Energy Modeling
NOT as hard as it looks
Practically, MOST of the complexity in an energy model is in the MEP systems.
So
Don't worry about them!
Why?
You are an architect, you design the most energy efficent and beautiful building envelope, mass, and interiors that you can.
Worried?
About solar gain, shading, wind...... DON'T, THAT IS WHAT THE SOFTWARE DOES SO WELL!
So
Retain the architectural portions of the energy model for YOU to work with.
(For the most part you can model over and over again with no concern with what the MEP Engineers are cooking up system wise. For, while MEP is a HUGE part of the energy budget of a building, your envelope, massing, layout is what will drive the energy use of the building. It will drive what kind of MEP system and how it is implemented. Your design, and energy model, will make or break the energy efficency of the building. The cleverest MEP system can't save an inherently wasteful design, yet, the ultimate in energy conserving - and energy gathering design, PassivHaus - CAN make moot the most inefficent MEP system.)
Let the MEP engineers loose on "their" side of the model, collaborate to ensure your clients enviornmental needs are fully met, along with energy goals, but let the MEP's worry about the millions of minutia they'll need to input on every motor in the building.
Except
That means you need to learn how to import, export, and merge data files for your energy model.
But
That's the only trick you'll need to learn.
Inputting the envelope, materials, massing and layout is at worst tedious, it is NOT difficult.
Voilia
You, the architect, are now an expert energy modeler!
Metaphysicallly, the great complexity in Energy Modeling is a myth based on hope and hubris.
The hope that if we input enough info, the building will magically use no energy, despite floor to ceiling glass walls.
The hubris is that mankind can "model" nature.
Nature is the ultimate analog system with infinite nested feedback systems keeping it in balance.
Heat loss alone is a non-trivial physics problem.
To say the "hotter" something is, the "faster" it will loose heat is usually an understandable shortcut to most, but still a gross simplification of the problem in pinning down heat loss.
Heat loss varies by temperature, the inside temp, the outside temp, varying second by second, compounded by wind and humidity, and mediated by the intervening material temps, varying millimeter by millimeter and also endlessly varying, second by second. Each unique combination of temperatures, materials, humidity, solar gain, sky cover (even at night), sky exposure, defines the heat transfer for the assembly, for that second in time.
eQUEST
Why it works when others fail
Why YOU have to learn how to use it!
There is NOTHING wrong with ResCheck, ComCheck, and prescriptive codes, such as the NYC Energy Conservation Code. They are good, the NYC Energy good is pretty agressive actually.
Two issues make these methodologies moot:
1. OLD buildings
2. Cutting edge buildings
The issue is "old building". ResCheck, ComCheck, and the NYC ECC have no methodology to account for the huge variation is old builidngs, massive walls, earth coupling, high ceilings, transoms, denser and thicker woods, etc.. In new buildings, passive energy collection and distribution, ERV's - Energy Recovery Ventilators, etc..
Do you as an architect, a client, want to do avoid the hideous waste of demolishing an old building just to build a shiny new one, want to push the boundries of design and sustainable design?
Then, you are going to have to learn at least one modeling program. If you don't, you'll be chained to someone who can, with the economic burden and without the experiential intuition modeling will give you to shortcut to viable sustainble initiatives that work!
eQUEST and by inclusion, DOE2... are the defacto standards when building departments, gov't agencies, LEED, require BEM simulations to prove intent, compliance, qualify for incentives, and credentialling and kudos. If you don't know a DOE2 compliant BEM, you might as well close up shop, CAD, Sketch up, 3D Studio Max, Maya, all USELESS to you if your design is not DOE2 compliant.
You'll let your engineer do it.
Your engineer's bank account thanks you.
Your employee's won't as their bonus goes towards paying for the endless BEM sims.
Your clients won't as your designs loose their edge, and all begin to look like engineered buildings.
No engineer is going to futz around tweaking membrane components trying to find some combination of assembly and material U values, shading factors, solar gain coefficents, orientations that will make your building meet it's sustainable energy goals AND remain on the cutting edge of design. To an engineer a wall is a wall is a wall, etc.. It's who they are, like to you an HVAC system is.... a big box on the roof.
Back in the 70's and 80's, while most of BEM development and research was taking place, we did not have modeling software to help us determine what energy conservation and alternative energy production would be cost effective, or just plain do anything at all.
Instead, we relied on
Sustainability and Due Diligence - Pre BEM
Back in the 70's and 80's, while most of BEM development and research was taking place, we did not have modeling software to help us determine what energy conservation and alternative energy production would be cost effective, or just plain do anything at all.
Instead, we relied on VERNACULAR architecture and it's responses to similiar enviornmental conditions we were attempting to mitigate, lower energy use, save energy, etc.. There was usually a slight problem, the vernacular was probably not developed in a Western country, and that's we were trying to deploye the solutions.
Sustainability initiatives, green building techniques, even simple energy conservation must take into account the society, the culture around it, building users, owners, etc. or, it won't work as well as it could. The sustainability initiative might even fail entirely, which is bad for your project, and bad PR for the sustainability at large.
To be edited:
HOWEVER
Remember that old adage
KISS
Was never better applied than to energy modeling
Rather than trying to input every tiny variation in your envelope, employ "safe sided" generalities.
Which, is another web page I'll try to get together sooner than latter.
