Building and HVAC Design Tools and Processes

ARTI-21CR-605-30010-30020-01
STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW
WHOLE BUILDING, BUILDING ENVELOPE, AND HVAC COMPONENT AND SYSTEM
SIMULATION AND DESIGN TOOLS
Final Report
February 2002
Authors: P. Jacobs, H. Henderson
ARCHITECTURAL ENERGY CORPORATION

2540 Frontier Avenue, Suite 201
Boulder, Colorado 80301
CDH Energy Corp.

132 Albany Street
Cazenovia, New York 13035
Prepared for the

AIR-CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE
4100 North Fairfax Dr., Suite 200, Arlington, Virginia 22203
Distribution A – Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited.

DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Technology Institute (ARTI) under its “HVAC&R Research for the 21st Century”
(21-CR) program. Neither ARTI, the financial supporters of the 21-CR program, or any agency
thereof, nor any of their employees, contractors, subcontractors or employees thereof - makes
any warranty, expressed or implied; assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, any third party’s use of, or the results of such use of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed in this report; or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade
name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute nor imply its
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by ARTI, its sponsors, or any agency thereof or their
contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of ARTI, the 21-CR program sponsors, or any agency thereof.
Funding for the 21-CR program provided by (listed in order of support magnitude):
- U.S. Department of Energy (DOE Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC05-99OR22674)
- Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute (ARI)
- Copper Development Association (CDA)
- New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)
- Refrigeration Service Engineers Society (RSES)
- Heating, Refrigeration Air-Conditioning Institute of Canada (HRAI)
Available to the public from
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
Available to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors in paper from
U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
(423) 576-8401
ARTI-21CR-605-30010-30020-01
STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW
WHOLE BUILDING, BUILDING ENVELOPE, AND HVAC COMPONENT AND SYSTEM
SIMULATION AND DESIGN TOOLS
Final Report
February 2002
Authors: P. Jacobs, H. Henderson
Prepared for the

AIR-CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE
Under ARTI 21-CR Program Contract Number 605-30010 / 605-30020
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is the result of two projects completed for the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
Technology Institute (ARTI). The two research efforts were lead by Architectural Energy
Corporation (AEC) and CDH Energy Corp. Subcontractors participating in the project were:
Geopraxis, Inc. was responsible for conducting the key informant interviews and market
research components of the project.
The Joint Center for Energy Management at the University of Colorado was responsible for
conducting background research into the HVAC systems simulation capabilities of whole-
building design tools.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory was primarily responsible for conducting background research
into air conditioning and refrigeration equipment simulation tools.
The authors at AEC and CDH wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following people
who were part of the project teams:
• Fred Porter, Michael Holtz, and Laurel Van Driest, AEC.

• Daniel Ciolkosz, CDH Energy Corp.
• Tom Conlon, Pat Bailey, John Kennedy and Margie Stein, Geopraxis
• Michael Brandemuehl and Peter Alspach, the University of Colorado
• Keith Rice, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
We also thank the members of the project monitoring subcommittee at ARTI for their guidance
and feedback through the process, including: Jerry Groff, Drury Crawley, Robert Howe, John
Andrews, and Bill Murphy. Also, thanks to Fred Buhl at LBNL for his careful review of the
early report drafts.
We are also grateful for the guidance and leadership of the other members of the System
Integration (SI) committee as well as the ARTI staff, including Elizabeth Jones and Glenn
Hourahan. Their vision and leadership on this joint effort were instrumental its success.
State-of-the-Art Review of Whole Building, Building Envelope, and HVAC Component and System Simulation and Design Tools
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goal of this project was to provide strategic insight into the requirements for software tools
that can facilitate integrated energy-efficient designs, particularly in small commercial buildings.
The specific objectives of the project were to:
• Understand user requirements among three key groups – architectural designers,

