Energyplus Vs Equest

A Comparison of EnergyPlus and eQUEST
Whole Building Energy Simulation Results for a
Medium Sized Office Building
by
Hema Sree Rallapalli
A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
Approved November 2010 by the

Graduate Supervisory Committee:
Harvey Bryan, Chair

Marlin Addison
T. Agami Reddy
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
December 2010
ABSTRACT
With the increasing interest in energy efficient building design,
whole building energy simulation programs are increasingly employed in
the design process to help architects and engineers determine which
design alternatives save energy and are cost effective. DOE-2 is one of
the most popular programs used by the building energy simulation
community. eQUEST is a powerful graphic user interface for the DOE-2
engine. EnergyPlus is the newest generation simulation program under
development by the U.S. Department of Energy which adds new modeling
features beyond the DOE-2’s capability.
The new modeling capabilities of EnergyPlus make it possible to
model new and complex building technologies which cannot be modeled
by other whole building energy simulation programs. On the other hand,
EnergyPlus models, especially with a large number of zones, run much
slower than those of eQUEST. Both eQUEST and EnergyPlus offer their
own set of advantages and disadvantages. The choice of which building
simulation program should be used might vary in each case. The purpose
of this thesis is to investigate the potential of both the programs to do the
whole building energy analysis and compare the results with the actual
building energy performance. For this purpose the energy simulation of a
fully functional building is done in eQUEST and EnergyPlus and the
results were compared with utility data of the building to identify the
i
degree of closeness with which simulation results match with the actual
heat and energy flows in building.
It was observed in this study that eQUEST is easy to use and quick
in producing results that would especially help in the taking critical
decisions during the design phase. On the other hand EnergyPlus aids in
modeling complex systems, producing more accurate results, but
consumes more time. The choice of simulation program might change
depending on the usability and applicability of the program to our need in
different phases of a building’s lifecycle. Therefore, it makes sense if a
common front end is designed for both these simulation programs thereby
allowing the user to select either the DOE-2.2 engine or the EnergyPlus
engine based upon the need in each particular case.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Prof. Marlin
Addison, for his dedication, keen interest and encouragement despite the
obstacles we had to face throughout this project. I want to specially thank
Prof. Harvey Bryan for giving me numerous opportunities to explore the
field through research projects and for his relentless support throughout
my time at ASU. I also want to thank Prof. Agami Reddy for his inputs
from time to time, and Late Prof. David Tait, because of whom I was
privileged to pursue this program.
I am glad to have shared the space at Sim Lab with my friends from
ASU Building Design, Architecture & Planning programs. That wonderful
time will always be missed.
Finally, I want to mention my best friends Sinduri and Surekha for
their constant support and words of encouragement throughout my
journey of life. Last but not the least I want to thank my parents and
brother for believing in me and letting me pursue my dreams.
Thank you all.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................vii
CHAPTER
1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1
Introduction .............................................................................. 1
Purpose and Objectives .......................................................... 2
Methodology ……………….………………………………...... 4
Scope and Limitations …….………………………………...... 5
Computer Configuration ................................................…... 6
2 LITERATURE STUDY ............................................................... 7
Introduction .............................................................................. 7
Building Energy Simulation ..................................................... 8
Simulation Tools and Comparison……..…….…..................11
EnergyPlus .................................................................…...13
eQUEST ...................................................................…..... 22
Runtime Comparison ................................................…..... 38
3 ENERGY MODELING.............................................................. 40
Building Description ............................................................... 40
Energy Modeling in eQUEST ................................................ 44
iv
CHAPTER
Energy modeling in EnergyPlus.....................................…...45
Creating Custom Weather Files........................................... 48
Simulations ….…………………………………….….…….......43
4 RESULTS COMPARISON....................................................... 49
Simulation Programs Output ................................................. 49
Comparison of Results .......................................................... 49
Observations and Recommendations ……………………....56
5 CONCLUSION ........................................................... …………64
REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 66
APPENDIX
A ZONE SUMMARY ................................................................ 68
B MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTIONS ................................. 73
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Comparison of Software Tools ................................................ 33
2. Capabilities of EnergyPlus over DOE 2 ................................. 34
3. Zone Areas and Properties .................................................... 41
4. Comparison of Electric consumption ...................................... 50
5. Comparison of Electric consumption with utility data .............. 53
6. Comparison of Gas consumption with utility data ................... 54
7. Zone Summary ....................................................................... 68
8. Glass Properties ..................................................................... 73
9. Material Properties ................................................................... 73
10. Construction Layers ............................................................... 74
11. Construction ............................................................................ 75
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Energy Flow in Buildings ........................................................... 7
2. Structure of EnergyPlus ......................................................... 15
3. Work flow of DesignBuilder ..................................................... 19
4. Screen shot of Sketch Up with Open Studio plug-in ............... 21
5. Energy model in eQUEST ...................................................... 40
6. Energy model in DesignBuilder ................................................ 40
7. Screenshot of eQUEST .......................................................... 44
8. Screenshot of DesignBuilder .................................................. 46
9. Screenshot of Open Studio ..................................................... 47
10. Screenshot of IDF Editor ......................................................... 48
11. Electricity Consumption for Lighting ....................................... 51
12. Electricity Consumption for Equipment ................................... 51
13. Electricity Consumption for Space Cooling ............................. 52
14. Electricity Consumption for Pumps ......................................... 52
15. Electricity Consumption for Ventilation Fans........................... 53
16. Comparison of Electric Consumption with actual data ........... 54
17. Comparison of Gas Consumption with actual data ................. 55
vii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Energy simulation tools are increasingly used for analysis of energy
performance of buildings and the thermal comfort of their occupants.
Today, there are many building performance simulation programs with
different user interfaces and different simulation engines that are capable
of these analyses. Given the significant variety of such simulation tools, it
is crucial to understand limitations of the tools and the complexity of such
simulations. The reliability of data exchange and straightforward, user-
friendly interfaces are major aspects of the practical usage of these tools.
Due to the huge amount of data that is to be input and the availability of
rich 3D geometry rendering engines, effective data exchange and
software interfaces are crucial to enable faster and reliable performance of
the simulation tools..
DOE-2 is one of the most popular programs used by the building
simulation community. With today’s PC computing power, a DOE-2 energy
model normally takes less than a minute or couple of minutes in case of
large buildings to complete an annual simulation run. DOE-2’s
computational efficiency results from its hour by hour calculations and the
sequential software structure of LOADS-SYSTEMS-PLANT-ECONOMICS
which does not solve the building envelope thermal dynamics with the
HVAC system operating performance simultaneously. EnergyPlus is a
new generation simulation program built upon the best features of DOE- 2
1
and BLAST, and adds new modeling features beyond the two programs.
With DOE-2’s limitations in modeling emerging technologies, more
modelers, especially in academia and research community, have begun
using EnergyPlus for their simulation needs. EnergyPlus does sub-hourly
calculations and integrates the load and system dynamic performance into
the whole building energy balance calculations which can provide more
accurate simulation results but runs much slower compared with DOE-2.
Both the programs offer their own set of advantages and disadvantages.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the capabilities of these two
programs by developing energy models of a same building with similar
simulation settings in both the software and comparing their results.
Purpose and Objectives
For the past 50 years, a wide variety of building energy simulation
programs have been developed, enhanced and are in use throughout the
building energy simulation community. These building energy simulation
programs have different features and various capabilities such as: general
geometry modeling; zone internal loads; building envelope properties,
daylighting and solar; infiltration, ventilation and multi-zone airflow;
renewable energy systems; electrical systems and equipment; HVAC
systems; HVAC equipment; environmental emissions; economic
evaluation; climate data availability, results reporting and validation.
2
Nearly all energy analysis tools have been targeted at mechanical
engineers and code compliance specialists. Architects need tools that
provide qualitative or “order of magnitude” feedback in a highly graphical
form to show clients.
Software tools that integrate graphical results with context-sensitive
guidance are likely to have the most appeal for architects. In contrast,
engineers need software tools that can be used in both the conceptual
design stage, when little is known about the building; as well as in the final
design stages, when most project details have been finalized. Software,
such as eQUEST, and DesignBuilder, that combine simplified input
wizards with detailed simulation tools have the most potential to meet
these differing needs at various stages of the design process.
Certain programs are designed to work for individual building
components like the wall, roof, building form and fenestration. There are
also tools which are specifically used for one or more parameters like
lighting, heat transfer, wind, and shade. When a building is modeled for a
same climate in different simulation programs, the performance of the
building shown as the output of the simulation run is expected to be same,
but in actual they exhibit a difference in output. Hence, there is need for
comparison of output, and analyze by what percent they are deviating.
The objectives of this study are as follows:
• To understand eQUEST and EnergyPlus software.
3
• Model the building similarly in both the software, by closely
mapping the input parameters
• Compare the results of both the programs with measured
utility data and identify discrepancies.
• Document the observations from the project.
Methodology
The purpose of the research is to perform energy simulation of a
fully functional building for identifying the degree of closeness with which
simulation results generated by two different simulation tools match with
actual heat and energy flows. The case of a medium sized office building,
in Albuquerque, NM has been used for this purpose. Further the analysis
has been extended to study the energy savings for a set of ECMs.
The methodology used in the project has the following steps:
• Explore EnergyPlus and eQUEST programs.
• Data collection about the office building
• Preparation of schedules for occupancy, lighting and
computers using actual data
• Understand the inputs parameters in both the tools
• Develop a detailed building energy simulation model of the
case using eQUEST and EnergyPlus.
• Modification of weather data file required for simulation using
on-site measurements
4
• Comparison of results derived from both the simulation
programs with the utility data of the building.
Scope and Limitations
As different simulation programs may have different software
architecture, different algorithms to model building and energy systems,
and require different user inputs even to describe the same building
envelope or HVAC system component; it is an enigmatic task to develop
an identical energy model with two simulation programs. To get as close
as possible for an apple-to-apple comparison of both the simulation
programs, they will be run on a common basis with:
• The same building and energy systems and their control
strategies
• Studied for the same simulation run period
• The same or as close as possible simulation settings: time
step, calculation algorithm.
• The same computer with same hardware and software
configurations
Evaluation of the two programs in question will be based on
the following:
Usability - Import/export capabilities; the user interface; how much
time is spent for learning and training; effort required in updating
model / conducting parametric studies and the simulation run time.

