Hi,everyone
I want to invesitigate nature ventiation's impaction on building energy.However,nature ventilation feature has many restrictions in eQUEST.So I consider coupling DOE2 with CFD software such as fluent to analysis the energy saving potential of nature ventilation.Any suggestion?
Thanks you!
------------------
Yongqing Zhao
Changsha Green Building & Energy Saving Technology CO.,LTD
NO.438,Shaoshan Road,Changsha,Hunan,China
Telephone:13574805636
Email:zhaoyongqing1987 at 126.com
503271081 at qq.com
Yongqing,
One way you might be able to accomplish this is if your CFD program
reads/writes input/output to/from unencrypted text files. You could process
inputs from eQUEST's .inp file to something which the CFD program will
interpret. Once the CFD analysis is done, you might open the original .inp
and the CFD output text file in Excel, and update the relevant entities
(CFMs, schedules, etc) in the .inp file. A bit of VBA might make that part
easy. Of course, I'm presenting a 30k feet view, but hopefully this gives
one possible headstart.
Best of luck.
CJ
I think there's such a large difference in computational intensity (?) between DOE-2 (or
any simulation program that models a thermal zone as a single node) and CFD that coupling
the two together does not make sense to me, even if it could be done. I think you're much
better off looking into coupling DOE-2 to a multi-zone air-flow program like CONTAM or
COMIS. Even then, you have to exchange data back and forth at each time step, since air
flows and zone air temperatures are so interconnected. I spent more than a year in
coupling EnergyPlus to COMIS back in 200-2002.
It would probably be easier to do in DOE-2 SYSTEMS, but would still require changes to the
source code to call the airflow program at each time step. Not trivial and not a "work
around". Thoughts from others would be welcomed.
Joe
Joe Huang
White Box Technologies, Inc.
346 Rheem Blvd., Suite 205A
Moraga CA 94556
yjhuang at whiteboxtechnologies.com
http://weather.whiteboxtechnologies.com for simulation-ready weather data
(o) (925)388-0265
(c) (510)928-2683
"building energy simulations at your fingertips"
Hello Yongqing:
I think I agree with Joe on this one.
There?s a BIG mismatch between the computation time for a simulation like DOE-2 and a 3D CFD simulation of a modestly complicated building. We found this to be true in the analysis of the Buddhist temple that was simulated with CFD and DOE-2 back in 2006 (see reference below and/or thesis). What we ended up doing was looking at specific days, then extrapolating to the rest of the year. The CFD did give some nice color contour plots that looked pretty groovy when we animated them.
I suspect that you find similar issues even today (i.e., 10 years later).
Jeff
REF: Sreshthaputra, A., Haberl, J., Andrews, M. 2004. ?Improving Building Design and Operation of a Thai Buddhist Temple,? Energy and Buildings, Vol. 36, pp. 481-494. ESL-PA-04-06-01 (June).
8=! 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=( 8=) 8=() 8=) 8=| 8=) :=') 8=) 8=?
Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E.inactive,FASHRAE,FIBPSA,......jhaberl at tamu.edu
Professor........................................................................Office Ph: 979-845-6507
Department of Architecture............................................Lab Ph:979-845-6065
Energy Systems Laboratory...........................................FAX: 979-862-2457
Texas A&M University...................................................77843-3581
College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..............................URL:www.esl.tamu.edu
8=/ 8=) :=) 8=) ;=) 8=) 8=() 8=) :=) 8=) 8=! 8=) 8=? 8=) 8=0