Revision history [back]

As of late, I've been assigned to projects that EnergyPlus is not well suited to. Things like modeling thermal losses and leakage from ducts in attics, the affect of envelope and duct sealing on the flow through vertical ducting at different heights, and controlling equipment in EnergyPlus to exactly matched high frequency logged data, like which speed an AC runs at and for how long and when.

I've found workarounds and kluges for all these problems using EMS and inappropriate use of certain objects, but they are time consuming to design, implement, and validate in EnergyPlus and must be redone for each building model.

I'm considering taking the time investment to learn another building energy modeling software for these projects that require detailed geometry, control logic, and experimental equipment which EnergyPlus isn't designed to simulate. I will still be using EnergyPlus for models that involve average or generic buildings and equipment, but it's clear that EnergyPlus is not a one size fits all for future projects.

ESP-r looks like the best candidate for very detailed simulation, but I don't know how easy changing control logic for equipment is.
Modelica is made for controlling equipment, but I don't think it does any building simulation like lighting or heat flux through surfaces.
The Building Controls Virtual Test Bed can couple different software together, like using Modelica to control equipment in EnergyPlus.

What are people's thoughts on these? Whether or not a software is currently maintained is extremely important, which is a huge plus for EnergyPlus. I don't want to learn ESP-r only to find out it isn't maintained.

A future software worth mentioning is the next generation of EnergyPlus, Spawn-of-EnergyPlus (Spawn). But will Spawn have the same limitations as EnergyPlus in terms of very detailed modeling like the three projects I mentioned in the first paragraph? In other words, will spawn being able to specify specific equipment, specific controls, specific geometry, and specific physical components tying everything together in the model, like ducts?

As of late, I've been assigned to projects that EnergyPlus is not well suited to. Things like modeling thermal losses and leakage from ducts in attics, the affect of envelope and duct sealing on the flow through vertical ducting at different heights, and controlling equipment in EnergyPlus to exactly matched high frequency logged data, like which speed an AC runs at and for how long and when.

I've found workarounds and kluges for all these problems using EMS and inappropriate use of certain objects, but they are time consuming to design, implement, and validate in EnergyPlus and must be redone for each building model.

I'm considering taking the time investment to learn another building energy modeling software for these projects that require detailed geometry, control logic, and experimental equipment which EnergyPlus isn't designed to simulate. I will still be using EnergyPlus for models that involve average or generic buildings and equipment, but it's clear that EnergyPlus is not a one size fits all for future projects.

ESP-r looks like the best candidate for very detailed simulation, but I don't know how easy changing control logic for equipment is.
Modelica is made for controlling equipment, but I don't think it does any building simulation like lighting or heat flux through surfaces.
The Building Controls Virtual Test Bed can couple different software together, like using Modelica to control equipment in EnergyPlus.

What are people's thoughts on these? Whether or not a software is currently maintained is extremely important, which is a huge plus for EnergyPlus. I don't want to learn ESP-r only to find out it isn't maintained.maintained. MODELING OF PRESSURE would be super nice too, which is not in EnergyPlus.

A future software worth mentioning is the next generation of EnergyPlus, Spawn-of-EnergyPlus (Spawn). But will Spawn have the same limitations as EnergyPlus in terms of very detailed modeling like the three projects I mentioned in the first paragraph? In other words, will spawn being able to specify specific equipment, specific controls, specific geometry, and specific physical components tying everything together in the model, like ducts?

As of late, I've been assigned to projects that EnergyPlus is not well suited to. Things like modeling thermal losses and leakage from ducts in attics, the affect of envelope and duct sealing on the flow through vertical ducting at different heights, and controlling equipment in EnergyPlus to exactly matched high frequency logged data, like which speed an AC runs at and for how long and when.

I've found workarounds and kluges for all these problems using EMS and inappropriate use of certain objects, but they are time consuming to design, implement, and validate in EnergyPlus and must be redone for each building model.

I'm considering taking the time investment to learn another building energy modeling software for these projects that require detailed geometry, control logic, and experimental equipment which EnergyPlus isn't designed to simulate. I will still be using EnergyPlus for models that involve average or generic buildings and equipment, but it's clear that EnergyPlus is not a one size fits all for future projects.

ESP-r looks like the best candidate for very detailed simulation, but I don't know how easy changing control logic for equipment is.
Modelica is made for controlling equipment, but I don't think it does any building simulation like lighting or heat flux through surfaces.
The Building Controls Virtual Test Bed can couple different software together, like using Modelica to control equipment in EnergyPlus.

What are people's thoughts on these? Whether or not a software is currently maintained is extremely important, which is a huge plus for EnergyPlus. I don't want to learn ESP-r only to find out it isn't maintained. MODELING OF PRESSURE would be super nice too, which is not in EnergyPlus.

A future software worth mentioning is the next generation of EnergyPlus, Spawn-of-EnergyPlus (Spawn). But will Spawn have the same limitations as EnergyPlus in terms of very detailed modeling like the three projects I mentioned in the first paragraph? In other words, will spawn being able to specify specific equipment, specific controls, specific geometry, and specific physical components tying everything together in the model, like ducts?

As of late, I've been assigned to projects that EnergyPlus is not well suited to. Things like modeling thermal losses and leakage from ducts in attics, the affect of envelope and duct sealing on the flow through vertical ducting at different heights, and controlling equipment in EnergyPlus to exactly matched high frequency logged data, like which speed an AC runs at and for how long and when.

I've found workarounds and kluges for all these problems using EMS and inappropriate use of certain objects, but they are time consuming to design, implement, and validate in EnergyPlus and must be redone for each building model.

I'm considering taking the time investment to learn another building energy modeling software for these projects that require detailed geometry, control logic, and experimental equipment which EnergyPlus isn't designed to simulate. I will still be using EnergyPlus for models that involve average or generic buildings and equipment, but it's clear that EnergyPlus is not a one size fits all for future projects.

ESP-r looks like the best candidate for very detailed simulation, but I don't know how easy changing control logic for equipment is.
Modelica is made for controlling equipment, but I don't think it does any building simulation like lighting or heat flux through surfaces.
The Building Controls Virtual Test Bed can couple different software together, like using Modelica to control equipment in EnergyPlus.

What are people's thoughts on these? Whether or not a software is currently maintained is extremely important, which is a huge plus for EnergyPlus. I don't want to learn ESP-r only to find out it isn't maintained. MODELING OF PRESSURE would be super nice too, which is not in EnergyPlus.

A future software worth mentioning is the next generation of EnergyPlus, Spawn-of-EnergyPlus (Spawn). But will Spawn have the same limitations as EnergyPlus in terms of very detailed modeling like the three projects I mentioned in the first paragraph? In other words, will spawn being able to specify specific equipment, specific controls, specific geometry, and specific physical components tying everything together in the model, like ducts?