findings (yet to be published) show that the solar  
> calculations in the VE are actually somewhat more accurate than  
> those in other tools, including EnergyPlus and ESPr, particularly  
> when passing through multiple glazed surfaces, cavities, or thermal  
> zones. As it’s not yet published and IES was not involved in this  
> research, I’ll leave it to TU Eindhoven to elaborate on what they  
> tested, what they found, and whether or not they believe this to be  
> of any significance. They may be willing to share some results in  
> advance of publication.
>
> Regards,
> Timothy
>
>
> <image003.jpg>
> Timothy Moore
> Senior Product Manager
> Mobile: 415 810-2495
> Office: 415 983-0603
> Internal IP ext. 8549 and 8589
> timothy.moore at iesve.com
> www.iesve.com
>
> **Design, Simulate + Innovate with the <Virtual Environment>**
>     Email Disclaimer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:23 AM, David GARCIA-SANCHEZ <dgarciasanchez at greenaffair.com 
> > wrote:
> Dear group,
>
> In our current projects we noticed a big difference when modeling  
> solar gains between the software IES VE and Designbuilder  
> (EnergyPlus). IES VE underestimate the values of solar gains, by  
> almost 1 to 2 of difference than EnergyPlus,
>
> So I just try to ask if someone of you are experienced the same  
> difference and if you know the reasons of that big difference. We  
> test a “cell-test” and we found also this underestimation of solar  
> gains.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> David Garcia Sanchez
>
> David GARCIA-SANCHEZ
> greenaffair
> Tel. +33 (0)1 46 03 80 10
> Mobile +33 (0)6 78 15 08 09
> 102 avenue Edouard Vaillant – 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt
> www.greenaffair.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Javed Iqbal, LEED AP, CEA
> Energy Analyst
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20121202/5b638028/attachment.htm>