We haven't had much success using the Title-24 wizard within eQUEST. We get errors that we can't track that prevent the proposed design from demonstrating compliance. We've gotten simple buildings to work but none of the more complex ones that we usually construct. While we have contacted the eQUEST developers, we have not received any support to aid us in trouble shooting the errors. As a result, we have had to build a second model in EnergyPro so that we could demonstrate compliance.
What has other people's experience been? Have other firms also had problems with the Title-24 wizard? If so, do you use eQUEST in conjunction with EnergyPro? Do you do all the design assistance analysis AND the compliance analysis in EnergyPro? And then for CA projects there may also be a need to do Savings-By-Design calculations? Are people running into the same problem there with eQUEST?
Thanks for any insights you can provide.
Ellen Franconi, Ph.D., LEED AP
I ran into a similar problem myself and it was just a few days before the
deadline. Having received no support from the eQuest developers, I had to
rebuild the model in EnergyPro.
However, I would like to add here that the project I was dealing with has
a complex geometry- the whole building is curvilinear and has sloping roofs
and it helped that I had a 3D eQuest model. I had to print some 170 pages
(85 back to back) of LV-C Report and then input some 120 or so external
walls and roofs into EnergyPro. I was not at all happy doing that in a
matter of 1 day (and night).
In case my email gives an impression of being positive in terms of Title 24
compliance and using eQuest then I would like emphasize - I would never ever
use eQuest for Title 24 compliance.
Best regards,
Gaurav Mehta
Greetings I have just started using eQuest and am working on a relatively simple model (not Tilte 24).
I was considering EnergyPro but was persuaded to go with eQuest.
I am getting the impression from these dialogues (as well as others) over the past week that EnergyPro is a much better program.
Personally, I have been getting very frustrated with eQuest just in trying to model a basic building - 3 floors with different occupancys/construction; editing schedules, modeling existing HVAC systems.
Is that a general consensous?
Regards,
W. Peter Anderson, P.E
Peter:
What is the intent of your using an energy modeling
program? Title-24 only? Nationwide (or world wide)
energy analysis? Design loads?
Time and space does not allow all the implications
using either program tha should be understood.
EnergyPro is, in a nutshell, a California Title-24
compliance tool using DOE-2.1E, the last version
blessed by the Us Department of Energy. The front end
is designed for Title-24 inputs, with the Title-24
schedules and allowances.
If you want to do anything else, you can use the
"behind the screen" DOS (??) version of DOE-2.1E.
With eQuest, you can run on three levels of intricacy
and be running an advance to the DOE family, namily
DOE-2.2.
But there is NO WAY in God's earth you can run EITHER
of these programs (or TRACE or HAP) without some
TRAINING. Just because you can fly a cessna does not
mean you are ready for B-747 flying.
Where are you on the Planet? I am SURE there are some
people that can give this training, to help you begin
your journey. Plus this forum.
But it WOULD be nice if EnergyDesign Resources would
fund a hot line for eQuest questions. They could make
a MINT !!
Now back to work..on about 3 eQuest models in various
stages of progress.
Good hunting, Sir..
Peter,
I would second John's thoughts. There is a steep learning curve involved and
training definitely helps. There are so many complexities in each project
with each system and building one is trying to model that each project
results in learning something new. EnergyPro is good for Title 24 compliance
but for energy analysis and trying out different energy efficient measures
such as different glazing, wall assemblies, system types and for LEED,
eQuest is a great tool. We have had discussions earlier on this forum so
please see the archives.
Just to make my position clear- I love eQuest. Most of my work involves
using this software. There are so many things that one can do with
eQuest, that one can not do with other software- e.g. the 3D model of the
building is a great feature in eQuest. I can't imagine if I could have done
that complex geometry in EnergyPro itself. And it was a blessing in disguise
that I had an eQuest model for the project.
But then again, I will never use eQuest for Title 24 compliance.
Best regards,
Gaurav Mehta
Ellen,
We have bumped into bugs and hiccups doing Title 24 compliance runs in
eQUEST too. Two suggestions that I can offer:
If the compliance run completes normally and shows savings over the standard
but yet the building inexplicably does not comply, try reviewing the hours
out of throttling range in the standard run. It's likely that the system in
your base model meets the loads fine with few hours out of throttling but
that the model of the standard building has excessive hours out of
throttling range due to the translation of the ruleset. Make sure to select
the option for full reporting before you start the compliance run so that
you can identify where the loads are not met (SS-R is a good place to look).
You can also open the .INP for the standard run, create a new .PD2 for it,
and then dig into what the underlying problem is. The trick is to change
your original model so that it still reflects your proposed building, but
also limits the hours of throttling in the standard run.
Also, look for the .CAL file that is generated when you do T24 compliance
runs in eQUEST. If there are errors, they should be reported in there.
Supposedly there is a toggle in one of the .INI files in the eQUEST program
file directory that can increase the level of reporting to this .CAL file
too.
Best of luck.
Hwakong