Hi,
What software do you suggest for Modeling Commercial buildings?
I live in Michigan work for a company doing energy audits from 5000-120000 square feet.
Energy Plus -over my head
equest-CA defaults
DOE 2.1 or DOE 2.2 ?
Would like a free option and one that I have to buy?
Thank you
Mike
eQUEST is free and is DOE 2.2
It has CA defaults, but does that matter?
Others are Trace, HAP.
Here's a list:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/alpha_list.cfm
Vikram Sami, LEED AP
Mike,
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you need LEED or
Ashrae 90.1 analysis then DOE, Equest and E+ seem to be the only ones
that handle the waterside hvac in the prescribed manner. They are all free.
TAS now has an A90.1 tool. It looks easy to use but as I haven't used it
I can't speak authoritativley.
I heard of users modelling for A90.1 with alternative tools whilst
handling the waterside with seperate calculations. Of these tools IES is
probably the easiest and fastest simulating. If you do not require code
compliance I would probably recommend IES as the commercial option for
large buildings.
I hope that this helps.
Chris
Latest version of this that's been posted here a few times. What would be great is if developers of other tools like IES and TRNSYS would fill this out too.
Scott Hintz, LEED(r) AP BD+C
BLDG-SIM readers should be aware the PDF attached to the previous e-mail contains outdated and factually incorrect information for at least one of the software tools listed.
When a document like this is posted by a software vendor, it should only include data for that vendor?s own tool. It should omit all other data since a software vendor cannot vouch for the accuracy of information about features and capabilities of competitor?s tools.
James Pegues
Is the document now updated?
Saleh
All:
If anyone is curious as to whether program X or Y is better for a specific modeling conundrum ? here [bldg-sim] is a great place to ask, and that?s probably the most advise-able approach over relying on any dated list, for reasons that follow.
Any such ?YES/NO? formatted list is inherently going to misrepresent features available between different software tools. MANY items require more than a one word response to fairly represent the programs? comparative capabilities.
Here are some black & white corrections regarding only eQuest, which I?m most familiar with. THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW, but should prove the point that such lists are bound to be misleading:
? Load Design Calculation: No ? Yes, based on other line items in the list, I assume this means ?produces loads that can be used for design purposes.?
? Max Zones: 1024 ? 4000
? Accepts CAD input files/gbXML: Yes ? Strictly yes to both, but people would be misled to believe importing gbXML is a time-efficient idea in eQuest? (some purportedly have had more luck)
? User Modeling Guide: *blank* ? Available online at doe2 website: http://www.doe2.com/equest/
? Telephone and Email Help: $450/10 hrs ? Huh? How about free to anyone subscribing at the onebuilding.org lists - that applies to any of these software tools by the way? If there?s an official hotline available, I?m unaware of it ? does this correspond to someone?s training class?
? Max Number of Lighting & Equipment Loads per Zone: 5 ? Seems misleading? Up to 5 distinct Lighting and 5 distinct equipment loads, with distinct scheduling for each may be defined for each zone?
? The following items are left blank in the table but are explicitly or indirectly model-able within eQuest, sometimes with restrictions:
o Demand control ventilation
o Energy (heat) Recovery (various options)
o Chilled beam systems (limited)
o Displacement ventilation design can be accounted for, but eQuest does not perform CFD
o Active dehumidification of various flavors can be modeled on airside systems.
? ?Chilled? & ?Condenser water reset? are left blank? reset temp controls can be defined for hot, chilled and condenser loops if that?s what we?re getting at?
I?ve decided not to discuss which items I think are completely arbitrary/useless in a comparison - the reader should probably decide or else hire someone qualified to decide for them =). Any finite list of items selected (certainly one this short) will inevitably appear to favor one program over another, so I?m also choosing to not discuss what?s missing on the list.
Disclaimer: Our office actively uses Trace, HAP and eQuest among other software tools ? I have no vested interests (financial or otherwise) in any of the respective developers? The only agenda I am pushing for is constructive/fair comparisons where they happen, and I?m doing so on my own time. On a related note, I am also personally disappointed when discussions like this occur and individuals rely on their email headers to explain who they represent.
~Thanks,
NICK CATON, E.I.T.
Jim,
Please update this list for HAP. The original version of this list created by Marlin Addison was posted a few months ago (March) and engineers asked us (Trane CDS) if some of the information on TRACE was accurate. Obviously it was out of date so we updated only the TRACE information and even forwarded it to you, Jim, recommending you update the HAP information. I should think 3 months is more than enough time to update this list.
Yes, also, the eQuest information should be updated too. Now that this is on the Bldg-sim list it is in the public domain and should be treated as such; free to be updated by anyone. The DOE-II information should be up to date as it's no longer under active development.
Let the facts speak for themselves. Let's share the capabilities and information that exist today and let the modeling community decide. That is more than fair and honest. My previous email also suggested adding IES and TRNSYS to this list. Energy Plus may be a good addition also.
Scott Hintz, LEED(r) AP BD+C