engineering practitioners, and design/build contractors – with particular attention to the
needs of users from the small building design and construction market.
• Survey existing tools – in terms of their technical rigor, modeling approaches to specific
technologies and systems, and ease of integration into the overall design process.
• Evaluate existing tools relative to user requirements – identify where users needs are not
met, where commercialization barriers may be occurring, and where new tool capabilities
may be needed.
• Provide guidelines for further tool development – to develop recommendations for
improvements to existing tools, and areas where additional R&D or commercialization
efforts may be needed.
To meet the research objectives, emphasis was placed on characterizing the current use of
software tools in the design community, assessing the users’ perceived needs and identifying any
barriers to adoption. The project approach included the following steps:
1. A literature and software review to identify the important design practice issues related to
computer use in building design, software availability, and simulation model capabilities.
2. A survey of top-level software providers and users to assess the current use of whole building
design methods and modeling tools in design practice.
3. A web survey of over 200 design professionals to quantitatively estimate in several
categories of building design decisions: (a) time constraints and tool use, (b) satisfaction with
these practices, and (c) priority for new software research and development.
4. Focus groups in Denver, Colorado and Syracuse, New York to probe the significance of the
quantitative findings from the web survey and to further explore practitioners’ perceived
needs.
5. A list and critique of available software tools along with a description of ongoing
development efforts with respect to the perceived user needs discovered during the design
practice review.
6. An editorial assessment with recommendations on tool enhancements to answer unmet needs
and activities to improve adoption of whole building design.
The report is a joint effort, combining the results of two separate projects: a whole building and
envelope tool survey, and an HVAC and refrigeration system tool survey. Splitting the research
effort in this manner mimicked the natural division of responsibility in building design between
architects and engineers. Architects are more involved in building envelope and lighting design
issues, while mechanical engineers focus more on HVAC system design. The essence of the
whole building design concept is to provide a more interactive relationship between these two
ES-1
professions. The impacts of both architectural and engineering decisions are viewed in a whole
building context.
Current Design Practices
The building design process starts with programming and conceptual design phases and ends
with the final design and production of construction documents. These documents are sent to
various construction teams for competitive bidding. The selected contractor constructs the
building with oversight from the design team and building owner. Once the building is
complete, the owner and the tenants (either formally or informally) assess how well the building
functions or meets their needs.
A wide array of computer software is available to help practitioners design and analyze
buildings. However, the most significant innovation in the last 10-15 years was the widespread
adoption of computer aided drafting (CAD) that allowed drawings to be created and stored in an
electronic format. CAD has been widely adopted by the building design and construction
industry.
Although not yet widely adopted, the use of three-dimensional CAD (3D-CAD) in the design
process provides several additional advantages, including building visualization and interference
checking. Other software tools have developed to assist architects, engineers, and design
professionals with shading analysis, window selection, cooling and heating load analysis, duct
sizing, equipment selection, code compliance, and cost estimating. These tools help designers
complete repetitive or computationally intensive tasks more quickly and accurately.
Whole building design and energy analysis software tools help design professionals analyze the
energy performance of their designs. These energy analysis tools help designers understand the
implications of design decisions on annual operating costs. Several available software tools have
well-developed graphical user interfaces and make intelligent assumptions to assist the user.
Some clients – such as the Federal government – are realizing the benefits of whole building
energy analysis and requiring that it be done for their projects. However, only a subset of the
design community is actively using these tools.
Performance feedback provided by whole building energy analysis tools allows designers to
provide optimized buildings for their clients. These tools help assure equipment is properly
sized for the design conditions of a given building and that the part-load performance of the
building subsystems are optimized to provide a comfortable environment with the lowest
possible energy costs.
Barriers to the adoption of new software tools include the steep learning curve and the extensive
data input required. Whole building energy analysis tools do not fit into current design practices
since energy-related decisions are often made during the “conceptual” phases of the project,
when building details required by these tools are not always available. Typically, energy analysis
is an engineering function often associated with energy code compliance. Building designers do
not always embrace energy analysis as part of the normal design process. On smaller building
projects with tighter budgets, it is even less likely that a building energy analysis will be
considered in the design.
ES-2
Existing Software Tools
Numerous software tools are available to design or analyze buildings and HVAC systems.
Software tools have been developed for different purposes, with varying degrees of complexity,
and aimed at various audiences. Some tools provide an accurate prediction of system or
component performance. In other cases, the absolute technical accuracy is secondary to ensuring
the tools are easy to use and address the everyday needs of practitioners who design buildings.
The following software classification system was developed to compare and contrast the
available software with respect to the needs and requirements of architects, engineers, and other
designers.
Practitioner Design Tools: Software used by architects, engineers, and other practitioners to
automate common tasks that are part of the day-to-day design process. Several practitioner tools
are closely integrated into CAD environments.
Whole Building Energy Analysis Tools: Programs that simulate operating conditions to predict
annual energy use and operating costs. These detailed hour-by-hour building simulation tools
are used by some practitioners as part of the design process and for energy code compliance.
Energy and Environmental Screening Tools: Screening software focusing on the economic and
environmental impacts of using new energy-efficient technologies in buildings. Calculations are
often simplified with minimal input requirements to provide a quick look at the potential of a
new technology.
Specialized Analysis Tools: Research software, including technically accurate simulation models
often developed for academic study of a building science problem. These tools focus on building
or system performance details.
This classification aims to distinguish between software tools that are: (1) aimed at helping
design practitioners complete their current day-to-day tasks more efficiently, or (2) intended to
assist designers with more peripheral issues such as energy analysis. For example, the popular
HAP and TRACE software are two different tools: a load calculation / system sizing tool and an
hour-by-hour energy analysis tool. The load calculation tool accounts for over 80 percent of the
HAP and TRACE user base since it addresses the day-to-day design needs of practitioners.
Europe appears to have a wider availability of designer-focused energy analysis tools due to
differences in design practices and technical needs in that market (i.e., determining maximum
space temperature in an uncooled building rather than calculating cooling loads).
A variety of specialized software tools were identified that represent highly accurate calculation
procedures. These tools are often used for academic research or by specialized consultants
studying specific issues related to building science or HVAC. These tools range from three
dimensional heat and moisture transfer in the building envelope to the refrigerant-side
performance of components in cooling systems.
ES-3
Tools in the whole building energy analysis category offer the most promise for improved
building designs. These tools can facilitate the whole building design process, where architects
and engineers work together to design an efficient building as an integrated system.
From the classification process above, six whole building energy analysis tools were identified
for further study:
1. Energy-10: Simplified energy analysis program from NREL for small buildings (under
10,000 sq. ft.).
2. Carrier HAP: Hourly energy analysis program from Carrier Corporation.
3. Trane TRACE: Hourly energy analysis program from Trane Corporation.
4. DOE-2: Hourly simulation program from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
5. EnergyPlus: Next generation simulation program from U.S. DOE.
6. TRNSYS: General purpose component-based hourly simulation program from the University
of Wisconsin.
These six mainstream tools were selected based on popularity and/or unique technical ability.
Some of these tools are highly-flexible calculation engines while others are complete user-ready
tools with graphical interfaces. DOE-2 and TRNSYS each include several different interfaces
available from various software vendors. Energy-10, HAP, and TRACE each have their own
dedicated calculation engine and user interface. EnergyPlus, currently just a calculation engine,
is the next-generation simulation tool developed by DOE to replace the aging DOE-2 engine.
These tools are all hour-by-hour simulation models that capture the detailed dynamics of
building and HVAC system performance. Typical annual hourly weather data (e.g., TMY or
TMY2) are used for the hourly calculations in these models. All use well-established load
calculation methods to determine the cooling and heating loads imposed on a zone for each hour.
While Energy-10 is focused on smaller one- or two-zone buildings, the other tools can consider
larger buildings with numerous thermal zones served by multiple HVAC systems.
TRNSYS provides the most flexibility in modeling the details of HVAC and mechanical system
performance. In contrast, DOE-2 has traditionally provided the most accurate and flexible
simulations of building loads by considering complex building geometry, fenestration details,
and daylighting. EnergyPlus is the first program to integrate technically accurate and flexible
building load and mechanical system details into a single program.
Along with technical details of the energy calculations, the user interface is a critical element to
successful tool application. The user interface for tools such as Energy-10 has made this
software much more useful to design practitioners – especially at the conceptual stages of design.
Energy-10 allows the user to quickly assemble a building model with minimal inputs. Various
energy efficiency strategies can be automatically assembled and compared to a baseline building.
These automated comparison features allow designers to quickly evaluate the efficacy of various
energy efficiency strategies. In contrast, traditional building simulation tools provide a single
building simulation run for any given building, leaving the user to manually compare and
evaluate the results from numerous runs.
ES-4
DOE-2 based tools, such as eQuest, VisualDOE, and the EDR Charrette, have well-developed
interfaces and “wizards” that allow designers to quickly assemble a model of a building and
analyze the results. For instance, eQuest provides a multi-step building input wizard that allows
a user to quickly specify building details. At each step of the specification process, the user is
allowed to accept the default inputs or modify specific values as desired. The input decisions are
usually at a high level, such as: Is the building a box, “L-shaped,” or “H-shaped”? This use of
intelligent default inputs frees the user from burdensome details of the simulation tool and allows
them to focus on the higher level design issues. eQuest also includes a energy efficiency