5
Functionality - The detail of comprehensiveness of geometric and
system modeling;
Reliability - Consistency and accuracy of results
Prevalence - Available documentation, user support and pricing
and licensing
The analysis in this project is limited to the study of the
results. In depth analysis of the reasons for deviation based on the
structure/algorithms of the programs are not done in this project.
The degree of instrumentation in this project is also limited.
Computer configuration
The simulation runs are done on a personal laptop computer with
Intel Core 2 Duo processor of 3 GHZ and 2 GB of RAM on Microsoft
Windows Vista operating system with SP2.
6
Chapter 2
LITERATURE STUDY
Introduction
Buildings are complex physical objects. They interact with their
immediate surroundings while trying to provide a comfortable living and
working environment to the occupants. The way a building behaves and
performs is affected by the choices made in selecting building materials
and components while designing the building envelope (walls, windows,
roofs), and different systems (lighting, HVAC, etc.). Buildings provide
comfortable indoor environment conditions like thermal, visual, and
acoustical by consuming energy.
Figure1. Energy flow and concepts in buildings
7
Building energy simulation
In recent years, the variables affecting energy use have increased
manifold and understanding building behavior has become a daunting
task. However, technological advancements in computer software have
provided tools that are more effective at predicting energy performance
once the building is operational. An energy simulation tool models the
thermal, visual, ventilation and other energy consuming processes taking
place within a building to predict its energy and environmental
performance. During its calculation process, it takes into account the
external climatic factors, internal heat sources, building materials and
systems to accurately model the building. Building energy simulation is a
powerful method for studying energy performance of buildings and for
evaluating architectural design decisions as well as choices for
construction materials and methods. Complicated design issues can be
examined and their performance can be quantified and evaluated.
Simulation and energy analysis are essential to designers in
developing effective forms and components for their buildings. Building
energy simulation is an analysis of the dynamic energy performance of a
building using computer modeling and simulation techniques. Such tools
support the integrated use of multiple investigation and visualization
during the design evolution process—from the conceptual and schematic
phases to the detailed specification of building components and systems.
There is a wide range of simulation tools available today which help
8
predict various aspects of building behavior such as energy performance,
acoustical performance, fire movement, anti–seismic performance, life-
cycle assessment simulators, etc.
• Energy performance simulation tools allow designers to:
• Predict thermal behavior of buildings in relation to its outdoor
environment.
• Envisage the impact of daylight and artificial light inside
buildings.
• Model the impact of wind pattern and ventilation create
natural scenarios and impact on energy use.
• Estimate the size/capacity of equipment required for thermal
and visual comfort.
• Calculate the effect of various building components on each
other and predict resulting conditions.
• Check for compliance with building codes.
• Consider the building as a single integrated system.
Building energy simulation has been playing an increasingly
significant role not only in building design, but also in operation,
diagnostics, commissioning and evaluation of buildings. It can help
designers compare various design options and lead them to energy
efficient designs in manner of cost-effectiveness. Building energy
simulation can also help facility managers and engineers identify energy
9
saving potentials and evaluate the energy performance and cost-
effectiveness of energy saving measures to be implemented. There are
many building energy simulation software available now a days. Some are
simplified energy analysis tools that only provide a quick analysis of
annual energy use of buildings, but some use more detailed models and
run on hourly basis that provide detailed hour-by-hour energy analysis of
buildings. No matter which software is used, calibration of simulation
models is necessary and crucial for the accuracy and usability of energy
simulation. The calibration process compares the results of the simulation
with measured data and tunes the simulation until its results closely match
the measured data. Whole building simulation tools are widely used and
are applied to the entire building as an integrated system; these take into
account all parameters and components together. Examples of the
programs include:
• Simplified programs for overall energy consumption
assessment, peak temperature prediction, heating/cooling
loads calculations.
• Sophisticated programs for hourly simulation of heat, light
and air movement.
• Complex specialist packages for delighting and artificial
lighting, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), two- and three-
dimensional conduction calculations, and moisture migration
within the building components.
10
Simulation tools and comparison
A large number of simulation tools have been developed over the
last few decades. The building energy simulation software tool web page,
run by the US Department of Energy lists over 240 tools, ranging from
research grade software to commercial products. Some important studies
and comparisons were previously done on some of these tools that are
discussed below.
(Pasqualetto, 1997) presented a case study of a multiple-step
validation undertaken to test the MICRO-DOE2.1E program, which
includes the following: (i) response of the model to a given perturbation in
the outdoor environment, (ii) comparison with another modeling tool, (iii)
sensitivity analysis, and (iv) empirical validation using information from a
large existing office building.
(Crawley, 2008) describe testing and validation of EnergyPlus. The
results to date show good agreement with well established simulation
tools such as DOE-2.1E, BLAST, and ESP. Several testing utilities have
been developed to help automate the task of assuring that each new
version of the software is still performing properly. Selected test results
are presented along with lessons learned.
(Neymark, 2002) stated that validation of building energy simulation
programs consists of a combination of empirical validation, analytical
verification, and comparative analysis techniques.
11
(Henninger, 2004) gives the report of testing the EnergyPlus
building energy simulation software using the IEA HVAC BESTEST E100–
E200 series of tests. HVAC BESTEST is a series of steady-state tests for
a single-zone DX cooling system. Cases range from dry to wet coil, low to
high part load, and low to high temperatures. This published test suite
includes three sets of analytical solutions and results from several other
simulation programs for comparison.
(Crawley, 2005) provides an overview of a report, which provides
up-to-date comparison of the features and capabilities of twenty major
building energy simulation programs. The comparison is based on
information provided by the program developers in the following
categories: general modeling features; zone loads; building envelope and
daylighting and solar; infiltration, ventilation and multizone airflow;
renewable energy systems; electrical systems and equipment; HVAC
systems; HVAC equipment; environmental emissions; economic
evaluation; climate data availability, results reporting; validation; and user
interface, links to other programs, and availability.
(Zhou, 2008) evaluate the energy performance of the VRV air-
conditioning system, a new simulation module is developed and validated
experimentally in this study, on the basis of the building energy simulation
program, EnergyPlus. The differences between average monitored and
predicted data for the total cooling energy and power use are proved to be
within 25.19% and 28.31%, respectively.
12
Comprehensive testing of building energy analysis software is a
difficult task given the infinite combinations of inputs that may be entered
and the difficulties in establishing truth standards for all but the simplest
cases. Testing has been guided by a comprehensive test plan which
includes the following types of tests:
• Analytical tests which compare against mathematical
solutions,
• Comparative tests which compare against other software,
• Sensitivity tests which compare small input changes versus
a baseline run,
• Range tests which exercise the program over wide ranges of
input values,
• Empirical tests which compare against experimental data.
EnergyPlus
U.S Department of Energy funded the development of a new
building energy-simulation program beginning in 1996 and called it
EnergyPlus. While the program borrows what was effective from BLAST
and DOE-2, it contains a number of quite innovative features, including
sub hourly time steps, user-configurable modular HVAC systems that are
integrated with a heat and mass balance-based zone simulation, as well
as input and output data structures that can facilitate third party module
13
and interface development. EnergyPlus was released in April
2001(EnergyPlus, 2008).
EnergyPlus structure
In 1997, two workshops on next generation energy tools
sponsored by DOE and the U.S. Department of Defense, revealed
a strong consensus that a more flexible and robust tool with
additional capabilities was needed. Recurrent simulation needs
expressed throughout both workshops focused on design,
environment, economics, and occupant comfort and safety.
Designers need tools that provide answers to very specific
questions during design. They want tools that provide the highest
level of simulation accuracy and detail that is reasonably possible
without getting in the user's way. One of the highest priorities was
an integrated (simultaneous loads and systems) simulation for
accurate temperature and comfort prediction.
In response to these findings, it was decided that integrated
simulation should be the underlying concept for EnergyPlus. Loads
calculated (by a heat balance engine) at a user-specified time step
(10 mm to 1 hr) are passed to the building systems simulation
module at the same time step. This module, with a variable time
step (down to seconds), calculates heating and cooling system and
plant and electrical system response. Feedback from the building
14
systems simulation module on loads not met is reflected in the next
time step of the load calculations in adjusted space temperatures, if
necessary.
Figure 2.Structure of EnergyPlus
By using an integrated solution technique in EnergyPlus, the
most serious deficiency of the BLAST and DOE-2 sequential
simulations were solved: inaccurate space temperature prediction
due to a lack of feedback from the HVAC module to the loads
calculations. Accurate prediction of space temperatures is crucial to
energy-efficient system Engineering--system size, plant size,
occupant comfort, and occupant health are dependent on space
temperatures.
15
EnergyPlus also contains inter-zonal airflow, moisture
absorption and desorption, definitions of more realistic HVAC
system controls and radiant heating and cooling systems. In
addition, EnergyPlus enables automated sizing of many
component-specific parameters.
EnergyPlus simulation is mainly based on input from text
files, which increases the effort to define all necessary input data
compared to engines with graphical user interfaces. Some user
interfaces are under development and the most advanced of them
are DesignBuilder and Open Studio. The heat and thermal mass
balance simulation is integrated with the building systems
simulation, such that the result is always accurate and independent
of space loads being met or not. In addition, modules such as
COMIS, SPARK, TRANSYS and others can easily be incorporated
into the simulation to combine different concepts and aspects of
building energy simulation. This modular approach allows the
integration of additional modules in the future.
16
EnergyPlus Key Capabilities
The following is a representative list of EnergyPlus
capabilities:
• Integrated, simultaneous solution where the building
response and the primary and secondary systems are tightly
coupled (iteration performed when necessary)
• Sub-hourly, user-definable time steps for the interaction
between the thermal zones and the environment; variable
time steps for interactions between the thermal zones and
the HVAC systems (automatically varied to ensure solution
stability)
• ASCII text based weather, input, and output files that
include hourly or sub-hourly environmental conditions, and
standard and user definable reports, respectively
• Heat balance based solution technique for building thermal
loads that allows for simultaneous calculation of radiant and
convective effects at both in the interior and exterior surface
during each time step
• Transient heat conduction through building elements such
as walls, roofs, floors, etc. using conduction transfer
functions
17
• Improved ground heat transfer modeling through links to
three-dimensional finite difference ground models and
simplified analytical techniques
• Combined heat and mass transfer model that accounts for
moisture adsorption/desorption either as a layer-by-layer
integration into the conduction transfer functions or as an
effective moisture penetration depth model (EMPD)
• Thermal comfort models based on activity, inside dry bulb,
humidity, etc.
• Anisotropic sky model for improved calculation of diffuse
solar on tilted surfaces
• Advanced fenestration calculations including controllable
window blinds, electrochromic glazings, layer-by-layer heat
balances that allow proper assignment of solar energy
absorbed by window panes, and a performance library for
numerous commercially available windows
• Daylighting controls including interior illuminance
calculations, glare simulation and control, luminaire controls,
and the effect of reduced artificial lighting on heating and
cooling
• Atmospheric pollution calculations that predict CO2,
SOx, NOx, CO, particulate matter, and hydrocarbon
production for both on site and remote energy conversion

