<BODY><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">Both eQUEST (eQ) and VisualDOE4 (VD4) are suitable for architects since they can build the building model of zones and envelope graphically. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Architects can use the default values, based on building type, for systems & plant.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>IIT-Chicago recently held 2-day seminars for eQ and VD4 from May 21 thru May 24.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In my opinion VD4 is easier to learn and use (quickly, knowledgeably and correctly) compared to eQ.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>eQ does a better job of building the architectural model by importing “.dwg” files whereas VD4 has limited capabilities using “.dxf” files but does the DOE2.1E modeling completely.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Not all of eQ’s graphical building model construction features are documented which is an obstacle for first time users.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">Both programs should also offer the alternative of creating the building model (envelope and zones) with forms similar to the present versions of TRACE and HAP.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>DOE2 input was designed this way.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Coordinates are required only for day-lighting and externally generated shadows.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The spreadsheets created by eQ (and TRACE) are useful for checking and revising by comparing records.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Global replace (like Excel) in eQ is not possible but it can be made in the “.inp” file as with all DOE2 interface programs such as VD4 and EnergyPro.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">eQ should allow the user to name the zones (and the surface naming system can be by eQ based on this) when creating them graphically.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The azimuth based naming system (zones should use the names on the architectural drawings) by eQ are difficult to identify and does not change when the building is rotated thru N, E, S & W.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Another limitation of eQ is that, once changes are made in the detailed edit mode, it is not possible to go back to the wizard and make architectural changes again.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">I recently tried to create an eQ model of a large DOE2.1E project file.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The numerous assumptions made by the eQ wizard are a nuisance.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I had to make changes through the forms and spreadsheets to match the numbers in DOE2.1E, and then made the mistake of going back to the wizard to make architectural changes.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Hours of effort just disappeared.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>On a real project architects are always making changes during the course of the project.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The eQ default assumptions might be useful to architects who are only interested in the building model but have to complete the systems, plant and economics to see the bottom line results of energy savings.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">Showing energy code compliance and energy savings for LEED are dependent on computer programs, the way computer programs are used, and on the energy engineering competence level of the people using the programs.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Besides certifying energy programs, program developers should document how to use their programs for different energy conservation options and have the procedures certified. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Building energy analysts submitting projects for code compliance and LEED should also be certified.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The DOE2.1E still appears to be the standard reference energy analysis program in North America and programs by other vendors (IESVE) might have to be checked against it.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">The eQ seminar in May was sold out but VD4 had limited attendance.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I think the VD4 interface is an excellent program because of the way it is organized – simple and obvious especially to previous DOE2.1E users. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The learning curve is short.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Would there be interest in a 3-day VD4 training seminar from Aug 13 thru 15 that emphasized LEED certification issues?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">The proposed seminar could also include 1.5 hours per day in the use of DOE2.1E directly using templates of project case studies demonstrating the energy cost savings for different combinations and operations of systems & plant for different types and formats of utility rates (ComEd, ConEd, PG&E, etc)?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The DOE2 training would include creating “.bin” weather data from raw NCDC data, generating weather tables, charts, HDD/CDD etc., from the “.bin” files, transferring hourly Fortran variable output data to Excel and performing additional analysis for MRT, PV, CC condensate recovery, etc. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>V. Thomas<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: Harvey Bryan <Harvey.Bryan@asu.edu> <BR>Date: Friday, June 22, 2007 1:56 pm <BR>Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Energy Modeling Software Recommendations for Architects <BR>To: BLDG-SIM@gard.com <BR><BR>> John, <BR>> <BR>> I also agree, Mr. Des Rosiers should take Marlin Addison's <BR>> Building Sim class (which has mostly an eQuest focus) at ASU. It <BR>> is not that far from his office downtown Phoenix office. <BR>> <BR>> Harvey Bryan <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> From: BLDG-SIM@gard.com on behalf of Aulbach, John <BR>> Sent: Fri 6/22/2007 10:37 AM <BR>> To: BLDG-SIM@gard.com <BR>> Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Energy Modeling Software Recommendations for <BR>> Architects <BR>> <BR>> I, Sir, beg to differ with eQuest needing "infinite data." The <BR>> list of requirements you just stated shows me you need a great <BR>> deal of input as it is. <BR>> <BR>> eQuest can read an Auto Cad .DWG layout into the tracing function <BR>> (in the Design Development Wizard). One can then trace each floor <BR>> and its zones as accurately as you can. <BR>> <BR>> After having done "raw" DOE-2.1 A thru E since 1984, eQuest is a <BR>> blessing, although not perfect (we need solar water heating added). <BR>> <BR>> But I am currently doing a LEED bound new museum, with 4 floors <BR>> that are not anywhere close to the same footprint, and with <BR>> varying atrium highs. I expect the entire model to be done, zones, <BR>> HVAC, utility rates, etc, with 60 man hours. And I didn't trace <BR>> Auto Cad files either, rather free hand traced them. <BR>> <BR>> I find it very helpful. <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> From: BLDG-SIM@gard.com [mailto:BLDG-SIM@gard.com] On Behalf Of <BR>> Robert Des Rosiers <BR>> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:05 AM <BR>> To: BLDG-SIM@gard.com <BR>> Subject: [BLDG-SIM] Energy Modeling Software Recommendations for <BR>> Architects <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> All: <BR>> <BR>> Of course there are many software options for building performance <BR>> modeling. As an architecture studio we are concerned more w/ <BR>> developing form, assemblies, daylighting models, water use, etc... <BR>> to develop good building practice and are less interested in <BR>> getting overwhelmed by all the data required by software like <BR>> eQuest. I noticed that the DOE is developing an EnergyPlus plug- <BR>> in for SketchUp which sounds promising. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> What software is recommended for developing a simple but useful in- <BR>> house design tool for schematic building performance modeling? <BR>> Something that allows us to modify and evaluate the effects of <BR>> building orientation, form, fenestrations as well as insulation <BR>> values, mechanical systems, lighting, etc... Preferably something <BR>> that simulates performance from a 3D model (like SKP) not infinite <BR>> fields of data inputs (like eQuest). <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Robert Des Rosiers, LEED AP <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> STUDIO MA Architecture & Environmental Design <BR>> <BR>> www.studioma.com <BR>> <BR>> desrosiers@studioma.com <BR>> <BR>> 602 251 3800 fax 251 3100 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ================== <BR>> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed <BR>> to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe <BR>> from this mailing list send a blank message to <BR>> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM <BR>> ================== <BR>> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed <BR>> to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe <BR>> from this mailing list send a blank message to <BR>> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM <BR>> <BR>> ffffffffffffffffff <BR>> You received this e-mail because you are subscribed <BR>> to the BLDG-SIM@GARD.COM mailing list. To unsubscribe <BR>> from this mailing list send a blank message to <BR>> BLDG-SIM-UNSUBSCRIBE@GARD.COM <BR>> <BR>> </BODY>