measure wizard that automates the process of evaluating the energy savings and impact of
specific design decisions.
Interoperability
Software interoperability offers the means to eliminate re-entry of input data. By representing
project data in an object-oriented database that describes the building (instead of a series of lines,
arcs, and text), other software tools can potentially use this information for different purposes. A
significant fraction of the input data required by a whole building energy analysis tool relates to
building geometry and could potentially be pulled from the CAD database. Other details
required by energy simulation tools – such as HVAC zoning, capacity information, and
occupancy schedules – while not traditionally included in CAD files, could easily be
incorporated in a more object-oriented environment. Interoperability will allow all members of
the project team to update their input to the project database at varying stages in the process
using the software tools they are most familiar with; yet the project information remains
available to other team members for their needs.
Many U.S. and European efforts have attempted to link energy simulation tools to CAD
databases. The primary difficulty with past efforts has been preparing CAD data in standardized,
object-oriented form that facilitated the transfer of this information to the energy analysis tool.
Over the last ten years various interoperability standards have evolved. The International
Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) developed Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) as a
standardized, object-oriented way to represent project data for the architectural, engineering, and
construction industry. The IFC process has established several domains (such as architecture,
building services, and codes and standards) that address and represent specific sectors within the
industry. Current IFC efforts are aimed at developing ways to represent data required for HVAC
performance and building simulation. Efforts are also under way to incorporate other key
facility information, such as design intent and interior space usage plans, as part of the
comprehensive data model.
Another movement underway is extensible markup language (XML) – a close cousin to the
Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) – to exchange data between software applications. Like
the broader XML format, aecXML is focused on quickly implementing standards for data
transactions between software applications. In contrast, the IFC approach has placed more
emphasis on developing a comprehensive and highly structured data model. Several CAD
vendors and other software suppliers have embraced the interoperability concept and are quickly
developing products that can seamlessly exchange data. Labor intensive processes such as cost
ES-5
estimating, duct and piping layout, lighting analysis, and load calculations are expected to be the
first areas where interoperability can be of particular benefit to designers.
Market Research on Software Used for Building Design
Traditional market research techniques were used to further understand how software tools are
currently used in the building design process, and which technical capabilities and user features
would further improve the utility of these tools. A web survey and a series of focus groups were
used to gain insight into user needs.
A web survey was targeted to various web sites and e-mail lists frequented by architects,
engineers, design/build contractors, and other building design professionals. Survey
participation was encouraged by enrolling respondents in a sweepstakes give-away. The survey
was open from October to December 2000 and attracted 337 respondents. 198 eligible
participants from 17 countries ultimately completed the survey.
Eighty-nine percent of the survey participants were from the U.S. and 4 percent were from
Canada. The most commonly represented states were California (18%), New York (7%),
Wisconsin (7%), Colorado (7%), and Oregon (4%). Broken down by profession, the group was
57% architects, 31% engineers, and 10% contractors. Survey respondents worked on
commercial building projects ranging from under 20,000 sq. ft. to over 100,000 sq. ft. Engineers
tended to work on larger projects while architects more often worked on smaller buildings.
Respondents came from both small and large firms, though engineers tended to be from larger
firms while the architects were more frequently part of smaller organizations.
About 80 percent of the survey participants indicated that they “always” use 2D-CAD. In
contrast, about 10 percent always use 3D-CAD programs. Web-based project management tools
were used much less frequently. One somewhat surprising result was that there were only small
differences between the use of tools on small and large projects (i.e., over and under 20,000
square feet). These results imply that once an individual learns a certain software tool, they
apply it to all their subsequent projects regardless of size.
The survey identified nine categories of design decisions and asked each respondent if they made
those design choices. An affirmative response in a category lead to additional questions related
to software use. Across the architectural and engineering-related categories, respondents usually
selected “previous experience, rule of thumb” as the most common “tool” used to help make the
design decisions. HVAC sizing and selection was an exception where manufacturer’s literature
or software was the most common tool used.
Focus Groups were held in Denver, Colorado (November 2000) and Syracuse, New York
(December 2000) to follow up on the findings from the web survey. Each group of eight
participants had a mix of architects, engineers, and design/build contractors1. The focus group
participants commonly worked on commercial projects under 100,000 sq. ft. The groups
confirmed that 2D-CAD was widely used on projects of all sizes. AutoCAD was identified as
1
Denver: Five architects, eight engineers. Syracuse: Four architects, three engineers, one design/build contractor.
ES-6
the most popular CAD software. 3D-CAD was used when needed for visualization and 3D-
renderings for marketing purposes.
Computerized HVAC sizing and load calculation tools such as Carrier HAP, Trane TRACE, and
Elite CHVAC were used by many of the individuals, though not on every project. Rules of
thumb that scaled the HVAC sizing from a similar previous project were used whenever
possible. HAP and TRACE were widely used tools because of the strong support from
manufacturers. While some group members thought tools such as CHVAC might be better, the
lack vendor-supplied training was identified as a limiting factor.
A common theme was the significant effort required to “re-cost” the building with new energy-
efficient options. Many participants saw potential for interoperable energy analysis tools that
could both import building data from CAD files as well as communicate with project cost
estimating software in order to ease the effort required to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
various options.
Many participants also confirmed that they rely heavily on manufacturers' design and selection
software. When questioned about their dependence on these proprietary design tools and any
potential conflicts that it might cause, many designers did express some unease. Most stated that
the limited time to complete a design push them towards using these proprietary tools because
the tools are easy to use and well supported by the manufacturer’s sales force. However,
everyone believed that using proprietary tools did not necessarily lock them into using the
manufacturer’s specific equipment.
Pathways to Improve Tools
The purpose of this research project was to identify how software tools could be improved to
expand their use in the building design process. The wider use of software tools in building
design will allow engineers and architects to provide a more energy-efficient and comfortable
building by treating it as an integrated system. Whole building energy analysis tools allow
designers to understand and demonstrate the energy implications of their design decisions.
The adoption of the IFC and XML interoperability standards is perhaps the most significant
future trend that will promote wider use of software tools in the design process. Interoperability
will allow geometric data from CAD tools to be shared with other software applications. This
design information can be pulled directly from CAD environments into energy analysis tools,
eliminating the time-consuming steps of data input that traditionally have discouraged the use of
these tools. Interoperability also offers the potential to seamlessly and easily incorporate product
information from equipment vendors to assess the efficacy of various options. The potential to
quickly consider and evaluate equipment and building options with inoperable energy analysis
tools will widely expand the acceptance of whole building design process.
Lighting and daylighting issues are especially important to whole building design – requiring
close coordination between various members of the project team to realize the true benefits. A
demonstration of interoperable software tools related to lighting would be useful for
communicating the benefits of interoperable software to designers. A set of tools that allow this
ES-7
series of design steps to be iteratively repeated with different options would help to demonstrate
the value of interoperability to the design community.
Software tools need to be targeted to specific audiences. Nearly all energy analysis tools have
been targeted at mechanical engineers and code compliance specialists. Architects need tools
that provide qualitative or “order of magnitude” feedback in a highly graphical form to show
clients. Software tools that integrate graphical results with context-sensitive guidance are likely
to have the most appeal for architects. In contrast, engineers need software tools that can be used
in both the conceptual design stage, when little is known about the building; as well as in the
final design stages, when most project details have been finalized. Software, such as eQUEST,
VisualDOE, and Energy-10, that combine simplified input wizards with detailed simulation
tools have the most potential to meet these differing needs at various stages of the design
process.
Load calculation and system sizing tools such as HAP, TRACE, and CHVAC are widely used by
practicing engineers. The input data required for building load calculations are nearly the same
as is required for a full energy analysis; the only additional inputs are occupancy and internal
load schedules and descriptions of control details and set points.
One approach to promoting the wider use of whole building energy analysis would be to entice
the providers of popular loads tools (such as HAP, TRACE, and CHVAC) to upgrade and
promote the energy analysis portions of their integrated tools. While market pull has not driven
manufacturers to keep their energy analysis features up to date, providing targeted support and
incentives to these software developers would serve to speed the adoption of these tools and help
to transform design practices.
Designers now often perceive energy analysis to be outside of their normal responsibilities. In
order to entice them to use these tools, the time required to enter the data for energy analysis
tools must provide output and results that are commensurate with the effort. Interoperability
promises to tilt this balance by greatly reducing input effort. However, the results of this effort
must still provide clear benefits to designers and their clients. Coupling energy analysis tools to
code compliance and cost estimating software is clearly a means to put designers in closer
contact with these tools so that they can understand the value of incorporating this software into
the design process.
Energy analysis tools clearly need to provide users with more ability to accept default inputs in
order to be widely used in the conceptual design phase. Credible consensus organizations within
the industry could help in this process by developing generic default libraries and other default
input information for energy analysis tools. For instance, libraries of air conditioning equipment
performance data are important because the vast majority of software users often rely on these
defaults. Similarly, putting technically-rational and documented descriptions of occupancy
patterns, operating schedules, set points, and internal loads for typical building application (e.g.,
school, office, retail) in generic form that is compatible with ongoing interoperability efforts will
help ensure the databases are accessible to a wide audience of software users and developers.
ES-8
A good example of relevant design assistance materials is available at