18
DesignBuilder
The DesignBuilder is the most popular interface developed
for EnergyPlus that includes a simplified CAD interface, templates,
wizards, and most compact air system configurations of
EnergyPlus.
Figure 3.Work flow of DesignBuilder
The workflow of DesignBuilder starts with the selection of a
location and the corresponding weather through a weather file
followed by the creation of specific thermal building model
geometry with the integrated CAD interface. This building geometry
represents the definition of geometry needed for the simulation of
19
the building’s thermal performance. Additionally, one can import
DXF files as footprints for the creation of the geometric model.
DesignBuilder provides a variety of country or region specific
templates for selection of parameters (such as materials and
constructions). Lists of other definable parameters include internal
loads (with occupancy patterns/activities), construction types,
openings (windows and doors), lighting, and HVAC systems. Once
the definition of all input parameters is complete, one can perform
design day and/or annual simulations. In addition, one can validate
most parts of the thermal model of the building against the energy
code that applies to the location of the building.
The typical usage of DesignBuilder includes evaluation of
facade options, daylighting analysis, visualization of site layouts
and solar shading, thermal simulation of natural ventilation, and
sizing of HVAC equipment and systems
Open Studio
Open Studio Plug-in for Google Sketch Up is another front
end to EnergyPlus that was created by the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, that allows
users to create and edit the building geometry for the EnergyPlus
input files. This free plug-in also allows users to launch EnergyPlus
simulations and view the results without leaving the Google Sketch
20
Up 3D drawing program. The plug-in adds the building energy
simulation capabilities of EnergyPlus to the Sketch Up environment.
One can launch an EnergyPlus simulation of the model they are
working on and view the results without leaving Sketch Up.
Figure 4.Screen shot of Sketch Up with Open Studio plug-in
Highlights of Open Studio Plug-in include the ability to:
• Create and edit EnergyPlus zones and surfaces
• Launch EnergyPlus and view the results without leaving
Sketch Up
• Match interzone surface boundary conditions
• Search for surfaces and sub surfaces by object name
• Add internal gains and simple outdoor air for load
calculations
• Add the ideal HVAC system for load calculations
21
• Set and change default constructions
• Add daylighting controls and illuminance map
EnergyPlus has been tested with several test suites including:
• Analytical Tests
• HVAC tests, based on ASHRAE Research Project 865
• Building fabric tests, based on ASHRAE Research Project
1052 Comparative Tests
• ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2004
• International Energy Agency Solar Heating and Cooling
Program BESTest (Building Energy Simulation Test)
methods
• EnergyPlus HVAC Component Comparative tests
• EnergyPlus Global Heat Balance tests
eQUEST
eQUEST is an easy to use building energy analysis tool which
provides high quality results by combining a building creation wizard, an
energy efficiency measure wizard and a graphical results display module
with an enhanced DOE-2.2 derived building energy simulation program.
The building creation wizard walks a user through the process of creating
a building model. Within eQUEST, DOE-2.2 performs an hourly simulation
of the building based on walls, windows, glass, people, plug loads, and
22
ventilation. DOE-2.2 also simulates the performance of fans, pumps,
chillers, boilers, and other energy-consuming devices. eQUEST allows
users to create multiple simulations and view the alternative results in
side-by side graphics. It offers energy cost estimating, daylighting and
lighting system control, and automatic implementation of energy efficiency
measures (eQUEST, 2008).
Integrated Energy Design
While DOE-2 has long been available for designers to
evaluate the energy performance of their building designs, it has
been too difficult and expensive to use for most projects. eQUEST
is a building energy simulation tool so comprehensive that it would
be useful to all design team members, yet so intuitive any design
team member could use it, in any or all design phases, including
schematic design. eQUEST is well named because it provides
something the buildings industry has been looking for, but has been
unable to find a sophisticated, yet easy-to-use building energy
analysis tool powerful enough to address every design team
member's domain (e.g., architectural, lighting, mechanical) but
simple enough to permit a collaborative effort by all design team
members in all design phases. eQUEST was designed to allow to
perform detailed analysis of today’s state-of-the-art building
technologies using today’s most sophisticated building energy use
simulation techniques without requiring extensive experience in the
23
"art" of building performance modeling. This is possible because
eQUEST's DOE-2-derived engine is combined with a building
creation wizard, an energy efficiency measure wizard, industry
standard input defaults, and a graphical results display module.
eQUEST will step through the creation of a detailed building model,
allow to automatically perform parametric simulations of design
alternatives and provide with intuitive graphics that compare the
performance of design alternatives. Reliable detailed simulation
was made easier by eQUEST.
Engine in eQUEST
DOE-2 is the most widely recognized and respected building
energy analysis program. Although DOE-2 was first released in the
late 1970's, it used as starting points earlier simulation tools and
methods developed and funded by ASHRAE, NASA, the U.S.
Postal Service, and the electric and gas utility industries. During the
first half of the 1980's, it continued under DOE support, but
decreasing national concern about energy created the need for
industry support, which became its principal source of support
through much of the 1990's. Through this long and collaborative
history, DOE-2 has been widely reviewed and validated in the
public domain. The simulation "engine" within eQUEST is derived
from the latest official version of DOE-2, however, eQUEST's
24
engine extends and expands DOE-2's capabilities in several
important ways, including: interactive operation, dynamic/intelligent
defaults, and improvements to numerous long-standing
shortcomings in DOE-2 that have limited its use by mainstream
designers.
Overview of the Process
eQUEST calculates hour-by-hour building energy
consumption over an entire year (8760 hours) using hourly weather
data for the location under consideration. Input to the program
consists of a detailed description of the building being analyzed,
including hourly scheduling of occupants, lighting, equipment, and
thermostat settings. eQUEST provides very accurate simulation of
such building features as shading, fenestration, interior building
mass, envelope building mass, and the dynamic response of
differing heating and air conditioning system types and controls.
eQUEST also contains a dynamic daylighting model to assess the
effect of natural lighting on thermal and lighting demands. The
simulation process begins by developing a "model" of the building
based on building plans and specifications. A base line building
model that assumes a minimum level of efficiency (e.g., ASHRAE
90.1) is then developed to provide the base from which energy
savings are estimated. Alternative analyses are made by making
25
changes to the model that correspond to efficiency measures that
could be implemented in the building. These alternative analyses
result in annual utility consumption and cost savings for the
efficiency measure that can then be used to determine simple
payback, life-cycle cost, etc. for the measure and, ultimately, to
determine the best combination of alternatives.
Building Blocks of Simulation
Building simulation requires that a model of the proposed
building be created not a physical model but a virtual model
capable of simulating the important thermodynamics of the
proposed building. Toward that end, the following list summarizes
essential components, steps, or building blocks, in a how-to
description of the process of simulation modeling. Before "building"
anything, including simulation model, first considers and collects
the following
Analysis Objectives
Approach for simulation model with a clear understanding of
the design questions wish to answer must be clear. It has to focus
on the important issues and at the same time, limit the questions
with use of model to answer. Experience will teach how best to
strike this important balance for each new project.
26
Building Site Information and Weather Data
Important building site characteristics include latitude,
longitude and elevation, plus information about adjacent structure
or landscape capable of casting significant shadows on proposed
(or existing) building.
Building Shell, Structure, Materials, and Shades
eQUEST is interested in the walls, roof, and floor of
proposed building only in so far as they transfer or store heat.
Geometry (dimensions) and construction materials of each of the
heat transfer surfaces of proposed building. This will include glass
properties of windows and the dimensions of any window shades
(e.g., overhangs and fins). eQUEST provides users with simple,
user-friendly, choices for each of these.
Building Operations and Scheduling
This includes information about when building occupancy
begins and ends (times, days of the week, and seasonal variations
such as for schools), occupied indoor thermostat set points, and
HVAC and internal equipment operations schedules. eQUEST
defaults operations schedule information based on building type.
27
Internal Loads
Heat gain from internal loads (e.g., people, lights, and
equipment) can constitute a significant portion of the utility
requirements in large buildings, both from their direct power
requirements and the indirect effect they have on cooling and
heating requirements. In fact, internal loads can frequently make
large buildings relatively insensitive to weather. More importantly,
the performance of almost all energy-efficient design alternatives
will be impacted either directly or indirectly by the amount of
internal load within a building.
HVAC Equipment and Performance
Good information regarding HVAC equipment efficiency will
be important to the accuracy of any energy use simulation.
eQUEST assumes default HVAC equipment efficiencies according
to California's Title 24 energy standard. Where possible, equipment
efficiencies specific to each analysis should be obtained, e.g., from
the building design engineers or directly from equipment
manufactures. Most HVAC equipment manufactures now publish
equipment performance data on their web sites.
28
Utility Rates
A great strength of detailed energy use simulation using
eQUEST is the ability to predict hourly electrical demand profiles
that can then be coupled with full details of the applicable utility
rates (tariffs). eQUEST comes with the principal residential and
commercial electric and natural gas rates from the sponsoring
California utilities. For California locations (weather file selections),
eQUEST defaults the rate selection depending on climate zone and
on estimated peak electrical demand. Users outside California must
create their own utility rate descriptions using eQUEST's DOE-2-
derived Building Description Language (BDL) and save these
descriptions as text files for eQUEST's use.
Economic Parameters
Energy Design Resources concur with a growing chorus
including the U.S. DOE, Federal Energy Management Program and
the National Institute of Standards and Technology in
recommending life-cycle economics above simple payback
methods of economic analysis.
Because energy efficiency investments usually return benefit
over the entire life of the building or system, considering their life-
cycle impact is most appropriate. Imagine selecting a variable rate
mortgage based on no more information than the initial interest
29
rate. While few would be comfortable ignoring the long range terms
of any loan or investment, it is common practice among building
developers and designers to recommend building efficiency
investments with equal shortsightedness.
HVAC Zoning
HVAC zoning recognizes that load profiles seen by different
spaces in a building differ. Identifying those areas with similar load
profiles and grouping them under the same thermostat control
improves comfort and may reduce energy. For example, imagine
measuring indoor air temperatures at many locations throughout a
building during hours when the HVAC fans are turned off. Internal
gains, solar gains, and envelope gains/losses would cause the
temperatures to vary with time. If, after some number of hours or
days, carefully examined the temperature histories, grouping
together those that shared similar profiles, have effectively grouped
together those areas of the building that share similar load
characteristics. Each such area or "zone" could, therefore, be
adequately controlled by a single thermostat. In other words, HVAC
thermal zoning seeks to group together those areas (rooms) in a
building that share similar load and usage characteristics, for
purposes of control. Of course, this imagined procedure is not how
HVAC engineers actually zone any building.
30
Rather, the rules listed below are followed.
• The same rules apply when zoning a simulation model when
modeling existing buildings, refer to the actual zoning
indicated by the HVAC plans
• magnitude and schedule of internal loads
• magnitude and schedule of solar gains
• schedule of fan system operations
• outside air requirements
• intended efficiency measures
• location of thermostats called out on the HVAC plans
Currently, eQUEST provides the user with two automatic
zoning schemes, one zone per- floor, and simple core-vs.-perimeter
zoning. Based on this user selection, eQUEST will automatically
zone model for us.
Computational Steps in eQUEST
To better understand the results and limitations of eQUEST
DOE-2-derived engine; it is helpful to be familiar with the generic
computational steps DOE-2 has always gone through in its
simulation. Understanding this sequence is important to
understanding the detailed reports produced by eQUEST DOE-2-
derived engine. See the Detailed Reports section of this tutorial for
a brief overview of the available detailed reports.

