[Virtual-sim] [Bldg-sim] IES-VE Energy

[Carol Gardner]

It can be better because you only have to do the renaming process once 
and then your done whereas you are going to have to do the rerunning way 
more than once: at least 4 orientation runs, a run for each energy 
efficiency measure, a run each time you realize you forgot to do the 
____(fill it in). You are way further ahead using eQUEST. I'm not sure 
what you mean by an interactive 3D viewer, I find eQUEST's 3D views 
really helpful but I get the impression you are talking about something 
else. At any rate, I have used IESVE and E+ and I think they both excel 
in ways that eQUEST doesn't but IESVE is just too expensive for a single 
shop person like me and E+ is just too slow so far. I don't rule them 
out for use when I'm rich and they're faster, though.

Carol

Paul Carey wrote:
>
> Karen and all,
>
> I’m confused here....how can a program that takes up to 3 hours to 
> rename the zones but then takes minutes to get results, be better than 
> something that takes a few minutes to rename, but then takes a couple 
> of hours to run? They are about the same surely? The only advantage I 
> can see is that further iteration might be quicker in the former 
> assuming your geometry doesn’t change.
>
> I have been using various modelling tools such as IES VE, TAS and 
> DesignBuilder as well as a few other tools when necessary (Fluent & 
> CHAM CFD etc) since the late 90s. IES is good, it’s quick to produce 
> models and excellent for dynamic natural ventilation design. TAS is 
> better at the HVAC and natural ventilation design aspects than IES and 
> I think it’s more accurate, but it’s front end still lacks some of the 
> functionality of other tools. Hopefully that is being addressed by 
> their links with Bentley. My colleague, Chris Yates (also on this 
> list) has become a bit of a wiz with the sketchup plug in for IES and 
> this appears to be much better than relying on the gbxml output of revit.
>
> DesignBuilder is the tool that I use most now in both SBEM (UK 
> regulations format) and EnergyPlus for dynamic modelling. It takes a 
> lot of the best features of both IES and TAS and then adds some other 
> nice touches in terms of data application to speed up the process of 
> setting up your models. The only sticking point with it is that 
> EnergyPlus is painfully slow. The main thing I’d like is for that to 
> be changed and improved. Carrying out simulations with all the 
> lighting controls and calculated natural ventilation turned on for 
> buildings with over 100 zones is nigh on impossible as I don’t fancy 
> leaving it running for a week or two. I have to carry out major 
> sub-division of models or calculate individual zones then schedule up 
> the vent based on those results or just go with scheduled vent. 
> Thankfully the reporting methodology from DesignBuilder is pretty 
> good, though I have to admit I quite like some of the report wizard 
> output by equest.
>
> The main advantage of the commercial tools as opposed to the free 
> tools such as DOE and equest, is that they use an interactive 3d model 
> to input the building and that you can interrogate much more easily 
> for post-processing. This means you gain an understanding of the 
> building form much more easily and many link with other tools for 
> further analysis. I like some of what equest has to offer, but I much 
> prefer the interactive model building tools that IES, TAS and 
> DeisgnBuilder offer. They just make it...easier...and generally 
> quicker and more efficient when you consider the other studies that 
> you can do (e.g daylighting, CFD, etc).
>
> In terms of asking for changes – having worked for IES (and with many 
> other developers), the stock answer even to their own team was...yes 
> it’s on the list. My guess is that will still be the same.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
> 	
>
> Dr Paul Carey
>
> Director
>
> Low Carbon Energy Assessor
>
> 	
>
> Zero Energy Design Ltd
>
> 10A Portland Place
>
> 2-22 Mottram Road
>
> Stalybridge
>
> SK15 3AD
>
> T: 0161 3386200
>
> F: 0161 3031281
>
> M: 0789 4098012
>
> 	
>
> E: paul at zed-uk.com
>
> W: www.zed-uk.com
>
> 	
>
> 	
>
> Certificate No: GB16647
>
> 	
>
> Certificate No: GB16646
>
> 	
>
> Please carefully consider the environment before you print this email.
>
> Company Registered in England & Wales. Registration No. 5815068
>
> Registered Address: 10A Portland Place, 2-22 Mottram Road, 
> Stalybridge, SK15 3AD, UK.
>
> _Privilege and Confidentiality Notice:___
>
> This email and any attachments to it are intended only for the party 