EnergyDesignResources.com. This site has been developed by California’s electric utilities to
promote good design practices within the state’s architectural and engineering community. The
site provides a mix of design guides, case studies, and free software. While the site is a high
quality resource, unfortunately it has reportedly seen little traffic. Many government, industry,
and trade organizations are well positioned to help transfer these resources to the broader design
community.
Conclusions
A large number of software tools have been developed over the past 20 years by industry,
government, and academia to address a variety of building design industry needs. However,
these software tools have generally not realized their expected potential, often because they do
not fit into current design processes. The learning curve required to use a new software tool and
the extensive data inputs required, has limited the utility of many tools. The widespread
adoption of CAD and the potential for data exchange between interoperable software tools will
radically change how software is used in the building design process. By allowing data to be
entered once and then shared repeatedly among the project team, the input requirements of many
software tools can be reduced. This shift will allow designers to adopt new types of software
into their design processes that were previously too cumbersome or time-consuming.
Interoperability will allow designers to realize the benefits of many software packages without
requiring them to learn the details of each tool.
The building design industry can help realize this vision by:
1. Embracing and supporting software interoperability efforts,

2. Developing materials and web resources to demonstrate the value of software and promote
the whole building design approach to architect and engineers, and
3. Identifying and developing baseline data and knowledge that can facilitate the development
of software tools that are focused on the needs of design practitioners.
The wider use of energy analysis software and whole building design procedures among
practitioners will ultimately help them provide more efficient and comfortable buildings.
ES-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Report Organization................................................................................................... 1-2
1 DESIGN PRACTICES ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Design Process ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Impact of Timing on Energy Efficiency ..................................................... 2-2
2.2 Design Practices......................................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.1 CAD ............................................................................................................ 2-3
2.2.2 Energy Analysis Tools................................................................................ 2-4
2.3 Whole Building Design.............................................................................................. 2-5
2.3.1 Conceptual Example of Whole Building Design........................................ 2-6
2.3.2 Real-World Example of Whole Building Design ....................................... 2-7
2.4 Market Barriers to Energy Efficient Building Design ............................................... 2-8
2.4.1 Institutional Barriers ................................................................................... 2-9
3 REVIEW OF EXISTING BUILDING AND HVAC SOFTWARE ............................. 3-1

3.1 Overview of Building and HVAC Software.............................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Design vs. Energy Analysis ........................................................................ 3-2
3.1.2 Classification of Software Tools................................................................. 3-2
3.1.3 North American vs. International Tools ..................................................... 3-5
3.2 Practitioner Design Tools .......................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.1 Computer Aided Design ............................................................................. 3-6
3.2.2 Lighting Design Tools ................................................................................ 3-7
3.2.3 Fenestration / Window Selection Tools...................................................... 3-8
3.2.4 Shading / Solar Angle Tools ....................................................................... 3-9
3.2.5 Code Compliance Tools............................................................................ 3-10
3.2.6 Simple Zone Load Tools........................................................................... 3-11
3.2.7 Multi-Zone HVAC System Load tools ..................................................... 3-13
3.2.8 Duct Sizing / Layout Tools ....................................................................... 3-14
3.2.9 Cost Estimating Tools............................................................................... 3-15
3.2.10 Integrated Design Suites ........................................................................... 3-19
3.2.11 HVAC Manufacturer Product Selection and Configuration Tools........... 3-20
3.2.12 Engineer's "Toolbox" ................................................................................ 3-21
3.2.13 Piping Analysis and Pump Sizing............................................................. 3-21
3.2.14 IAQ / Standard 62 Compliance Tools....................................................... 3-22
3.2.15 Psychrometric Tools ................................................................................. 3-23
3.2.16 Refrigeration Load Tools.......................................................................... 3-24
3.2.17 Coil Selection Tools.................................................................................. 3-25
3.2.18 Geothermal HP Loop Sizing Tools........................................................... 3-26
3.2.19 Acoustic Analysis Tools ........................................................................... 3-26
3.2.20 Solar DHW / PV System Design Tools .................................................... 3-27
3.2.21 Weather Tools and Utilities ...................................................................... 3-27
3.3 Whole Building Energy Analysis Tools .................................................................. 3-28
i
3.3.1 Simplified Energy Analysis Models ......................................................... 3-28