31
eQUEST produces intuitive graphical summary results
reports. See the Graphical Reports section for more information
about eQUEST's summary reports.
Types of Heat Transfer Surfaces in DOE-2
To better understand how an eQUEST simulation views
simulation problem, it is useful to recognize that DOE-2 has always
had only four types of heat transfer surfaces on its "palette" to use
to model the various types of heat transfer surfaces in actual
(proposed) building: Light-transmitting surfaces, e.g., windows,
glass block walls, sliding glass doors, skylights, etc. - DOE-2 thinks
of all of these as the same type of heat transfer surface, i.e., a
WINDOW. Exterior surfaces, e.g., opaque exterior surfaces such as
exterior walls, roofs, and floors, etc. - DOE-2 thinks of all of these
as the same type of heat transfer surface, i.e., an EXTERIOR-
WALL. Interior surfaces, e.g., opaque interior surfaces such as
interior walls, interior floors, and interior ceilings, etc. - DOE-2
thinks of all of these as the same type of heat transfer surface, i.e.,
an INTERIOR-WALL. Underground surfaces, e.g., underground
surfaces such as basement floors & walls, & slab-on-grade - DOE-2
thinks of all of these as the same type of heat transfer surface, i.e.,
an UNDERGROUND-WALL. eQUEST automatically provides its
32
DOE-2 derived simulation engine with the input descriptions it
needs, based on easy-to-understand building description.
Table 1
Comparison of Software Tools for Energy Simulation (Crawley, 2005)
DesignBuilder eQUEST
General details
Import geometry from
yes yes
CAD programs
Export geometry to
yes no
programs
Unlimited zone,
yes yes
system, equipment
Dimming electric
yes yes
lighting controls
Heat load
calculations
Hourly load calculation yes yes
Thermal comfort
yes no
estimation
Automatic design day
yes yes
calculation
HVAC
User configured HVAC
yes yes
system
Automatic sizing yes yes
Absorption chillers yes yes
Air to air energy
yes yes
recovery systems
Seasonal heat and cold
no yes
storage
Individual zone and
yes yes
system control
Natural ventilation yes no
Operable windows yes no
Climatic data
Weather data available
yes yes
with program
Data editing facility yes yes
Economic
evaluation
Life cycle cost analysis No yes
Reports
Graphical Yes yes
Text yes yes
Cost of software license to be purchased free
Web link www.designbuildeco.uk www.doe2.com
33
Table 2
EnergyPlus Advanced Modeling Capabilities beyond DOE-2 (Hong, 2008)
Item EnergyPlus DOE-2 (both 2.1E and

2.2 unless otherwise
noted)
HVAC Loads Uses the heat balance Uses the transfer function
method which is more method with custom
accurate. Also performs weighting factors. This
radiant and convective method is an
calculations at each surface. approximation of the heat
Can model thermal mass balance method, is less
effect more accurately. accurate and more prone
Improved ground heat to user error through
transfer modeling. misapplication of
Anisotropic sky model weighting factors. Errors
provides good diffuse solar are probably the greatest
calculations for building envelope
components that have
thermal mass.
Integrated Building response to thermal Building response to
Simulation of loads is calculated thermal loads is
Loads and simultaneously with system calculated independently
Systems operation. This expands the of system operation. Load
range of conditions that can calculations assume
be analyzed to include ones building temperatures are
where the building in control. Limits
temperatures are not always applicability of simulation
in control (e.g., natural to mechanically
ventilation, undersized conditioned spaces.
systems). Limited feedback from
Feedback from HVAC system HVAC system operation
operation can affect building affects building loads and
loads. zone temperatures.
This prevents DOE-2
from accurately
simulating systems and
heat transfer where
zones are under heated
or under cooled.
34
Radiant Explicitly models radiant Models radiant exchange
Exchange exchange between surfaces. only through combined
Users have control over solar, radiation / convection
visible, and thermal coefficients applied to
absorptance and emittance each surface.
for each surface. Surface The convection and
temperature is a factor in heat radiant heat transfer do
transfer. not vary with surface
It should be noted that the temperature for opaque
program uses simplified surfaces.
calculation in lieu of explicit
view factors that account for
area and orientation of
surfaces.
Thermal Can develop surface Cannot directly model
Comfort temperatures for zone thermal comfort as it
consideration of radiant cannot develop surface
comfort. temperatures.
HVAC Systems are built up out of Systems are pre-

