Revision history [back]

I am running some energy code analysis simulations and BEOpt 3.0.1 is showing unexpected results.

When running a parametric analysis comparing air tightness at ACH 7, ACH 5, ACH 2, and ACH 1 the simulations tend to show the 5ACH home using LESS energy than the 2ACH home.

This is the opposite of what I saw when running BEOpt 2.8 where the tighter the home got, the less energy it used. What has changed with the new version of BEOpt where a leaky home now uses less energy than a tight home? It doesn't make sense to me.

I'm running this single family home model in climate zone 5B and using the default exhaust ventilation as the mechanical setting.

I am running some energy code analysis simulations and BEOpt 3.0.1 is showing unexpected results.

When running a parametric analysis comparing air tightness at ACH 7, ACH 5, ACH 2, and ACH 1 the simulations tend to show the 5ACH home using LESS energy than the 2ACH home.

This is the opposite of what I saw when running BEOpt 2.8 where the tighter the home got, the less energy it used. What has changed with the new version of BEOpt where a leaky home now uses less energy than a tight home? It doesn't make sense to me.

I'm running this single family home model in climate zone 5B and using the default exhaust ventilation as the mechanical setting.

I am running some energy code analysis simulations and BEOpt 3.0.1 is showing unexpected results.

When running a parametric analysis comparing air tightness at ACH 7, ACH 5, ACH 2, and ACH 1 the simulations tend to show the 5ACH home using LESS energy than the 2ACH home.

This is the opposite of what I saw when running BEOpt 2.8 where the tighter the home got, the less energy it used. What has changed with the new version of BEOpt where a leaky home now uses less energy than a tight home? It doesn't make sense to me.

I'm running this single family home model in climate zone 5B and using the default exhaust ventilation as the mechanical setting.