3.3.2 Basic Hourly Simulation Models (Calculation Engines).......................... 3-29
3.3.3 General Purpose Hourly Simulation Models ............................................ 3-30
3.3.4 Special Purpose Hourly Simulation Models (Technology
Focused Tools) ......................................................................................... 3-32
3.3.5 Web-Based Hourly Simulation Models .................................................... 3-33
3.4 Economic and Environmental Analysis Tools......................................................... 3-33
3.4.1 General Life-Cycle Analysis Tools .......................................................... 3-34
3.4.2 Technology Screening / Assessment Tools .............................................. 3-34
3.4.3 Environmental Impact and Educational Tools.......................................... 3-35
3.5 Specialized Analysis Tools ...................................................................................... 3-36
3.5.1 Daylighting / Illumination Models............................................................ 3-36
3.5.2 Detailed Window / Fenestration Models .................................................. 3-38
3.5.3 Infiltration / Pressurization / Pollutant Transport Models ........................ 3-39
3.5.4 Detailed Heat and Moisture Transport Models......................................... 3-40
3.5.5 CFD / Air Flow Models ............................................................................ 3-41
3.5.6 Equation-Based Simulation Models ......................................................... 3-41
3.5.7 HVAC Component and Plant Models....................................................... 3-42
3.5.8 Detailed Refrigeration Models (Hardware-Based) ................................... 3-43
3.5.9 Detailed Refrigeration Models (Performance-Based) .............................. 3-45
3.6 Market Penetration of Whole Building Energy Analysis Tools .............................. 3-45
3.7 Software Interoperability ......................................................................................... 3-46
3.7.1 Industry Foundation Classes ..................................................................... 3-47
3.7.2 aecXML .................................................................................................... 3-48
3.7.3 Role of IFC and aecXML Approaches ..................................................... 3-49
4 WEB SURVEY.................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Survey Sampling........................................................................................................ 4-2
4.2 Characteristics of Participants.................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.1 Professional Background ............................................................................ 4-3
4.2.2 Geographical Representation ...................................................................... 4-4
4.2.3 Scale of Firms and Projects......................................................................... 4-4
4.3 Office-Wide Design Practices.................................................................................... 4-7
4.4 Tools Used Most Often............................................................................................ 4-11
4.4.1 Building Form, Siting, and Orientation .................................................... 4-11
4.4.2 Lighting and Daylighting.......................................................................... 4-12
4.4.3 Envelope and Glazing ............................................................................... 4-13
4.4.4 HVAC Sizing............................................................................................ 4-14
4.4.5 HVAC Equipment Selection..................................................................... 4-15
4.4.6 Refrigeration Systems............................................................................... 4-16
4.4.7 Green Design ............................................................................................ 4-17
4.4.8 Energy Analysis and Code Compliance ................................................... 4-18
4.4.9 Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation........................................................... 4-19
4.4.10 Duct and Pipe Sizing................................................................................. 4-20
4.5 Research Priorities from Web Survey...................................................................... 4-21
4.6 Research Priorities: Comparison to Previous User Survey..................................... 4-23
ii
5 FOCUS GROUPS ............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Characteristics of Attendees ...................................................................................... 5-2
5.2 Design Practices......................................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.1 Building Form, Siting, and Orientation ...................................................... 5-5
5.2.2 Lighting / Daylighting................................................................................. 5-6
5.2.3 Envelope and Glazing ................................................................................. 5-7
5.2.4 HVAC Sizing and Selection ....................................................................... 5-8
5.2.5 Refrigeration ............................................................................................. 5-10
5.2.6 Green Design and Materials...................................................................... 5-10
5.2.7 Energy Analysis and Code Compliance ................................................... 5-10
5.2.8 Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation........................................................... 5-11
5.3 Research Priorities from Focus Groups ................................................................... 5-11
6 WHOLE BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS TOOLS.................................................. 6-1

6.1 General Features of the Selected Whole Building Energy Simulation Programs ..... 6-1
6.1.1 The Loads Module ...................................................................................... 6-2
6.1.2 The Systems Module................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.3 The Plants Module ...................................................................................... 6-4
6.1.4 The Economics Module .............................................................................. 6-4
6.2 Energy-10................................................................................................................... 6-4
6.2.1 Energy-10 Loads Simulation ...................................................................... 6-5
6.2.2 Energy-10 Systems Simulation................................................................... 6-5
6.2.3 Energy-10 Economics................................................................................. 6-6
6.2.4 Energy-10 User Interface............................................................................ 6-6
6.3 Carrier HAP ............................................................................................................... 6-8
6.3.1 HAP Loads Simulation ............................................................................... 6-9
6.3.2 HAP Systems Simulation............................................................................ 6-9
6.3.3 HAP Plant Simulation............................................................................... 6-10
6.3.4 HAP Economics........................................................................................ 6-10
6.3.5 HAP User Interface (Loads Program)....................................................... 6-10
6.4 Trane TRACE .......................................................................................................... 6-12
6.4.1 TRACE Loads Simulation ........................................................................ 6-13
6.4.2 TRACE Systems Simulation .................................................................... 6-13
6.4.3 TRACE Plant Simulation.......................................................................... 6-14
6.4.4 TRACE Economics................................................................................... 6-14
6.4.5 TRACE User Interface.............................................................................. 6-14
6.5 DOE-2 ...................................................................................................................... 6-16
6.5.1 DOE-2 Loads Simulation.......................................................................... 6-17
6.5.2 DOE-2 Systems Simulation ...................................................................... 6-17
6.5.3 DOE-2 Plant Simulation ........................................................................... 6-18
6.5.4 DOE-2 Economics .................................................................................... 6-18
6.5.5 DOE-2.2 .................................................................................................... 6-18
6.5.6 DOE-2 User Interface ............................................................................... 6-19
6.6 EnergyPlus ............................................................................................................... 6-29
6.6.1 EnergyPlus Loads Simulation................................................................... 6-29
iii
6.6.2 EnergyPlus Systems Simulation ............................................................... 6-30