Systems fundamental components. designed types. This has
This is a more flexible and several limitations:
robust approach to specifying 1) You cannot easily
system characteristics. While model some systems
the process to specify an because there is no pre-
HVAC system is more designed model for them;
complex, templates and 2) Enhancements to the
wizards help simplify the program (like evaporative
process. cooling) have to be
Through a link to SPARK, implemented on each of
custom HVAC equipment the different system
component models can be types.
modeled to provide further 3) Only one system can
flexibility. be assigned to a zone.
You cannot model a
system with a perimeter
fan coil for heating and a
cooling only VAV box for
cooling.
Displacement Can model both radiation and Assumes all zones are
Ventilation thermal stratification through fully mixed (uniform
Systems a 3-node stratification model. temperature throughout),
Both of these are critical which is not appropriate
elements to displacement for displacement
systems. ventilation systems.
35
Under-Floor Can model UFAD systems for Assumes all zones are
Air interior and perimeter zones. fully mixed (uniform
Distribution temperature throughout),
Systems which is not appropriate
for UFAD systems.
Cannot model supply
plenums.
Radiant Can model radiant cooling No direct models for
Cooling and and heating systems. radiant cooling or heating
Heating systems.
Systems
Natural Can model natural ventilation Can model simplified
Ventilation with Airflow network which natural ventilation via
allows wind- and buoyancy- operable windows in a
driven airflow calculations to few single zone system
be performed simultaneously types (RESYS, RESYS2,
with building thermal PSZ, and EVAP-COOL).
response and system
operations calculations.
Hydronic Heating and cooling systems This feature is only
Loops can be separated into available in eQUEST
distribution loops that can be (DOE 2.2). It is not
connected to one another. available in the reference
This provides a much more method DOE-2.1E.
accurate model of system In 2.2 only limited
pumping energy. configurations of constant
This can be used for and variable flow systems
evaluation of alternative are available.
hydronic distribution systems
like primary-only variable
flow, primary/secondary and
primary/secondary/tertiary
systems.
Moisture The combined heat and mass Cannot model moisture
Migration transfer model allows migration.
EnergyPlus to model moisture
migration and its affect on
cooling loads. Neglecting
moisture migration can cause
errors in sensible and latent
heat transfers.
Multiple Time Heating and cooling loads are Can only calculate loads
Steps calculated on a timestep on an hourly basis. There
basis and passed through to is also no feedback
the HVAC portion of the between loads and
36
simulation. Loads that are systems.
unable to be met by the
system are fed back into the
engine and result in zone
temperature/humidity
changes for the next time
step.
The default time step for
EnergyPlus is 15 minutes;
however, it can be reduced
down to 1 minute.
Air Emission EnergyPlus can calculate air DOE-2 cannot calculate
emissions associated with air emissions directly. It
energy use within a building. has to rely on post-
This is useful in determining processing.
environmental impacts of new
energy efficiency measures
for code development.
Water Usage Water usage becomes more DOE-2 does not have this
and more important for capability.
California. EnergyPlus can
calculate water usage for
buildings.
Renewable Can model PV either DOE-2.2 can model PV.
Energy standalone or BIPV.
Cogeneration Can mode cogeneration with DOE-2 cannot model IC
IC engine, micro CHP, and engine or fuel cells.
fuel cells.
Daylighting EnergyPlus has detailed DOE-2 tends to
and Controls daylighting models. overestimate daylighting
benefits.
Windows and EnergyPlus has more shading DOE-2 has limited
Shading controls for windows and shading controls.
Controls skylights.
Demand EnergyPlus has demand DOE-2 has none.
Response limiting controls for lighting,
Controls equipment, and zone
thermostat.
Outdoor EnergyPlus can model DOE-2 cannot.
Lighting and outdoor lighting and controls
Controls
Green Roof EnergyPlus can model green DOE-2 cannot.
roofs.
Visual EnergyPlus calculates visual DOE-2 does not.
Comfort comfort.
37
Run Time comparisons between EnergyPlus and DOE-2
Compared with DOE-2, EnergyPlus runs much slower. The main
reason EnergyPlus runs much slower than DOE-2 is that EnergyPlus does
the integrated heat balance calculations for loads, systems, and plant at a
loads time step normally around 15-minute, while DOE-2 does sequential
calculations from loads to systems to plant at an hour time step.
EnergyPlus performs necessary iterative calculations at a smaller time
step (down to 1 minute) for HVAC systems in order to achieve HVAC
convergent solutions.
When DOE-2 was first developed in late 1970s, the computer
computing power was very limited. Even a 50-zone model could take
hours if not days to complete an annual run. With today’s PC computing
power, it was thought that it is not so important to develop simulation
programs that run as fast as DOE-2, but rather to develop programs that
can do sub-hourly and more accurate building thermal performance
calculations in a reasonable amount of time, which lead to the rise of
EnergyPlus. But this large simulation runtime is still a significant
drawback.
According to a study conducted by Tianzhen Hong (Hong, 2008) at
a 15-minute time step, EnergyPlus runs much slower than DOE-2.1E by a
factor of 105 for the large office building to 196 for the hospital building. At
a 60-minute time step, EnergyPlus still runs slower than DOE-2.1E by a
factor of 25 for the large office building to 54 for the hospital building;
38
however, the EnergyPlus computer run time improves by almost a factor
of 4 which corresponds to the reduction of number of time steps per hour
from 4 to 1. The primary reason EnergyPlus runs considerably slower than
DOE-2.1E is that EnergyPlus performs integrated heat balance
calculations for loads, systems and plant at a given time step while DOE-2
does sequential calculations from loads to systems to plant without
accounting for feedback from plant to systems or from systems to loads.
Consequently, EnergyPlus may require several iterations within each time
step in order to reach a convergent solution.
In a study done at IIIT Hyderabad, a concept has been proposed
which uses data parallelization to speed up EnergyPlus simulation. Data
parallelization is a form of parallelization for computing across multiple
processors or multiple computers in a cluster, run under a suitable
environment. Data parallelism focuses on distributing the data across
different parallel computing nodes by breaking it into smaller chunks, each
of which is processed on by the same function, running in parallel on
different cores/machines. This is achieved by breaking a simulation with
annual Run Period into several simulations of smaller Run Period, each
handled by a separate computer. Each computer instead of running an
annual simulation, handles a chunk of smaller Run Period, say one month,
thus taking lesser time. It has been observed that a speed gain of
approximately 6.8 times can be achieved by this method. (Garg, 2010)
39
Chapter 3
ENERGY MODELING
Building Description
The case building is located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is a
West facing two storied office building with a total floor area of 17,000 sft.
Albuquerque is in Climate Zone 5 and it is in a Dry (B) location.
Figure 5. Screenshot of the eQUEST model of the Office building
Figure 6. Screenshot of the DesignBuilder model of the Office building
40
Materials and Construction
The walls are R-19 batt 2 x 6 metal frame spaced on 24-inch
centers 1 ½” polystyrene 1” stucco construction and roof is R-30 3/8” built
up roof and 5/8” plywood. The floor height is 12’ with a floor to ceiling clear
space of 9’, 3’ for the plenum that comprises air conditioning ducts and
false ceiling. (See Appendix-B)
Zoning and HVAC
This office building basically has conference rooms, staff offices,
management offices, electrical and mechanical rooms. The building has
60 small zones including the Plenum spaces. The building is conditioned
with a rooftop packaged VAV system. (See Appendix A)
Table 3
List of zones with areas, occupancy and internal loads
Height Occupa
Zones Area (sf) LPD/sf EPD/sf
(f) ncy
1st Floor Corridor Spc 352.6 9 2.94 4.219 1.83
1st Floor Plnm Spc 8,318.10 3 1.3 1.242 0
2nd Floor Plnm Spc 8,748.00 3 1.31 1.256 0
Breakroom (1011) Spc 169 9 1.83 4.236 0.88
Conference Room (1013)
226.6 9 1.62 0 1.18
E Spc
235.8 9 1.02 0.489 1.22
W Spc
553.1 9 3.15 2.696 3.15
Spc
Copy Rm (2029) & Staff
305.8 9 1.18 1.133 1.74
Ofc Spc
Copy Room (1027) &
356.2 9 0.61 0.584 1.85
Staff Ofc Spc
Dbl Staff Offices (2004,
482.5 9 2.08 1.989 2.74
02) Spc
41
312.6 9 3.4 7.671 1.78
09) Spc
280.7 9 1 0.747 1.60
13) Spc
274.6 9 0.52 0 1.56
25) Spc
Electrical Room (1026)
191.2 3 2.09 2.001 0
Plnm Spc
Electrical Room (1026)
191.2 9 1.51 1.126 0
Spc
Elevator & Elec. Equip
613.6 9 1.79 1.567 0
Room Spc
Elevator/ Storage Spc 398.9 9 1.17 1.516 2.07
Entrance/ Lobby (1000)
252.8 9 1.21 0.459 1.31
Spc
IDR Room (1020) Plnm
238.6 3 1 0 0
Spc
IDR Room (1020) Spc 238.6 9 2.37 0 0
Management Office
422.5 9 1.3 0 2.19
(1010) Spc
Management Office
147 9 0.35 0 0.76
(1056) Spc
Management Office
151.5 9 0.13 0 0.86
(2006) Spc
Management Office
149 9 1.06 0 0.85
(2050) Spc
Mech Chase1 Spc 20.2 9 0.85 16.89 0
Mech Chase2 Spc 5.9 9 0.69 0 0
Mechanical Room (1028)
248.7 9 2.4 1.357 1.29
Spc
Restrooms (1st Floor) Spc 445.4 9 1.4 3.935 2.31
Second Floor Corridor
273.4 9 0 0 1.55
Spc
Second Floor Restrooms
396.6 9 0 0 2.26
Spc
Second Floor Secretary 2
275.6 9 0 0 1.57
Spc
Second Floor Secretary
212.1 9 0 0 1.21
Spc
Second Floor Stairwell #1
172.5 9 0 0 0.98
Spc
Second Floor Stairwell #2
242.1 9 2.9 1.388 1.38
Spc
Secretary (1012) Spc 175.9 9 2.04 2.236 0.91
Secretary (1054) Spc 127 9 1.51 1.268 0.66
Staff Office (1018) Spc 354.2 9 1.69 1.268 1.84
Staff Office (2014) Spc 158.3 9 2.05 1.966 0.9
42
Staff Offices (1003, 05,
311.9 9 3.15 2.407 1.62
07) Spc
Staff Offices (1006, 08)
236.2 9 3.08 2.355 1.23
Spc
364.9 9 1.43 1.352 1.89
Spc
304.8 9 1.34 5.008 1.58
Spc
309.9 9 0.52 0 1.61
19) Spc
395.9 9 1.49 1.298 2.05
30) Spc
367.2 9 1.52 1.28 1.91
Spc
553.2 9 2.76 2.115 2.87
Spc
499.5 9 2.85 1.365 2.59
62) Spc
493.8 9 1.48 1.247 2.56
68) Spc
361.9 9 1.74 1.306 2.06
Spc
372.8 9 1.47 1.28 2.12
05) Spc
331.7 9 2.04 1.37 1.89
Spc
484.5 9 1.53 1.143 2.76
20) Spc
315.5 9 1.79 1.358 1.79
17) Spc
323 9 2.32 3.238 1.84
Spc
478 9 1.34 0 2.72
36) Spc
411.9 9 0.66 0 2.34
Spc
326 9 0.1 0 1.85
Spc
489 9 0.67 0 2.78
60) Spc
Stairwell #1 Spc 242.3 9 1.04 0.339 1.26
Stairwell #2 (1042) Spc 234.9 9 0 0 1.22
43
Building schedules and operations
The schedules and operating hours for the models are very
comprehensive. The building has different schedules for Monday to
Thursday and one for Friday and different schedule for weekends and
holidays
Energy modeling in eQUEST
The eQUEST model of the office building used in this study was
previously developed by a group for studying the performance of the
building. It was calibrated against the utility data for a period of one year
i.e. August 1st 2004 to July 31st 2005. A custom weather file was created
by collecting the onsite weather data for that period of time.
Figure 7. Screenshot of the energy model of the office building in eQUEST
44
Energy modeling using EnergyPlus
Data Collection
The data for modeling the office building in EnergyPlus was
extracted from the eQUEST model that was previously developed
by a group for the study of the performance of the building.
DesignBuilder
To model the building in EnergyPlus, initially DesignBuilder
software which is the most popular front end for EnergyPlus was
used. It was relatively easy to learn this software based on the
experience of having worked on eQUEST before. After developing
the basic 3D model from the CAD drawings it was easy to assign
basic materials, constructions and schedules since it comes with
extensive data templates for simulation inputs such as typical
envelope construction assemblies, lighting systems, and occupancy
schedules. But assigning a HVAC system to the model was a
difficult task since DesignBuilder couldn’t model the rooftop
packaged VAV system that was used in the actual building.
After spending a while trying to figure out a way to model the
Rooftop packaged VAV system in the building, the model was sent
to the EnergyPlus support group to include the HVAC system in it.
The EnergyPlus support group was kind enough to update the
model with the HVAC system in it and return the model to me.
45
Figure 8. Screenshot of the energy model of the office building in
DesignBuilder (DesignBuilder, 2007)
Open studio
The model developed in the DesignBuilder with the
integrated HVAC system was given in the EnergyPlus (.IDF)
format. To visualize the file and edit the building geometry, Google
Sketch Up with an Open Studio plug-in was used. This free plug-in
allows us to launch EnergyPlus simulations, assign some attributes
and view the results without leaving the Google Sketch Up 3D
drawing program. OpenStudio allows us to import the .IDF file and
edit surfaces and zones in the file. Using open studio one can
match interzone surface boundary conditions, add internal gains
and simple outdoor air for load calculations and can set and change
default constructions and assign daylighting controls. Though the

