Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
Get started with the Help page
Ask Your Question
8

Creating Geometry for EnergyPlus

asked 2018-01-17 04:57:34 -0500

updated 2018-01-17 17:06:18 -0500

What are your favorite ways to create geometry for use in EnergyPlus natively and what are the pros and cons for each? Options that I can think of are:

  1. Euclid plugin for Sketchup - slower to use since zones must be created individually
  2. OpenStudio plugin for Sketchup - "create spaces from diagram" allows floor places to be built up quickly
  3. Design Builder - if you already have a license

I have heard that Euclid creates cleaner geometry and is less error prone than the OS/Sketchup plugin. Can anyone confirm if they have had this experience?

To clarify- I am not asking about the difference between using OpenStudio as an API for EnergyPlus or using EnergyPlus directly. I'm only curious about geometry creation.

edit retag flag offensive close merge delete

3 Answers

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted
4

answered 2018-01-17 16:06:44 -0500

updated 2018-01-17 16:07:27 -0500

The v2.0+ series of OpenStudio is really buggy with SketchUp.

For now, I'd suggest using Sketchup 2016 with OS v1.14 for geometry. The OpenStudio sketchup user-scripts are really helpful for quickly making geometry, and you can easily write your own scripts for common functions.

Honeybee is also good for quick shoebox geometry.

OpenStudio is an API for EnergyPlus. So even if you don't use OpenStudio directly, you can still use it to edit EnergyPlus files. There are other EnergyPlus APIs as well - eppy, Params, jEplus.

The Ladybug Tools and NREL teams are both working on geometry replacements to SketchUp, and EnergyPlus is moving to JSON format, so your preferred EnergyPlus toolchain may look very different in a year or two.

edit flag offensive delete link more

Comments

OS/SketchUp is my main E+ geometry creator and I haven't had any issues with OS v2.0+ in SketchUp (just my experience). I agree the E+ toolchain is changing everyday so I would suggest using whatever suits your immediate needs while being open to shifting gears on the next project.

Lyle K gravatar imageLyle K ( 2018-01-17 16:49:47 -0500 )edit
2

Geometry creation in OpenStudio is at kind of a nadir at the moment, as they're no longer supporting the Sketchup Plugin, and haven't fully released the replacement geometry editor. But the current development version looks really promising (if not as flashy as a fully 3D version).

Eric Ringold gravatar imageEric Ringold ( 2018-01-17 16:56:52 -0500 )edit

Great and useful information, thank you all! But do any of you know why some people prefer to use Euclid? It seems odd since the OS/Sketchup plugin seems to have better geometry creation functionality?

Anna Osborne Brannon gravatar imageAnna Osborne Brannon ( 2018-01-17 16:58:55 -0500 )edit
1

My guess is people have their own preferred built-out infrastructure for idf editing. Honestly I would use Euclid if I was using Params, and I would use Params if I had a regular solid use case (and wasn't pretty heavily invested in OS).

Eric Ringold gravatar imageEric Ringold ( 2018-01-17 17:09:35 -0500 )edit
1

answered 2018-01-17 06:33:36 -0500

Avi gravatar image

Euclid will create geometry for energyplus as .Idf file while OS sketchup plugin will create geometry for OS application in . osm format. You can translate the resulting. osm file infto. Idf file in the OS application. The obvious advantage of OS is the ability to use the extra features of the sketchup plugin as you already found and the visual features of tge OS like plant loops and air loops visual editing. The limits that OS impose are mianly around features existing in Energy Plus which are not realized in OS. One other thing is the steep learning curve of OS with somewhat lacking documentation compared to Energy Plus

edit flag offensive delete link more

Comments

1

@Avi I am only asking about geometry creation not OpenStudio API vs EnergyPlus. Also, the OS plugin for sketchup can directly export .idf, you do not need to translate it to .osm first.

Anna Osborne Brannon gravatar imageAnna Osborne Brannon ( 2018-01-17 15:03:43 -0500 )edit
1

answered 2018-01-17 22:35:16 -0500

bbrannon4 gravatar image

I prefer a 4th option - Revit. There are two ways to do it in Revit, and I actually prefer the old method where you have to be very careful setting everything up, but you get a cleaner output IDF/gbXML. The newer method (now the default) does some weird discretion with diagonal lines which results in 'stairstepped' looking surfaces, which work fine, but can increase simulation time. Part of my reasoning there though is integration with the rest of the design process, but even still, I find building geometry in Revit to be more like building in the real world (here's a wall, and a floor, and a window, etc) while sketchup and other analytical oriented platforms think in terms of volumes and 2d surfaces.

Of your three options, DesignBuilding is my next preference, for similar reasons as it is more intuitive to me. Next is actually a weird 5th option - Using IES and then converting the geometry via a gbXML workflow or some GEM translator, and that' is just because I'm very familiar with IES. Clearly I just don't like Sketchup... I find it limiting and simple, so I try to avoid it.

edit flag offensive delete link more

Your Answer

Please start posting anonymously - your entry will be published after you log in or create a new account.

Add Answer

 



Question Tools

2 followers

Stats

Asked: 2018-01-17 04:57:34 -0500

Seen: 720 times

Last updated: Jan 17 '18