6.6.3 EnergyPlus Plant Simulation .................................................................... 6-30
6.6.4 EnergyPlus User Interface ........................................................................ 6-31
6.7 TRNSYS .................................................................................................................. 6-33
6.7.1 TRNSYS Loads Simulation...................................................................... 6-34
6.7.2 TRNSYS Systems Simulation .................................................................. 6-35
6.7.3 TRNSYS Plant Simulation ....................................................................... 6-35
6.7.4 TRNSYS User Interface ........................................................................... 6-35
6.8 Comparison of Simulation Programs....................................................................... 6-40
7 TOOL CAPABILITIES ................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Simplified Tools for Use During Concept Design..................................................... 7-2
7.2 CAD Interface............................................................................................................ 7-3
7.3 Electric Lighting Design ............................................................................................ 7-3
7.4 Daylighting ................................................................................................................ 7-4
7.5 High-Performance Glass............................................................................................ 7-4
7.6 Ventilated Façade....................................................................................................... 7-4
7.7 Exterior Shading ........................................................................................................ 7-5
7.8 "Cool" Roofs .............................................................................................................. 7-5
7.9 Ground Coupling ....................................................................................................... 7-5
7.10 Thermal Comfort ....................................................................................................... 7-5
7.11 Radiant Cooling and Heating..................................................................................... 7-6
7.12 Improved Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps................................................ 7-6
7.13 Desiccant Dehumidification....................................................................................... 7-6
7.14 Duct Leakage and Losses........................................................................................... 7-7
7.15 Heat Recovery Systems ............................................................................................. 7-7
7.16 Economizer Controls ................................................................................................. 7-8
7.17 VVT Systems ............................................................................................................. 7-8
7.18 Variable Speed Pumping............................................................................................ 7-8
7.19 Cooling Towers / Fluid Coolers................................................................................. 7-9
7.20 100% Makeup Air / Dual Path Systems .................................................................... 7-9
7.21 Air Balance / Transfer Air ....................................................................................... 7-10
7.22 System Sizing........................................................................................................... 7-10
7.23 Indoor Air Quality and Pollutant Tracking.............................................................. 7-10
7.24 Moisture Absorption / Desorption and Mold Formation ......................................... 7-11
7.25 Displacement Ventilation......................................................................................... 7-11
7.26 Demand-Controlled Ventilation............................................................................... 7-11
7.27 Refrigeration System Design ................................................................................... 7-12
7.28 Passive Solar Heat.................................................................................................... 7-12
7.29 Natural and Mixed Mode Ventilation ...................................................................... 7-13
7.30 Photovoltaics............................................................................................................ 7-13
7.31 Transpired Solar Walls ............................................................................................ 7-13
7.32 Combined Systems................................................................................................... 7-14
7.33 Code Compliance..................................................................................................... 7-14
iv
8 PATHWAYS TO IMPROVE DESIGN TOOLS ........................................................... 8-1

8.1 Interoperability........................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Specific Needs of Target User ................................................................................... 8-2
8.3 Leverage Code Compliance Requirements................................................................ 8-3
8.4 Software Technical Improvements ............................................................................ 8-3
8.5 Equipment and System Performance Data Development .......................................... 8-5
8-6 Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 8-5
8-7 Develop Regional Guidelines .................................................................................... 8-6
9 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 9-1
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ A-1

Design Practice Surveys, Books and Reports .................................................................... A-1
Design Practice Periodicals................................................................................................ A-7
Design Practice Web Resource Sites ................................................................................. A-8
CAD Industry Rating Guides........................................................................................... A-11
Miscellaneous Sources..................................................................................................... A-12
Simulation Books and Reports......................................................................................... A-13
Building & HVAC Models .............................................................................................. A-27
Technical Review of Energy Simulation Techniques and Software ............................... A-32
Simulation Web Resource Sites....................................................................................... A-33
Refrigeration System Models .......................................................................................... A-34
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Comparison of Standard vs. Energy-Efficient Design............................................ 2-6

Table 2-2 Market Barriers to Energy-Efficient Building Design............................................ 2-9
Table 3-1 List of Sub-Categories in Practitioner Design Tools .............................................. 3-4

Table 3-2 List of Sub-Categories in Whole Building / Energy Analysis Models................... 3-4
Table 3-3 List of Sub-Categories in Economic and Environmental Analysis Tools .............. 3-4
Table 3-4 List of Sub-Categories in Specialized Analysis Tools............................................ 3-5
Table 3-5 List of CAD Tools .................................................................................................. 3-6
Table 3-6 Summary of Tools Linked and Associated with Major CAD Packages................. 3-7
Table 3-7 List of Manufacturers'' Lighting Design Tools ....................................................... 3-8
Table 3-8 List of Fenestration / Window Selection Tools ...................................................... 3-9
Table 3-9 List of Shading / Solar Angle Tools ....................................................................... 3-9
Table 3-10 List of Energy Code Compliance Tools................................................................ 3-10
Table 3-11 List of Simple Zone Load Calculation Tools........................................................ 3-12
Table 3-12 List of Multi-Zone HVAC System Load Tools .................................................... 3-13
Table 3-13 List of Duct Sizing / Layout Load Tools .............................................................. 3-14
Table 3-14 Drawing Takeoff Hardware Tools: Digitizer Hardware and ............................... 3-16
Software Interfaces
Table 3-15 Drawing Takeoff Hardware Tools: Integrated Costing Software with................ 3-17
Digital Takeoff Capability
Table 3-16 List of General Cost Estimating Tools.................................................................. 3-17
Table 3-17 List of Integrated Design Tools ............................................................................ 3-20
Table 3-18 Partial List of Manufacturers' Product Selection Tools ........................................ 3-21
Table 3-19 List of "Engineer's Toolbox" Software ................................................................. 3-21
Table 3-20 List of Piping Analysis and Pump Sizing Software.............................................. 3-22
Table 3-21 List of IAQ / Standard 62 Compliance Software.................................................. 3-23
Table 3-22 List of Psychrometric Software Tools .................................................................. 3-24
Table 3-23 List of Refrigeration Load Software ..................................................................... 3-25
Table 3-24 List of Coil Selection Software............................................................................. 3-26
Table 3-25 List of Geothermal HP Loop Sizing Software...................................................... 3-26
Table 3-26 List of Acoustic Analysis Software ...................................................................... 3-27
Table 3-27 List of Solar DHW / PV Design Software ............................................................ 3-27
Table 3-28 List of Weather Tools and Utilities Software ....................................................... 3-28
Table 3-29 List of Simplified Energy Analysis Software ....................................................... 3-29
Table 3-30 List of Basic Hourly Simulation Models (Calculation Engines) .......................... 3-30
Table 3-31 List of General Purpose Hourly Simulation Software .......................................... 3-31
Table 3-32 List of Special Purpose Hourly Simulation Software ........................................... 3-33
Table 3-33 List of Web-Based Hourly Simulation Software .................................................. 3-33
Table 3-34 List of General Life-Cycle Analysis Software...................................................... 3-34
Table 3-35 List of Technology Screening / Assessment Software ......................................... 3-35
Table 3-36 List of Environmental Impact and Educational Software .................................... 3-35
Table 3-37 List of Third Party Lighting Design and Daylighting Tools................................. 3-37
Table 3-38 List of Detailed Window / Fenestration Models................................................... 3-39
vi
Table 3-39 List of Detailed Infiltration / Pressurization / Pollutant Transport Models .......... 3-40
Table 3-40 List of Detailed Heat and Moisture Transport Models ......................................... 3-40
Table 3-41 List of CFD / Air Flow Models............................................................................. 3-41
Table 3-42 List of Equation-Based Models ............................................................................ 3-42
Table 3-43 List of HVAC Component and Plant Models ....................................................... 3-43
Table 3-44 Tools for Refrigeration Cycle Analysis (Hardware-Based Models)..................... 3-44
Table 3-45 Detailed Refrigeration Models (Performance-Based) .......................................... 3-45
Table 3-46 Estimated Numbers of Software Licenses ............................................................ 3-46
Table 3-47 Projects in the Building Services Domain of IAI ................................................. 3-48
Table 4-1 Estimated Statistical Precision Design Practices Web Survey 2000 ...................... 4-3
Table 4-2 Most Frequent Tool Used ..................................................................................... 4-21
Table 4-3 Priorities for Design Tool Features....................................................................... 4-21
Table 4-4 R&D Priorities from Building Simulation Model Users ...................................... 4-24
Table 5-1 Characteristics of Denver, Colorado Attendees...................................................... 5-2

