Journal Home > Volume 6 , Issue 3
Building Simulation 2013, 6(3): 323-335 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-013-0126-7
Research Article | Issue | Published: 02 April 2013

A detailed loads comparison of three building energy modeling programs: EnergyPlus, DeST and DOE-2.1E

Show Author's Information Dandan Zhu1,  Tianzhen Hong2,  Da Yan1( ),  Chuang Wang1
Department of Building Science, School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, One Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
Keywords:
DeST, EnergyPlus, comparison, DOE-2.1E, building energy modeling program, building thermal loads
Cite this article:
Zhu D, Hong T, Yan D, et al. A detailed loads comparison of three building energy modeling programs: EnergyPlus, DeST and DOE-2.1E. Building Simulation, 2013, 6(3): 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-013-0126-7
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

449

Views

31

Downloads

Citations

69

Crossref

N/A

WoS

83

Scopus

0

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article

Building energy simulation is widely used to help design energy efficient building envelopes and HVAC systems, develop and demonstrate compliance of building energy codes, and implement building energy rating programs. However, large discrepancies exist between simulation results from different building energy modeling programs (BEMPs). This leads many users and stakeholders to lack confidence in the results from BEMPs and building simulation methods. This paper compared the building thermal load modeling capabilities and simulation results of three BEMPs: EnergyPlus, DeST and DOE-2.1E. Test cases, based upon the ASHRAE Standard 140 tests, were designed to isolate and evaluate the key influencing factors responsible for the discrepancies in results between EnergyPlus and DeST. This included the load algorithms and some of the default input parameters. It was concluded that there is little difference between the results from EnergyPlus and DeST if the input values are the same or equivalent despite there being many discrepancies between the heat balance algorithms. DOE-2.1E can produce large errors for cases when adjacent zones have very different conditions, or if a zone is conditioned part-time while adjacent zones are unconditioned. This was due to the lack of a strict zonal heat balance routine in DOE-2.1E, and the steady state handling of heat flow through interior walls and partitions. This comparison study did not produce another test suite, but rather a methodology to design tests that can be used to identify and isolate key influencing factors that drive the building thermal loads, and a process with which to carry them out.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

A detailed loads comparison of three building energy modeling programs: EnergyPlus, DeST and DOE-2.1E

Show Author's information Dandan Zhu1, Tianzhen Hong2, Da Yan1( ), Chuang Wang1
Department of Building Science, School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, One Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

Abstract

Building energy simulation is widely used to help design energy efficient building envelopes and HVAC systems, develop and demonstrate compliance of building energy codes, and implement building energy rating programs. However, large discrepancies exist between simulation results from different building energy modeling programs (BEMPs). This leads many users and stakeholders to lack confidence in the results from BEMPs and building simulation methods. This paper compared the building thermal load modeling capabilities and simulation results of three BEMPs: EnergyPlus, DeST and DOE-2.1E. Test cases, based upon the ASHRAE Standard 140 tests, were designed to isolate and evaluate the key influencing factors responsible for the discrepancies in results between EnergyPlus and DeST. This included the load algorithms and some of the default input parameters. It was concluded that there is little difference between the results from EnergyPlus and DeST if the input values are the same or equivalent despite there being many discrepancies between the heat balance algorithms. DOE-2.1E can produce large errors for cases when adjacent zones have very different conditions, or if a zone is conditioned part-time while adjacent zones are unconditioned. This was due to the lack of a strict zonal heat balance routine in DOE-2.1E, and the steady state handling of heat flow through interior walls and partitions. This comparison study did not produce another test suite, but rather a methodology to design tests that can be used to identify and isolate key influencing factors that drive the building thermal loads, and a process with which to carry them out.

