Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Planning & Design (대한건축학회논문집:계획계)

Architectural Institute of Korea (대한건축학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Building Envelope Simulation Results between EnergyPlus and eQuest for a Small Sized Office Building

소규모 사무공간에서의 건물 외피 성능에 따른 EnergyPlus와 eQuest 시뮬레이션 결과 비교에 관한 연구

  • Received : 2015.01.26
  • Accepted : 2015.06.01
  • Published : 2015.06.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare two building energy simulation programs'(EnergyPlus and eQuest) heating/cooling load, and to find the differences by analyzing algorithm, input method and default input parameters based on the ASHRAE Standard 140-Case600. EnergyPlus calculates the inside surface temperatures by solving the heat balance, but eQuest assumes that the inside surface temperature of a thermal zone is equal to the zone air temperature. This result in zone air temperature difference($1.16^{\circ}C$ average) is due to occurred load differences. Change of U-value of vertical surface causes as 7~8 % of the heating load difference and 25~26 % of the cooling load difference. The result of changed SHGC is similar. But the result from infiltration shows a little different tendency(The heating load differences decrease from 7 % to -16 % and cooling load differences increase from -26 % to -19 %). All of these differences are caused by algorithm discrepancies of convection coefficients, actual air change rate and solar transmittance.

Keywords

References

  1. Park, D., Yoon, K., Kim, K. (2013), A Comparative Study on Heating Energy Consumption of Multi-Family Apartment using EnergyPlus and eQUEST, Journal of the Korean Solar Energy Society, 33 (1), 48-56. https://doi.org/10.7836/kses.2013.33.1.048
  2. Yoon, K., Jeon, J., Kim, K. (2011), Analysis on the Impact of Load Factors in Building Energy Simulation Affecting Building Energy Consumption, KIEAE Journal, 11(4), 71-78.
  3. Andolsun S., Culp C., Haberl J., Witte M. (2011) Energy Plus vs. DOE-2.1e: The effect of ground-coupling on energy use of a code house with basement in a hot-humid climate, Energy and Buildings, 43, 1663-1675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.03.009
  4. Kruis, N., Booten, C., Christensen, C. (2012), Comparison of EnergyPlus and DOE-2 detailed window heat transfer models, SimBuild, August(1-3), 537-544.
  5. EnergyPlus(2013), EnergyPlus Engineering Reference.
  6. United States Department of Energy(1982), DOE-2 Engineers Manual Ver. 2.1A.
  7. Zhu D., Hong T., Yan D., Wang C. (2013), A detailed loads comparison of three building energy modeling progr ams : EnergyPlus, DeST and DOE-2.1E, Building Simulation.
  8. Gowri K., Winiarski D., Jarnagin R. (2009), Infiltration modeling guidelines for commercial building energy analysis, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
  9. Zhu D., Hong T., Yan D., Wang C. (2012), Comparison of building energy modeling programs: Building loads, LBNL.
  10. Maile T., Fischer M., Bazjanac V. (2007), Building energy performance simulation tools - a life cycle and interoperable perspective, Stanford University.
  11. Henninger R., Witte M. (2013), EnergyPlus testing with building thermal envelope and fabric load tests from ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2011, DOE.
  12. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Con ditioning Engineers(2004), ANSI/ASHRAE Addendum a to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2001, ASHRAE.