Table 5-2 Characteristics of Syracuse, New York Attendees ................................................. 5-3
Table 5-3 Characteristics of Attendees and the Firms They Represent: Denver, Colorado .. 5-4
Table 5-4 Characteristics of Attendees and the Firms They Represent: ................................. 5-4
Syracuse, New York
Table 6-1 User Interfaces Written for DOE-2.1E ................................................................. 6-28

Table 6-2 User Interfaces Written for DOE-2.2.................................................................... 6-29
Table 6-3 Side-by-Side Comparisons of Simulation Features .............................................. 6-41
Table 6-4 Side-by-Side Comparisons of Loads Simulation Capabilities.............................. 6-45
Table 6-5 Side-by-Side Comparisons of Systems Simulation Capabilities .......................... 6-50
Table 6-6 Side-by-Side Comparisons of Plant Simulation Capabilities ............................... 6-53
Table 6-7 Side-by-Side Comparisons of Economics Simulation Capabilities...................... 6-55
Table 7-1 Comparison of Simulation Program Capabilities ................................................... 7-1
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Graphical Representation of the Design and Construction Process........................ 2-1
Figure 2-2 Impact of Timing on Energy Savings Potential (Energy Design Resources, 1999a)2-2
Figure 2-3 Energy Consumption Comparison of Standard and Energy-Efficient Design ....... 2-7
Figure 2-4 Victor Valley Water District Administration Building; Victorville, California ..... 2-8
Figure 4-1 Web Survey Announcement ................................................................................... 4-2

Figure 4-2 Size of Most Common Projects .............................................................................. 4-4
Figure 4-3 Mix of Building Types Completed in 1999 ............................................................ 4-5
Figure 4-4 Mix of Project Types Completed in 1999............................................................... 4-6
Figure 4-5 Size of Firm............................................................................................................. 4-7
Figure 4-6 Use of CAD and Web-Based Project Management Tools...................................... 4-8
Figure 4-7 Energy Analysis and Code Compliance Tools ....................................................... 4-9
Figure 4-8 Building Commissioning ...................................................................................... 4-10
Figure 4-9 Time Spent on Project Tasks ................................................................................ 4-10
Figure 4-10 Building Form, Siting, and Orientation Design Tools.......................................... 4-11
Figure 4-11 Lighting and Daylighting Design Tools ............................................................... 4-12
Figure 4-12 Envelope and Glazing Design Tools..................................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-13 HVAC Sizing Tools.............................................................................................. 4-14
Figure 4-14 HVAC Equipment Selection Tools....................................................................... 4-15
Figure 4-15 Refrigeration System Design Tools ...................................................................... 4-16
Figure 4-16 Green Design Tools .............................................................................................. 4-17
Figure 4-17 Energy Analysis and Code Compliance Tools ..................................................... 4-18
Figure 4-18 Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation Tools............................................................. 4-19
Figure 4-19 Duct and Pipe Sizing Tools................................................................................... 4-20
Figure 4-20 Priorities for Software R&D ................................................................................. 4-22
Figure 4-21 Priorities for New Software R&D......................................................................... 4-23
Figure 6-1 Energy-10 Autobuild Screen................................................................................... 6-6

Figure 6-2 Energy-10 Zone Description Screen....................................................................... 6-7
Figure 6-3 Energy-10 Energy-Efficient Strategies Selection ................................................... 6-7
Figure 6-4 Energy-10 Sample Output Screen........................................................................... 6-8
Figure 6-5 HAP Main Screen ................................................................................................. 6-11
Figure 6-6 HAP Space Screen ................................................................................................ 6-11
Figure 6-7 HAP System Screen.............................................................................................. 6-12
Figure 6-8 TRACE Sample Screen: Create Rooms............................................................... 6-15
Figure 6-9 TRACE Sample Screen: Assign Rooms to Zones ............................................... 6-15
Figure 6-10 TRACe Sample Screen: Editing HVAC System Description.............................. 6-16
Figure 6-11 VisualDOE 3D Representation of a Building....................................................... 6-20
Figure 6-12 VisualDOE HVAC System Input Screen ............................................................. 6-21
Figure 6-13 VisualDOE Design Alternative Input Screen ....................................................... 6-22
Figure 6-14 VisualDOE Graphical Output Report ................................................................... 6-23
Figure 6-15 eQUEST Wizard Input Screen.............................................................................. 6-24
Figure 6-16 eQUEST EEM Wizard Input Screen .................................................................... 6-25
viii
Figure 6-17 eQUEST Detail Mode 3D Building View ............................................................ 6-26

Figure 6-18 eQUEST Detailed Mode HVAC System Input Form........................................... 6-27
Figure 6-19 EnergyPlus Launch Program ................................................................................ 6-31
Figure 6-20 EnergyPlus IDF Editor.......................................................................................... 6-32
Figure 6-21 3D CAD Rendering of EnergyPlus Geometry...................................................... 6-33
Figure 6-22 Sample TRNSYS text input file............................................................................ 6-36
Figure 6-23 Sample PRESIM Screen ....................................................................................... 6-37
Figure 6-24 Sample IISiBat Screen .......................................................................................... 6-38
Figure 6-25 SimCAD Input Screen .......................................................................................... 6-39
Figure 6-26 PreBid Interface for Defining Multi-Zone Buildings (TYPE 56)......................... 6-40
ix
1 INTRODUCTION
This project was developed to provide strategic insight into the requirements for software tools to
improve the energy performance and comfort of small commercial buildings through a “whole-
building” design approach. Small buildings are defined for this project as buildings less than
20,000 square feet, which represent nearly 80 percent of the commercial new construction
activity annually in the U.S.
To conduct this investigation, several research objectives were defined:
• Understand user requirements among three key groups – architectural designers,