46
OpenStudio plug-in makes it easier to visualize the geometry and
do some basic editing, it doesn’t yet handle all critical input objects.
Some editing of the input file was required to be done outside of
SketchUp.
Figure 9. Screenshot of the energy model of the office building in Google
Sketch Up with Open Studio Plug-in
IDF Editor
Since Open Studio is not yet developed to the level of being
a full fledged front end for EnergyPlus, some of the text file editing
was required to do using an IDF Editor. EnergyPlus comes with
several utilities to help create input files and run simulations. IDF
Editor is one such utility in which any EnergyPlus object may be
viewed and edited using a spreadsheet-like grid.
47
Figure 10. Screenshot of IDF Editor
Using the IDF editor the properties for HVAC system were
assigned and the schedules were corrected for errors. Finally the
model was ready for simulation by the end of this stage.
Creating the custom weather file for EnergyPlus
The custom eQUEST weather file in .bin format of
Albuquerque, New Mexico with the onsite measurements for the
period August 1st 2004 to July 31st 2005 was used to create a
custom weather file in .epw format for EnergyPlus. This was done
using the free weather converter program that comes with the
EnergyPlus software package.
48
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Simulation Program Outputs
All the major programs offer the following output includes:
The input data: The report usually repeats the input data for ease of
review. This includes data drawn from the program’s data libraries. For
example, the output may indicate the outside air temperature and humidity
that were assumed for each hour.
Building loads: Loads are divided into heating, cooling, lighting, process,
etc. Some programs may report the components of these loads. For
example, cooling load may be divided into solar gain, conduction load,
internal heat gain, and latent load. The loads for individual hours may be
displayed.
Equipment Sizing data: Normally equipment capacities are selected by
using the calculations of peak equipment load. For example, the program
may report the peak air flow of air handling units, the peak steam flow
from boilers, the peak energy input to individual chillers, etc.
Outputs in eQUEST and EnergyPlus
In eQUEST there are two ways to use output. One is using the
reports generated by the program or using the .SIM file (in Windows
Explorer in the project directory) that allows us to jump to each relevant
49
report (the .SIM file is a normal text file). In reports, there is a tab for each
report group - Loads, Systems, Plant, and Economics. There are two
controls in each tab that apply to hourly reports. Report Frequency: hourly,
daily, monthly or yearly can be selected. In EnergyPlus, we can choose
the kind of reports we want to look at. Based on the number of reports
requested and the detail, the run time varies. After simulation EnergyPlus
gives output in different formats from which we get to choose.
Table 4
Comparison of results for eQUEST and EnergyPlus electric consumption
Electric Consumption (kWh) eQUEST EnergyPlus Difference
Space Cool 49273 50699 -3%
Vent. Fans 47441 51527 -9%
Pumps & Aux. 6328 2710 57%
Misc. Equip. 162641.3 162648.5 0%
Area Lights 46985.2 46980.29 0%
Total 324339 314549 -1%
Note: There is a mismatch in the areas of the zones and a difference of
4% was notice in eQUEST and EnergyPlus. This error occurred due to the
way both external and internal walls are considered by DesignBuilder.
DesignBuilder considers external wall inside the drawing and internal wall
in mid of CAD boundary.

50
Lighting
4500
4000
3500
Consumption in kWh
3000
2500
2000 eQUEST
1500 EnergPlus
1000
500
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Month
Figure 11. Electricity consumption for lighting
Equipment
16000
14000
12000
Consumption in kWh
10000
8000
eQUEST
6000
EnergyPlus
4000
2000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Month
Figure 12. Electricity consumption for equipment
51
Space Cooling
16000
14000
12000
Consumption (kWh)
10000
8000
eQUEST
6000
EnergyPlus
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Figure 13. Electricity consumption for space cooling
Pumps
700
600
500
Consumption (kWh)
400
300 eQUEST
EnergyPlus
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Figure 14. Electricity consumption for pumps
52
Ventilation Fans
7000
6000
5000
Consumption (kWh)
4000
3000 eQUEST
EnergyPlus
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Figure 15. Electricity consumption for ventilation fans
Table 5
Comparison of electricity consumption with the utility data.
Month Actual kWh eQUEST kWh EnergyPlus kWh

Jan 20,136 22436 23777.34
Feb 19,397 20641 21091.93
Mar 21,921 23926 23644.45
Apr 23,734 24270 25665.67
May 28,780 27686 29476.21
Jun 33,516 32641 30057.25
Jul 39,480 39889 33704.96
Aug 36,877 37857 30683.08
Sep 30,989 29336 28522.46
Oct 24,464 24232 26763.62
Nov 21,118 22417 22818.53
Dec 20,489 20873 21781.59
53
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000 Actual kWh
20,000 eQUEST kWh
15,000 Energy Plus kWh
10,000
5,000
0
Nov
Apr
Aug
May
Jul
Dec
Feb
Mar
Sep
Oct
Jan
Jun
Figure 16. Comparison of electricity consumption results of eQUEST and
EnergyPlus with actual consumption in building
Table 6
Comparison of gas consumption with the utility data.
eQUEST EnergyPlus
Month Actual Therms Therms Therms
Jan 535 579.28 269.97
Feb 604 528.45 227.79
Mar 451 511.88 220.45
Apr 326 341.51 121.28
May 309 304.98 60.86
Jun 305 282.78 21.18
Jul 250 293.39 8.75
Aug 263 306.19 21.26
Sep 290 309.1 41.03
Oct 401 355.07 108.62
Nov 507 540.78 217.90
Dec 694 606.42 367.67
54
800
700
600
500
Actual Therms
400
eQUEST Therms
300
Energy Plus Therms
200
100
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 17. Comparison of gas consumption results of eQUEST and
EnergyPlus with actual consumption in building.
55
Observations and Recommendations
Some of the distinguished building energy simulation tools that exist today
are developed by technical researchers, building scientist and HVAC
engineers and are not very compatible with architects’ working methods
and needs. A practitioner needs a single tool that does a whole building
analysis right from the inception of design to construction as well as for
commissioning of the building after it is occupied. Based on the
observations done during the study some recommendations are made to
help the practitioners understand the capabilities and limitations of these
two tools, thereby allowing them to choose the right tool for their need.
Some of these recommendations are aimed at the researchers.
User background and need- The users can be categorized into two groups
a) Architects, designers and engineers who do not have an in-depth
knowledge of building simulation but wish to establish in-house modeling
capability. The GUIs for DOE-2 like eQUEST and Visual DOE and for
EnergyPlus like DesignBuilder and Open Studio are recommended.
b) Engineering and modeling specialists whose day to day job it is to carry
out design through modeling and analysis. Since this group has a higher
level of knowledge and expertise, they can choose from either program
based on their need.
56
Choosing the right tool – Since it was observed that the modeling
capabilities are competitive, choosing the right tool should be based on
the case. A comparative study of both the tools mentioned in the literature
study chapter comes in handy to broadly go through the capabilities to
access which could be the right tool for our need. Understanding the
strengths and weakness of each tool is crucial in choosing the right tool
Accessibility to the software – DOE-2 and EnergyPlus are free software
but a license for the DesignBuilder. DesignBuilder software needs to be
purchased after the 30 day trial version, which is with limited modeling
capabilities. Open Studio comes as a free plug-in to Google Sketch up
software. eQUEST is a freeware. The accessibility and pricing of the
software play a key role when a company or an individual has to decide on
which software to choose from for establishing their in-house modeling
capability. Above all, since EnergyPlus is a developing tool, the user
should surely note that there is betterment in the tool every six months
with the launch of new version and, hence they might have to upgrade to
the new version every six months, which at many times have other
implications. Hence, EnergyPlus’s key feature of interoperability between
two versions is noteworthy.
Ease of learning the software – It is easier to learn eQUEST or
DesignBuilder due to its interface and the presentation format of the
57
software. eQUEST walks the user through a series of screens that allows
them to smoothly go through the whole process. One can get a detailed
explanation of a particular field by simply right clicking in the field and
choosing from the menu. DesignBuilder has a help window that provides
tips and wizards guiding the user through the creation of the thermal
model. This is especially useful to novice users, as it helps them to better
understand the concepts of thermal modeling. It is generally easy to learn
these front ends but a one day training or introductory workshop will speed
up the learning process. For learning EnergyPlus one needs to have in-
depth technical knowledge and have to take a 3-4 day short term course
to get a basic understanding of the software. Continued use of the
software in day to day energy modeling will improve proficiency.
Documentation and support group – Both eQUEST and EnergyPlus have
extensive documentation that supports the learning and modeling process.
One can also get active help from the user support groups. And, since
EnergyPlus is a developing tool, the user support group is very active. In
both the cases, though the example files that are provided with the
software help to understand particular cases, it would be helpful to have
some documentation of a real time case study of a building that explains
the whole process step by step.
58
Data exchange and interoperability - eQUEST enables DWG imported
from a CAD program as a basis for the geometry of the building model.
The user has to first redraw the building shape, and then define thermal
zoning in a second step. However, eQUEST’s ability to modify the
geometry after the import is cumbersome and relies on manual change of
parameters rather than on modification of objects in a CAD environment.
DesignBuilder supports the import of DXF files that can be used as
footprints of the building. DesignBuilder allows for multiple footprints,
which enables more complex building geometries. The user can select the
needed layers and display them at a chosen height. DesignBuilder does
not support three dimensional geometry data exchange, since no such
functionality is present in the interface. It cannot import EnergyPlus input
files (the .idf format) of existing buildings, even though it exports such files.
Modeling capabilities - Creating the geometry, and assigning properties to
all the components is a highly complicated and tedious task to work
directly in EnergyPlus or a DOE 2 engine. Using the front end like
DesignBuilder and eQUEST is relatively easy. eQUEST provides two
design wizards, namely the Schematic Design and Design Development
Wizards. Both represent well-known stages during design that differ
significantly in the level of detail they contain. Both wizards can be used to
simplify data input through usage of default parameters. Weather data,
geometry, construction material, space types and usage, schedules, and
59
HVAC systems and components are the major input categories in both the
simulation tools.
Note: External wall consideration - eQUEST considers external wall
outside the CAD boundary and DesignBuilder considers it internal so while
modeling or at the time of converting single line drawing from original CAD
one has to consider it, else it will give faulty zone areas. And also the
centerline of a wall is to be considered in case of internal partitions in
DesignBuilder.
Simulation Run Time - Considering the simulation run time, eQUEST
simulates very quickly and EnergyPlus takes a lot of time to simulate
which also depends on the complexity of the building and the output
reports required. So, for large projects eQUEST is good in terms of the run
time of the simulation. EnergyPlus simulation of large buildings might run
into few days from few hours. For this case study, while eQUEST took 30
seconds to complete the simulation, EnergyPlus v6 took 35 minutes to
complete the simulation when both the models were run at one hour time
step. An important point that can be noted here is the simulation runtime
difference that was observed between EnergyPlus v5 and v6. The case
study building took about an hour to simulate in v5 of EnergyPlus,
whereas the same building took 35 minutes in v6. The EnergyPlus model
took 50 minutes to run the same simulation at a 15 minute time step in v6.
60
One can try to reduce the simulation run time in EnergyPlus by trying to
keep the model simple for diagnostic analysis and adjust the simulation
settings to 1 hour time step especially in the early design stage. Recent
studies in this field show that the through data parallelization concept, a
single input file of EnergyPlus can be simulated simultaneously on multiple
computers, to decrease overall runtime of the simulation.
Energy Efficiency Measures and Parametric runs - In eQUEST, changes
can be made in parameters like chiller COP, external wall and roof
construction, direction, glazing etc., and the effect of changes can be seen
through parametric runs and the energy savings can be compared with
base case. Initial and time over investment for each EEM can be inserted
as input parameter. These alternative analyses result in annual utility
consumption and cost savings for the efficiency measure that can then be
used to determine simple payback, lifecycle cost, etc. for the measure
and, ultimately, help to determine the best combination of alternatives.
These results would also help in the decision making process of the
building design. In EnergyPlus each of the changes should be inputted
separately and all the simulations together can by run using group
simulation options. Updating portions of the multiple files that change and
do not change between permutations becomes tedious and error prone
and may lead to incorrect conclusions concerning the energy savings of
specific measures and more over for every minute change the user needs
61
to wait for a long time to analyze the results since the simulations run time
for each run is high.
Capabilities and limitations specific to software – The modeling
capabilities of each of the software might differ. For example: the window
opening for natural ventilation can be modeled by EnergyPlus but not by
eQUEST. Drury Crawley’s paper on ‘Contrasting the capabilities of
building energy performance simulation programs’ provides a quick
overview of the basic capabilities of each simulation software. For
modeling special cases in EnergyPlus, the user can refer to the example
files that come along with the EnergyPlus installation files. Understanding
the limitations and common errors of the software are also very important
to a practitioner. Identifying the common errors at an advanced stage of
modeling can be difficult to correct and is also time consuming. One has to
pay careful attention to the changing modeling capabilities that change
with the newer versions of the software by closely following the
documentation on their websites.
HVAC - eQUEST is good software for the projects where HVAC modeling
is required since it supports detailed input parameters for HVAC modeling
via performance curves, efficiency, flow, capacity, etc. It precisely
calculates the heat gain form occupants and consider both latent and
sensible load. The main benefit of eQUEST is that it requires less
62
simulation time. DesignBuilder only supports compact HVAC system
definitions and cannot make use of detailed component-based definitions.
The HVAC modeling in EnergyPlus is also very comprehensive. Modeling
HVAC through EnergyPlus HVAC templates is easy but it’s not in enough
detail. The expanded version of the same file is much more detailed and
allows us to make the changes individually. High definition of the
mechanical system is required for defining it in the expanded input data
file.. The level of expertise required to use the tool is rather high and any
definition can result in a significant impact in the results.
Subhourly calculations - If in some cases the results are required for less
than one hour, only EnergyPlus can be used since eQUEST cannot do
calculation for less than one hour time step.
Results and reporting - Both eQUEST and EnergyPlus produce
exhaustive results. The EnergyPlus output is text based while eQUEST
produces the results in text as well as in graphical format. Though
EnergyPlus has some third party programs using with the results can be
view in graphical formats, the results format generated by eQUEST are
more understandable. There are many report variables in EnergyPlus that
one can choose from.
63
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
This research analyses the building energy simulation tools that run
on DOE-2 and EnergyPlus engines. The benefits and limitations of each
tool were discussed by describing their functionality, ease of usage,
accuracy of results, range of application and run time. The user interfaces
for DOE-2 are currently more developed in comparison to the interfaces
for EnergyPlus. The lack of user-friendly, mature and comprehensive user
interfaces limits the usage of building energy performance simulation in
practice. Current progress on interfaces to EnergyPlus is promising and is
likely to provide adequate user friendliness and functionality in the future.
As outlined in the recommendations, various issues related to
energy simulation tools itself need more development and research to
improve the value and accuracy of energy simulation. The strength of
energy simulation today is the comparison of different design alternatives
rather than predicting absolute energy consumption values. With
additional research and development, these tools could also provide more
accurate absolute values and provide many additional benefits to their
users.
The development of the example building modeled in this research
demonstrates the typical and frequently encountered problems related to
building energy performance simulation. Energy performance simulation
64
tools are used throughout the life cycle of the building, i.e. during all
stages of the design and construction of the building as well as during the
commissioning and operations phase.
As observed in this study eQUEST is easy to use and quick in
producing results that would help in the decision making process during
the design phase. On the other hand EnergyPlus aids in modeling
complex systems but consumes more time. The choice of simulation
program might change depending on the usability and applicability of the
program to our need in different phases of a building’s life-cycle.
Therefore, it makes sense if a common front end is designed for both the
simulation programs like eQUEST and EnergyPlus thereby allowing the
user to select either the eQUEST engine or the EnergyPlus engine based
upon the need in each particular case.
65
REFERENCES
Crawley, D. B. (2005). Contrasting the capabilities of Building Energy

