Dear all,

I have been thinking about the use of dynamic energy simulation tool (e.g.
whole building simulation tool, such as E+, ESP-r, TRNSYS, SPARK, etc).

The usage area of the tool would be classified into two, academic area and
practical area.

But I really want to hear your high-level opinion on the practical areas.

The typical usage of energy simulation program in practice could be listed
as follows (as far as I know),

1. To get energy efficiency incentives, such as LEED certificate.

2. To compare alternatives (wall material, window, building design) in
architect point of view.

3. To compare alternatives (system type and configuration, COP, etc.)
in mechanical engineer point of view.

4. To develop energy efficient control strategies and to test DDC
controllers. (BEMS and emulation; maybe electric engineering field or ??)

5. To identify the system mal-function (such as AHU) comparing between
?predicted? energy and ?actual? energy in real-time. (BEMS, maybe
electric engineering field??)

6. Building Simulator: which is used to training building managers or
operators or learners (students) in HVAC system operation realistically
(such as flight simulator)

7. To ?JUST? verify Building behavior (HVAC operation, energy
consumption, etc) over the whole year period with different whether
conditions in IWEC and TMY. (to see "what could be")

I think that the large portion of usage would be #1.

But, the problem have been arisen due to the uncertainties and ?too many?
required input values of dynamic simulation tools.

As far as I know in South Korea, many people say ?these tools are not
suited to assess building energy performance with acceptable speed. And
there is no evidence it is helpful to achieve energy reduction actually.
Something are missing. We (AEC) do not want to do full dynamic simulation.
We just need a tool that is simple and faster and reliable?.

These days, the government is willing to move their direction which
requires architects just to submit a building energy analysis report using
simple ISO toolkit.

(many of my colleague agree to need of the normative performance method,
ISO 13790 and DIN 18599.)

Now, in this situation, we have to rethink about the purpose of doing full
dynamic energy simulation (E+, ESP-r, TRNSYS, etc) with practicality in
mind.

I think that its usage would be more suitable for #4, #5, #6 rather than
#1, #2, #3. Because #1,#2,#3 can be evaluated using ISO standards with
acceptable speed and accuracy.

(but I do not know well about the usage in the fields of #4, #5, #6)

I?m waiting your comments on my thoughts.

p.s. this topic was discussed in E+ user group before, and the contents are
slightly revised for better discussions.

Best Regards,
Deuk-Woo, Kim