REMRate merely takes the UA of the whole house and calculates energy use based on heating degree and cooling degree days. It also takes into account thermal gain from windows, infiltration and calculates internal energy use (lights, appliances, etc), but does not do a full 24-hr 365 day simulation.
<br><br>For frame walls with batt insulation, both REMRate and the eQuest Wizard will calculate the overall wall U-value based on their estimate of the ratio of framing material to insulation. For advanced construction techniques, I usually calculate average U-value the parallel path method. I then enter this as "continuous" insulation in either REMRate or eQuest, and then other relevant information, such as thermal mass. eQuest will take into account thermal mass, whereas I don't believe REMRate does. Sometimes masonry wall manufacturers will claim a higher than actual R-value due to the thermal mass properties of the wall. This is one case where eQuest will do a better job--, if entered properly. I don't believe REMRate takes thermal mass into account.
<br><br>Unfortunately though, eQuest can't be used for HERS ratings, so if that is your final goal, you're stuck with what you have.<br><br>Hope this helps,<br><br>~Karen~<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 17, 2008 2:57 PM, Christian Stalberg <
<a href="mailto:cstalberg@southern-energy.com">cstalberg@southern-energy.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="white" background="?ui=2&ik=f241c1e956&attid=0.0.1&disp=emb&view=att&th=1178965999300899" link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<img style="width: 0pt;" height="0" width="0">
<div>
<p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: navy;">I'm doing a modeling comparison in REM/Rate of two identical
houses except one has 8" insulated core masonry block walls whereas the second
has 4" wood stud insulated walls. Both walls end up having comparable U
values. REM/Rate shows negligible difference in energy usage. I am suspicious
that REM/Rate does not model the thermal bridging and mass features very well. Would
I be better served performing this comparison in DOE-2 or would the results not
be that much different?</span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>Bldg-sim mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org">Bldg-sim@lists.onebuilding.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org" target="_blank">
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/bldg-sim-onebuilding.org</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br><br>