Performance Simulation Programs. Proceedings of Building Simulation .
Montreal, Quebec, Canada: IBPSA.
Crawley, D. B. (2008). Testing and validation of a new building energy

simulation program. Proceedings of Seventh International IBPSA
Conference. Brazil: IBPSA.
DesignBuilder. (2007). DesignBuilder Software Homepage. Retrieved from

http://www.designbuilder.co.uk
EnergyPlus. (2008). EnergyPlus: Getting started with EnergyPlus.

Retrieved from
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/documentation.html
eQUEST. (2008). eQUEST-The quick energy simulation tool, an overview.

Retrieved from http://www.doe2.com/download/equest/eQUESTv3-
Overview.pdf
Garg, V. (2010). EnergyPlus simulation speedup using data parallelization

. Proceedings of ASME 2010 4th International Conference on Energy
Sustainability. Phoenix.
Henninger, O. (2008). EnergyPlus Testing with HVAC equipment

component tests. Washington DC: U S Department of Energy.
Hong, T. (2008). Comparing Computer Run Time of Building Simulation

Programs. Build Simul (2008). Berkeley,: Tsinghua Press and Springer.
Hong, T. (2008). EnergyPlus analysis capabilities for use in California

building energy efficiency standards development and compliance
calculations. Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
LBNL. (2007). EnergyPlus homepage. Retrieved from

http://www.energyplus.gov.
LBNL. (1998). Overview DOE-2.2. Retrieved from

http://www.doe2.com/Download/Docs/22_oview.pdf
Neymark, J. (2002). Applying the building energy simulation

test(BESTEST) diagnostic method to verification of space conditioning
equipment models used in whole-building energy simulation programs.
Energy and Buildings , pp. 1652-1658.
66
Pasqualetto, L. (1997). A case study of validation of an energy analysis
program: MICRO-DOE2.1E. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V23-3SYPR4W-
2/2/5a8227e7e929e81de0bd393ee731d11b
USDOE. (2007). Building Energy Software Tools Directory. Retrieved from

http://www.energytoolsdirectory.gov
Zhou, Y. (2008). Energy simulation in the variable refrigerant flow air-

conditioning system under cooling conditions. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2V-4KJ0SPJ-
2/2/922cac699229f1b31b25524a24e41033
67
APPENDIX A
ZONE SUMMARY
Table 7
Zone Summary
Gross Window People Plug and