Keywords: DeST, EnergyPlus, comparison, DOE-2.1E, building energy modeling program, building thermal loads

References(27)

A Aittomäki, T Kalema (1976). TASE—A Computer Program for Energy Analysis of Buildings. Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), Laboratory of Heating and Ventilating. (in Finnish)
A Andolsun, CH Culp (2010). A comparison of EnergyPlus to DOE-2.1E: Multiple cases ranging from a sealed box to a residential building. In: Proceedings of SimBuild, New York, USA.
ASHRAE (2007). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2007, Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs. Atlanta, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
BLAST (1991). BLAST User Reference, Vols. 1, 2. Urbana, USA: University of Illinois.
C Booten, N Kruis, C Christensen (2012). Identifying and Resolving Issues in EnergyPlus and DOE-2 Window Heat Transfer Calculations, NREL/TP-5500-55787.
DB Crawley, JW Hand, M Kurnment, BT Griffith (2008). Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs. Building and Environment, 43: 661-673.
DOI Google Scholar
DB Crawley, LK Lawrie, FC Winkelmann, WF Buhl, YJ Huang, CO Pedersen, RK Strand, RJ Liesen, DE Fisher, MJ Witte, J Glazer (2001). EnergyPlus: Creating a new-generation building energy simulation program. Energy and Buildings, 33: 319-311.
DOI Google Scholar
DeST (2006). Simulation Method for Building Thermal Environment-DeST. Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press, 2006. (in Chinese)
DOE-2 (1980). DOE-2 Reference Manual Version 2.1, LBL-7689-M Ver.2.1, LBL-8706 Rev.1.
DOE-2 (1982). DOE-2 Engineers Manual Version 2.1A, LBL-11353.
EnergyGauge (2012). EnergyGauge User Manual 2010. Florida Solar Energy Center, USA.
EnergyPlus (2011). Engineering Reference Version 7.0 Documentation. University of Illinois and Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA.
EnergyPro (2011). EnergyPro User's Manual, Version 5, July, 2011. EnergySoft, LLC, USA.
eQuest (2009). eQuest Introductory Tutorial, Version 3.63, April, 2009. James J. Hirsch & Associates, USA.
ESRU (1999). ESP-r: A building and plant energy simulation environment, User Guide Version 9 Series. ESRU Publication, University of Strathclyde, USA.
RH Henninger, MJ Witte (2006). Test Report of LBNL DOE-2.1E119 Based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2004. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA.
RH Henninger, MJ Witte (2011a). EnergyPlus Testing with ASHRAE 1052-RP Toolkit—Building Fabric Analytical Tests. Available: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/energyplus_testing.cfm. Accessed Nov. 2011.
RH Henninger, MJ Witte (2011b). EnergyPlus Testing with Building Thermal Envelope and Fabric Load Tests from ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2007. Available: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/energyplus_testing.cfm. Accessed Nov. 2011.
RH Henninger, MJ Witte (2011c). EnergyPlus Testing with HVAC Equipment Component Tests. Available: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/energyplus_testing.cfm. Accessed Nov. 2011.
J Huang, N Bourassa, F Buhl, E Erdem, R Hitchcock (2006). Using EnergyPlus for California title-24 compliance calculations. In: Proceedings of SimBuild, Cambridge, MA, USA.
IEA (1995). Building Energy Simulation Test (BESTEST) and Diagnostic Method. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA.
R Meldem, F Winkelmann (1995). Comparison of DOE-2 with Measurements in the Pala Test House, LBL-37979. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA.
R Sullivan (1998). Validation Studies of the DOE-2 Building Energy Simulation Program, LBNL-42241. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA.
VisualDOE (2004). VisualDOE 4.0 User Manual, March, 2004. Architectural Energy Corporation, USA.
C Waddell, S Kaserekar (2010). Solar gain and cooling load comparison using energy modeling software. In: Proceedings of SimBuild, New York, USA.
D Yan, J Xia, W Tang, F Song, X Zhang, Y Jiang (2008). DeST—An integrated building simulation toolkit, Part Ⅰ: Fundamentals. Building Simulation, 1: 95-110.
DOI Google Scholar
X Zhang, J Xia, Z Jiang, J Huang, R Qin, Y Zhang, Y Liu, Y Jiang (2008). DeST—An integrated building simulation toolkit, Part Ⅱ: Applications. Building Simulation, 1: 193-209.
DOI Google Scholar
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements

Publication history

Received: 15 November 2012
Revised: 06 February 2013
Accepted: 18 February 2013
Published: 02 April 2013
Issue date: September 2013

Copyright

© Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Acknowledgements

This study was a joint effort between Tsinghua University, China and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA under the US-China Clean Energy Research Center on Building Energy Efficiency. It was co-sponsored by the Energy Foundation under the China Sustainable Energy Program.

Return