<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Much like everything else in this world,
after you have done several compliance models it is repetitious and intrinsic.
Compliance modeling can literally take a couple hours in equest (after the
performance model is complete). Especially now I hear we don’t have
window placement to deal with anymore. The real trickery comes from
individual measure parametric runs and troubleshooting. If a program can
come out with compliance modeling and ECM runs at the click of a button, now
you’re talking.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Michael
Bejrowski [mailto:mbejrowski@hmg-associates.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Saturday, November 28, 2009
12:59 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">equest-users@lists.onebuilding.org</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [Equest-users] Equest
Base Model vs. ASHRAE 90.1 (Michael Bejrowski)</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I am currently testing out Hevacomp with a 30 day trial. I have
been tinkering with it for about 3-4 days now. The cad/geometry input is
much easier and faster than with equest. Window and door placement is
nice as well. It uses the cad interface for most of the model creation,
which is very intuitive. I have not gotten into the actual calculations
and system creation yet, so I will have to get back to you on the compliance
documentation and such... It seems like a nice software, but it is broken
up into two modules (a designer and a simulator), which for me can get kind of
confusing/overwhelming. One other cool thing about the Hevacomp package
is that it has an optional CFD package that works off of the model you
create. I will let you know how the rest of my trial period goes.
As of now, I am not convinced that the software is worth the initial and annual
costs of substituting for a free package like equest. <br>
<br>
Other packages out there that claim built-in ASHRAE 90.1 compliance tools are
TRACE and HAP (both mfr. created, Trane and Carrier, respectively). I
have tried Trace a bit and don't like it. I don't know anything about
HAP.<br>
<br>
One other ASHRAE related item I would like to add to this discussion is,
compliance with ASHRAE 62.1. eQUEST has either per area or per person
auto ventilation calcs, but 62.1 requires a combination. The folks at
Bentley (who created Hevacomp) claim that they will include this in their April
release, and TRACE and HAP already have it. It would be nice if equest
could include this as well.<br>
<br>
If equest could add auto-compliance with both of these ASHRAE Standards I think
there would be alot of satisfied simulators out there. If not, I would
start to fear that the creators have "given up on keeping up", which
will force me to find something new. These standards (driven by LEED,
etc...) have become so important in our designs that having a software tool
that simulates energy usage, verifies compliance with 90.1 and calculates
ventilation requirements per 62.1 are becoming major assets.<br>
<br>
Michael Bejrowski <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>