Area Conditioned Volume Lighting
Room name Multipliers Wall Area Glass Area [m2] per Process
[m2] (Y/N) [m3] [W/m2]
[m2] [m2] person [W/m2]
ELECTRICAL
15.74 Yes 43.18 1.00 16.90 3.89 15.8177 9.29 0.0000
ROOM (1026)
1ST FLOOR
31.90 Yes 87.50 1.00 6.04 4.46 3.8560 17.93 0.0000
CORRIDOR
MECHANICAL
21.04 Yes 57.71 1.00 20.68 3.89 11.8352 17.93 0.0238
ROOM (1028)
STAFF OFFICES
34.20 Yes 93.82 1.00 25.70 3.20 20.7315 17.93 18.1291
(1034 32 30)
STAFF OFFICES
32.45 Yes 89.02 1.00 16.30 2.16 17.0714 17.93 12.7265
(1036 38)
STAIRWELL 2
19.35 Yes 53.09 1.00 25.12 3.19 6.3042 17.93 0.0000
(1042)
STAFF OFFICE
30.72 Yes 84.26 1.00 19.93 3.53 7.0322 17.93 6.7392
(1018)
ELEC ROOM (1020) 20.20 Yes 55.41 1.00 24.02 0.00 27.9716 9.29 0.0000
MANAGEMENT
11.79 Yes 32.34 1.00 19.30 1.07 36.6423 17.93 52.5884
OFFICE (1056)
STAFF OFFICES
49.41 Yes 135.53 1.00 17.15 2.16 11.1926 17.93 8.3590
(1052 46)
68
SECRETARY (1054) 10.56 Yes 28.96 1.00 10.24 2.13 40.9268 17.93 92.2748
STAFF OFFICES 14.1135
43.93 Yes 120.51 1.00 25.47 3.24 14.7736 17.93
(1058 60 62)
STAFF OFFICES
29.43 Yes 80.74 1.00 0.00 0.00 22.0163 17.93 21.0650
(1023 21 19)
COPY ROOM (1027) 33.25 Yes 91.20 1.00 0.00 0.00 15.0088 17.93 42.1690
STAFF OFFICES
28.53 Yes 78.28 1.00 0.00 0.00 25.6528 17.93 14.5085
(1017 15)
STAFF OFFICES
43.65 Yes 119.74 1.00 27.43 3.20 14.8228 17.93 14.2042
(1064 66 68)
CONFERENCE
21.87 Yes 60.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 12.6194 17.93 16.3229
ROOM (1013) W
CONFERENCE
21.19 Yes 58.13 1.00 0.00 0.00 12.9295 17.93 4.9075
ROOM (1013) E
ELEVATOR
37.02 Yes 101.54 1.00 0.00 0.00 7.4294 17.93 0.0000
STORAGE
BREAKROOM
15.72 Yes 43.13 1.00 0.00 0.00 9.1581 17.93 181.5081
(1011)
ENTRANCE LOBBY
23.53 Yes 64.55 1.00 16.31 15.87 17.4227 17.93 0.0000
(1000)
STAIRWELL 1 24.57 Yes 67.41 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.2616 17.93 0.0000
RESTROOMS (1ST
41.20 Yes 113.01 1.00 0.00 0.00 11.4570 17.93 0.0000
FLOOR)
STAFF OFFICES
20.47 Yes 56.14 1.00 19.24 2.15 21.1087 17.93 48.9117
(1006 08)
MANAGEMENT
36.50 Yes 100.12 1.00 27.23 4.67 11.8092 17.93 5.6717
OFFICE (1010)
69
STAFF OFFICES
28.96 Yes 79.44 1.00 0.00 0.00 22.4116 17.93 21.4101
(1003 05 07)
SECRETARY (1012) 15.57 Yes 42.72 1.00 8.35 1.07 35.5751 17.93 30.4379
STAFF OFFICES
32.76 Yes 89.87 1.00 17.57 2.14 13.1557 17.93 12.6063
(1014 16)
1ST FLOOR
780.10 No 713.32 1.00 112.91 0.91 0.0000 0.0000
PLENUM
SECOND FLOOR
24.22 Yes 66.44 1.00 10.65 0.00 7.5557 16.35 0.0000
CORRIDOR
CONFERENCE
47.97 Yes 131.59 1.00 33.19 3.24 11.9872 16.35 3.9193
ROOM (2022)
STAFF OFFICES
28.46 Yes 78.10 1.00 16.75 5.45 17.2517 16.35 14.5111
(2034 32)
STAFF OFFICES
42.24 Yes 115.92 1.00 24.86 7.08 16.8548 16.35 14.6769
(2040 38 36)
SECOND FLOOR
19.77 Yes 54.25 1.00 25.78 2.95 6.3731 16.35 0.0000
STAIRWELL 2
STAFF OFFICE
12.82 Yes 35.18 1.00 20.34 3.53 21.4427 16.35 16.1405
(2014)
STAFF OFFICES
42.65 Yes 116.99 1.00 25.08 2.15 16.6946 16.35 14.5375
(2016 18 20)
MANAGEMENT
11.80 Yes 32.36 1.00 19.30 6.14 36.6211 16.35 17.5476
OFFICE (2050)
SECOND FLOOR
18.20 Yes 49.92 1.00 10.24 3.10 23.7936 16.35 26.0466
SECRETARY
STAFF OFFICES
36.51 Yes 100.15 1.00 16.05 5.10 15.1201 16.35 56.5085
(2046 44)
70
DBL STAFF
42.55 Yes 116.73 1.00 24.66 4.69 23.1249 16.35 15.5341
OFFICES (2004 02)
SECOND FLOOR
24.16 Yes 66.29 1.00 14.44 3.61 20.4015 16.35 15.4770
SECRETARY 2
STAFF OFFICES
29.57 Yes 81.12 1.00 17.14 2.14 16.6044 16.35 14.0004
(2010 12)
STAFF OFFICES
34.20 Yes 93.81 1.00 0.00 0.00 25.2954 16.35 35.2966
(2001 2003 2005)
SECOND FLOOR
15.66 Yes 57.27 1.00 0.00 2.43 7.2802 16.35 0.0000
STAIRWELL 1
SECOND FLOOR
37.14 Yes 101.89 1.00 0.00 0.00 14.2967 16.35 0.0000
RESTROOMS
STAFF OFFICES
32.12 Yes 88.11 1.00 18.61 3.62 17.2475 16.35 12.8889
(2000 62)
ELEVATOR ELEC
57.02 Yes 156.41 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.0699 9.29 0.0000
EQUIP ROOM
COPY ROOM (2029) 28.47 Yes 78.11 1.00 0.00 0.00 15.3468 16.35 14.5040
DBL STAFF
29.15 Yes 79.96 1.00 0.00 0.00 29.6053 16.35 22.6757
OFFICES (2011 09)
STAFF OFFICES
43.26 Yes 118.68 1.00 25.07 7.42 19.0919 16.35 14.3305
(2056 58 60)
DBL STAFF
25.46 Yes 69.84 1.00 0.00 0.00 33.9756 16.35 25.9629
OFFICES (2023 25)
DBL STAFF
25.65 Yes 70.35 1.00 0.00 0.00 33.7274 16.35 25.7732
OFFICES (2015 13)
STAFF OFFICES
29.17 Yes 80.03 1.00 16.91 5.34 16.8650 16.35 14.1570
(2052 54)
71
STAFF OFFICES
29.62 Yes 81.26 1.00 0.00 0.00 21.8424 16.35 20.9309
(2021 19 17)
MANAGEMENT
12.25 Yes 33.61 1.00 19.66 2.14 35.2595 16.35 16.8952
OFFICE (2006)
2ND FLOOR
764.47 No 713.35 1.00 112.91 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
PLENUM
Total 3100.17 5708.41 907.51 133.06 8.3121 32.47 8.0871
Conditioned Total 1555.60 4281.73 681.69 132.15 16.5653 16.29 16.1169
Unconditioned Total 1544.57 1426.67 225.82 0.91 0.0000 0.0000
72
APPENDIX B
MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTIONS
Table 8
Glass properties
Spec Shading Glass Visible Outside

Glass Type Name Library Selection
Method Coefficient Conductance transmittance Emissivity
AFG Gray+Low- Glass AFG Gray+LoweClr-
n/a 1.47 0.9 0.84
eClr2inAlFrmNoBrk Library NoBrk
AFG Gray+Low-eClr2inAlFrm Glass AFG Gray+LoweClr-
n/a 1.47 0.9 0.84
wBrk Library wBrk
Non-North Glass Type Simplified n/a 0.44 0.36 0.45 0.84
North Glass Type Simplified n/a 0.44 0.36 0.45 0.84
2Dome Acrylc White, Alum no Brk Simplified n/a 0.54 1.27 0.5 0.84
Table 9
Material Properties
Material Name Spec Method Thickness Conductivity Density Specific heat Resistance
EWall Cavity R-value Resistance n/a n/a n/a n/a 9
IWall Cons Mat 2 (5.5) Resistance n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.5
Roof R-Value (R30) Resistance n/a n/a n/a n/a 30
UFMat R6 Resistance n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.5
UFMat R20 Resistance n/a n/a n/a n/a 19
73
Polyisocyanurate 4in Properties 0.351 0.0117 2 0.22 n/a
EIFS R-Value Mat Resistance n/a n/a n/a n/a 6
Stucco 1in (SC01) Properties 0.083 0.4167 116 0.2 n/a
GypBd 1/2in (GP01) Properties 0.042 0.0926 50 0.2 n/a
Blt-Up Roof 3/8in (BR01) Properties 0.031 0.0939 70 0.35 n/a
Plywd 5/8in (PW04) Properties 0.052 0.0667 34 0.29 n/a
Conc HW 140lb 2in (HF-C12) Properties 0.167 1 140 0.2 n/a
Carpet & No Pad Resistance n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.75
Light Soil, Damp 12in Properties 1 0.5 100 0.25 n/a
Conc HW 140lb 4in (HF-C5) Properties 0.333 1 140 0.2 n/a
AcousTile 3/4in (AC03) Properties 0.063 0.033 18 0.32 n/a
Table 10
Construction Layers
Ins Film Thkne thkn thkne thkne

Material1 Material 2 Material 3 Material 4
Layer name Resis ss1 ess2 ss3 ss 4
Clg Tile AcousTile 3/4in
0.76 0.063 - n/a - n/a - n/a
Layer (AC03)
EWall Cons EIFS R-Value EWall Cavity GypBd 1/2in
0.68 Stucco 1in (SC01) 0.083 n/a n/a 0.042
Layers Mat R-value (GP01)
IFlr Cons Conc HW 140lb 2in Carpet & No
0.68 0.167 n/a n/a - n/a
Layers (HF-C12) Pad
IWall Cons IWall Cons Mat GypBd 1/2in
0.68 GypBd 1/2in (GP01) 0.042 n/a 0.042 - n/a
Layers 2 (5.5) (GP01)
Roof Cons Blt-Up Roof 3/8in Roof R-Value Plywd 5/8in
0.68 0.031 n/a 0.052 - n/a
Layers (BR01) (R30) (PW04)
74
Table 11
Construction
Construction name Spec Method Absorptance roughness U value Wall parameters Layers
EWall Construction Layers Input 0.6 1 0.061 - undefined - EWall Cons Layers
Ceilg Construction Layers Input 0.7 3 0.377 - undefined - Clg Tile Layer
IWall Construction Layers Input 0.7 3 0.141 - undefined - IWall Cons Layers
Roof Construction Layers Input 0.5 1 0.031 - undefined - Roof Cons Layers
IFlr Construction Layers Input 0.7 3 0.626 - undefined - IFlr Cons Layers
Dummy U-Value Cons U-Value Input 0.7 3 0 - undefined - n/a
Sgl Lyr Unins Mtl Door U-Value Input 0.7 3 2.08 - undefined - n/a
75
76

Energyplus Vs Equest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energyplus Vs Equest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energyplus Vs Equest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Comparison of EnergyPlus and eQUEST

Whole Building Energy Simulation Results for a

Medium Sized Office Building

Hema Sree Rallapalli

A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Approved November 2010 by the

Harvey Bryan, Chair

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

With the increasing interest in energy efficient building design,

whole building energy simulation programs are increasingly employed in

the design process to help architects and engineers determine which

the most popular programs used by the building energy simulation

community. eQUEST is a powerful graphic user interface for the DOE-2

engine. EnergyPlus is the newest generation simulation program under

development by the U.S. Department of Energy which adds new modeling

features beyond the DOE-2’s capability.

The new modeling capabilities of EnergyPlus make it possible to

model new and complex building technologies which cannot be modeled

by other whole building energy simulation programs. On the other hand,

EnergyPlus models, especially with a large number of zones, run much

own set of advantages and disadvantages. The choice of which building

of this thesis is to investigate the potential of both the programs to do the

building energy performance. For this purpose the energy simulation of a

fully functional building is done in eQUEST and EnergyPlus and the

heat and energy flows in building.

in producing results that would especially help in the taking critical

modeling complex systems, producing more accurate results, but

consumes more time. The choice of simulation program might change

depending on the usability and applicability of the program to our need in

different phases of a building’s lifecycle. Therefore, it makes sense if a

engine based upon the need in each particular case.

I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Prof. Marlin

obstacles we had to face throughout this project. I want to specially thank

Prof. Harvey Bryan for giving me numerous opportunities to explore the

privileged to pursue this program.

ASU Building Design, Architecture & Planning programs. That wonderful

time will always be missed.

Finally, I want to mention my best friends Sinduri and Surekha for

their constant support and words of encouragement throughout my

brother for believing in me and letting me pursue my dreams.

Thank you all.

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................vii

1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1

Purpose and Objectives .......................................................... 2

Scope and Limitations …….………………………………...... 5

Computer Configuration ................................................…... 6

2 LITERATURE STUDY ............................................................... 7

Building Energy Simulation ..................................................... 8

Simulation Tools and Comparison……..…….…..................11

Runtime Comparison ................................................…..... 38

Building Description ............................................................... 40

Energy Modeling in eQUEST ................................................ 44

Energy modeling in EnergyPlus.....................................…...45

Creating Custom Weather Files........................................... 48

Simulation Programs Output ................................................. 49

Comparison of Results .......................................................... 49

Observations and Recommendations ……………………....56

5 CONCLUSION ........................................................... …………64