[Bldg-sim] IES-VE Evaluation

[Ellis, David]

Tim,
We’ve recently formed an energy services group, and I wanted to employ any tool that would enhance production. The IES software is very attractive, with their new offering of a “PRM Navigator” (LEED analysis guidance), but there are limitations you should be aware of:

1.       The software is costly

2.       At this point, it cannot handle anything other than a flat utility rate schedule, which is not real world

3.       It is not user extensible

4.       To integrate the process with Revit, you have to enforce modeling standards on architectural designers, who tend to have bad practices

5.       There are some systems which cannot be modeled, such as thermal storage (without item 2 above corrected, the benefit of thermal storage, if available, would be missed)

6.       The PRM navigator (LEED Analysis) only spins out a 90.1-2007 baseline model
Having said that, we are employing the tool to see if it does provide some benefit. The CFD analysis looks promising, and there may be additional tools (such as Trelligence) that might be of benefit that use IES, although we’ve had to switch a large project from IES to eQuest due to items 2, 5 and 6 above.  The LEED  guidance package is very nice, and it does create voluminous reports, so you can spin out results for spreadsheet analysis if desired (which is what they recommend to overcome item 2 above). There are other nice modules, which you are probably aware of as well. One thing to keep in mind, is that the IES software, while certified by the ASHRAE 140 standard, to my knowledge has not been officially acknowledged as being acceptable by GBCI.
I’m cautiously optimistic that the EnergyPlus user interface promised out in Spring (now Summer) will prove to be as useful as the eQuest  interface for DOE2. If so, then I would expect that tool to become the standard in the industry.  It is frustrating, as I  was personally involved with trying to develop an interface for EnergyPlus back before its initial release, and while it holds great promise for its extensibility, development of interfaces have been hampered by a continual change in EnergyPlus data structures. I am guessing that with this funded interface, that the process of changing data structures is less of a concern.
Dave
David Ellis
PE (VA, MD, DC)
CEM, LEED AP

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN SOLUTIONS
ENERGY SERVICES MANAGER





HDRArchitecture.com<http://hdrarchitecture.com/>

703.518.7735 | c+txt 703.343.6758
HDR Architecture, Inc. | 1101 King Street, Suite 400 | Alexandria, VA 22314



From: Tim Johnson [mailto:timj at ctagroup.com]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:41 AM
To: bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: [Bldg-sim] IES-VE Evaluation

I am an eQuest user and am looking into IES-VE as an eventual replacement.  I am curious if anyone has been through a comparison like this before and would be willing to share their opinions.  I know there has been some discussion about this in the past, but it looks like most of the discussions are a few years old.  I want to make sure I am not discounting IES-VE for problems that have been fixed.

The draw of IES-VE is the compatibility with revit and its ability to do more than just energy or daylighting.  It seems like having all of the analysis tools in one program would be very useful.

From reading through the archives, the drawbacks of this program are the cost and that IES doesn't allow the user as much flexibility as eQuest of Energy Plus.  Can IES-VE generate the hourly reports that eQuest and Energy Plus can?

Please let me know what your thoughts are on these programs.  I also hear rumors of AutoDesk jumping into the mix with Project Vasari and Labs.  Does anyone know more about this?

Thanks,
Tim



Tim Johnson

CTA : EIT, LEED AP

DIRECT: 208.577.5645



CTA, Inc. |  www.ctagroup.com<http://www.ctagroup.com/>

1185 W. Grove St. – Boise, ID 83702

P: 208.336.4900 – F: 208.343.3531

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org/attachments/20101213/0ebbaf15/attachment.htm>