Hello all,
First and foremost, happy Cinco de Mayo! I have a question about how eQUEST imports WINDOW5 files and I am hoping the group can provide some guidance:
Is there a way for eQUEST to import the frame data from a WINDOW5 report, or does the user need to separately change the frame conductance?
I imported two WINDOW5 files (same glass, different frame conductance) into eQUEST fine and set up a parametric run (component type: window; category: basic specs; keyword: glass type; Value: 'imported W5 file'). The problem is that the resulting energy consumption was the same.
I've attached the two WINDOW5 files and a very simplified eQUEST model that shows how I set up my parametric runs. Regarding the W5 files: on line 9 it gives the frame conductance in metric units.
Thanks in advance for your help!
Kind regards,
Alex Krickx
Alex,
The window import within eQuest does not include the frame effects. This
needs to be specified directly within the model. It's a bit misleading
because you can only generate the report from within the window tab
(compared to the glazing system tab). Hopefully this will change in
future versions of either eQuest or Window...
Cassie
Thanks Cassie,
I just got an email from someone at LBL saying the same thing. Since this is the case, do people see a big benefit of importing the WINDOW5 files rather than manually entering the COG U-factors and SC? It seems that since no one file can be used for parametric window analysis (glass and frame) is it still useful to have the COG WINDOW5 file? I could imagine that for a daylighting analysis it's important to know all of the specific glazing properties, but is the same true thermal/energy analysis using eQUEST?
Cheers,
Alex
Alex,
Yes, it is still better to import the glazing using Window5 data. This is because eQuest assumes a generic (ASHRAE defined) transmission curve (for different angles of incidence) when using the simplified approach. In reality, this transmission curve is variable for different types of glass, especially if you're incorporating low-e coatings. In the end, you're generally not accounting for a fair amount of your fa?ade improvement if using the simplified approach to model low-e coatings.
Cassie