> to whom they are addressed. They may contain privileged and/or 
> confidential information. If you have received this transmission in 
> error, please notify the sender immediately and delete any digital 
> copies and destroy any paper copies. Thank you.
>
> *From:* bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org 
> [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] *On Behalf Of *Karen 
> Walkerman
> *Sent:* 25 February 2009 23:06
> *To:* Varkie C Thomas
> *Cc:* Varkie Thomas; bldg-sim at lists.onebuilding.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bldg-sim] IES-VE Energy
>
> Varkie,
>
> I disagree with your statement that eQuest is not appropriate for 
> large buildings because you can't change space names to match 
> architectural names in wizard mode, and the inputs created from the 
> wizard aren't appropriate for all spaces. The wizards are called 
> "Schematic Design Wizard" and "Design Development Wizard" for a 
> reason. They aren't desinged for detail, they're designed to help you 
> make big design decisions quickly. If you want the building to be 
> modeled as closely as possible to the final design, this takes some 
> extra work. Yeah, re-naming spaces is a pain, but at 5 seconds per 
> space, re-naming 1,000 spaces takes about 1.5 hours, well worth the 
> effort. If you re-name zones too, maybe it's 3 hours total.
>
> Yeah, some things about eQuest are clumsy, like why does it create one 
> underground wall (and floor) consturction for each surface, when only 
> 4-5 are needed for the whole model? Why does it re-create occupancy, 
> lighting and micellaneous equipment schedules for each shell, even if 
> the use is the same? And why does it create tons of duplicate 
> infiltration schedules? BUT... this takes an hour or two to clean up, 
> and then you have a decently flexible model that gives you reasonable 
> results in a matter of minutes. Versus a program that takes 1-2 hours 
> to run. I've done a few LEED projects in Trace700 and it's painful 
> modeling a design case and four (rotated) base cases at 1-2 hours 
> each, especially if you then find you've left anything out.
>
> I definitely agree that there are some major things missing in all 
> modeling programs, which is why I'm putting together a "Master Wish 
> List" of modeler's desires. If you have things that you would like to 
> be able to model, things you'd like to be able to model more easily, 
> or things that you can do that you feel are very important, please 
> send me your list. I currently have contact info for about 10 people 
> representing various simulation programs who want to know what we 
> want! Now's our chance to have some input!
>
> --
> Karen
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Varkie C Thomas <thomasv at iit.edu 
> <mailto:thomasv at iit.edu>> wrote:
>
> Graham,
>
> The comment below stands out which might also be the reason for not 
> using EnergyPlus on large projects.
>
> - DOE-2.2 runs much quicker. For comparable 30,000 m2 buildings I 
> would say DOE-2 runs in 1 minute and IES VE with an APhvac network 
> probably 1-2 hours. If you through in Macroflo it probably adds 
> another hour of simulation time. As a result *iterative trial and 
> error debugging* has to be done on a 1-2 week period.
>
> Large building projects (1 to 10 million sqft) with up to 1,000 zones 
> and 70 systems ranging in size from 10,000 to 200,000 cfm (pardon the 
> English units - the USA & the Bahamas are not going to switch to 
> metric) require several iterative runs to get the input errors fixed. 
> Breaking up the project into small pieces is not a solution since it 
> affects demand costs, central plants and other components. I have 
> worked on such projects using DOE2.1E and TRACE600/700.
>
> eQUEST is not suitable for such projects either. One of its 
> limitations is that you cannot enter the space names shown on 
> architectural drawings. Others include assuming all the input data and 
> making all the decisions for you when you enter the type of building. 
> 1000 zones means 1000 infiltration schedules and multiples of other 
> building components. It is unrealistic to check all the input created 
> by eQUEST for errors. Fixing everything to match the exact project 
> data has to be done in detailed edit. Detailed edit means you lose 
> access to the graphical method of creating the building model from 
> AutoCAD drawings which is the main benefit of this program.
>
> Varkie
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1971 - Release Date: 02/25/09 06:40:00
>
>