engineering practitioners, and design/build contractors – with particular attention to the
needs of users from the small building design and construction market.
• Survey existing tools – in terms of their technical rigor, modeling approaches to specific
technologies and systems, and ease of integration into the overall design process.
• Evaluate existing tools relative to user requirements – identify where users needs are not
met, where commercialization barriers may be occurring, and where new tool capabilities
may be needed.
• Provide guidelines for further tool development – to develop recommendations for
improvements to existing tools, and areas where additional R&D or commercialization
efforts may be needed.
To meet the research objectives, emphasis was placed on characterizing the current use of
software tools in the design community, assessing the users’ perceived needs and identifying any
barriers to adoption. The project approach included the following steps:
1. A literature and software review to identify the important design practice issues related to
computer use in building design, software availability, and simulation model capabilities.
2. A survey of top-level software providers and users to assess the current use of whole building
design methods and modeling tools in design practice.
3. A web survey of over 200 design professionals to quantitatively estimate in several
categories of building design decisions: (a) time constraints and tool use, (b) satisfaction with
these practices, and (c) priority for new software research and development.
4. Focus groups in Denver, Colorado and Syracuse, New York to probe the significance of the
quantitative findings from the web survey and to further explore practitioners’ perceived
needs.
5. A list and critique of available software tools along with a description of ongoing
development efforts with respect to the perceived user needs discovered during the design
practice review.
6. An editorial assessment with recommendations on tool enhancements to answer unmet needs
and activities to improve adoption of whole building design.
The report is a joint effort, combining the results of two separate projects: a whole building and
envelope tool survey, and an HVAC and refrigeration system tool survey. Splitting the research
effort in this manner mimicked the natural division of responsibility in building design between
1-1
architects and engineers, since architects are more involved in building envelope and lighting
design issues, while mechanical engineers focus more on HVAC system design.
1.1 Report Organization
The report has eight chapters that follow the course of the research.
Chapter 2 – Design Practices. Design practices in the building industry that affect the adoption
of energy-efficient technologies and methods are briefly described in this chapter.
Chapter 3 – Review of Existing Building and HVAC Software. A catalog of the types of
software that are available to design and analyze building systems and equipment is presented in
this chapter.
Chapter 4 – Web Survey. The web survey approach and results are summarized in this chapter.
Chapter 5 – Focus Groups. Results from the focus groups are presented in this chapter.
Chapter 6 - Whole Building Energy Analysis Tools. Comparisons between the most popular
whole building energy analysis tools – the software that holds the most promise for helping
practitioners design and construct more efficient buildings – are presented in this chapter.
Chapter 7 – Tool Capabilities. The capabilities of selected software tools to address the key
issues raised during the market research phase of the project and the anticipated needs for HVAC
systems research and development are highlighted in this chapter.
Chapter 8 – Pathways to Improve Design Tools. The final chapter presents recommendations to
encourage whole building design practices, including software research and development
priorities and market transformation activities.
1-2
2 DESIGN PRACTICES
This chapter explores current design practices in the small building market. The chapter starts by
describing the typical steps in the architectural design process, then describes current trends in
the use of software in building design, the potential for improved efficiency in building design
using the whole building design process, and market barriers to energy efficient design.
2.1 Design Process
To understand how to integrate software into the design process, we first must understand the
process of how buildings are designed. The design process generally follows a series of steps, as
shown in Figure 2-1.
Architectural Design and Construction Phases
Pre-Design / Schematic Design Construction Construction Post-

Programming Design Phase Development Documents and Occupancy
Phase Phase Phase Commissioning Evaluation
Phase Phase
Figure 2-1. Graphical Representation of the Design and Construction Process
A brief description of each design phase is as follows:
Pre-Design / Programming. The pre-design / programming phase is typically concerned with

developing or verifying an architectural program which summarizes the client’s goals, functional
requirements, site conditions, budget, and so on. All the basic information needed to initiate the
design process is assembled during this phase.
Schematic Design. The schematic design phase is exploratory, where the project team
formulates and evaluates several potential design solutions. The activities tend to focus on site
integration, building form, and overall mechanical and electrical system design concepts.
Enough detail is provided to give the building owner an idea of the exterior shape, materials, and
HVAC and lighting system design concepts. Sketches or renderings of the building are generally
provided to give an idea of the street level view of the building. A preliminary construction cost
estimate is prepared to ensure the building envisioned at this step in the process can be
constructed within the budget. At the conclusion of schematic design, generally one “winning”
design scheme is chosen for further development.
Design Development. The design development phase is concerned with refining the approved
schematic design. The majority of the architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical design
work is conducted during this phase. The architect coordinates the activities of the various
disciplines to resolve conflicts and deliver a product that meets the programmatic needs of the
building owner. At the conclusion of design development, detailed cost estimates are prepared.
2-1
Construction Documents. During the construction documents phase, all drawings and
specifications needed to construct the project are prepared, and remaining design details and
coordination issues are addressed.
Construction and Commissioning. The project team is responsible, on behalf of the building
owner, for supervising the construction of the building to ensure adherence to the construction
documents. Building commissioning is becoming a familiar element of the architectural design
process to verify that the building systems are performing as intended, and that the client “got
what was paid for.”
Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Evaluating the building after occupancy can be done to improve
the quality and performance of future buildings. This phase is rarely included in the architectural
design process. As a consequence, little is learned about how the building is actually performing
and how satisfied the occupants are with the end product.
2.1.1 Impact of Timing on Energy Efficiency
The timing of energy efficiency considerations during the design process can have a dramatic
impact on the building first costs and overall energy savings achieved, as shown in Figure 2-2.
Consideration of energy efficiency at the very beginning of the design process broadens the
number of options, while waiting until later in the process results in costly re-design and reduced
energy savings opportunities.
Design
Programming development Construction
Potential
cost-effective
energy savings
Level of
design effort
Schematic Construction Occupancy

design documents
Phase of design process
Source: ENSAR Group and E SOURCE
Figure 2-2. Impact of Timing on Energy Savings Potential

(Energy Design Resources, 1999a)
2-2
2.2 Design Practices
A series of interviews were conducted with individuals involved in the building design and
research community to characterize design practices and develop specific questions for the
market research portion of the study. The interviews probed two main subject areas: the use of
Computer Aided Design (CAD) and the use of energy analysis tools.
2.2.1 CAD
A significant innovation in the building design and construction industry over the last 10 to 15
years has been the widespread adoption of computer aided design (CAD) software, also known
as computer aided design and drafting (CADD). The original use for CAD tools in the building
industry was to automate the production of construction documents. While use of CAD has had
little impact on the absolute speed of generating drawings, it has greatly simplified the inevitable
process of modifying drawings. The concept of drawing layers allows several different building
subsystems or components to be “overlaid” in the same drawing file. The various layers can be
hidden or displayed as required, and the use of multiple colors (at least when viewed on the
screen) helps to make complex drawings more understandable.
The recent innovation in CAD technology is object-oriented 3D model-based design products.

Users of these newer tools can create and manipulate intelligent objects such as “walls,” “slabs,”
“doors,” and “windows” as opposed to the “lines,” “arcs,” and other drafting-oriented elements
common to earlier generations of CAD tools. From a single 3D model, users may automatically
generate all relevant views— plans, sections, elevations, and schedules; and perform takeoffs
that make up the construction documentation. CAD vendors are eager to exploit the full object
intelligence inherent in the 3D building object model, including the ability to share their models
with other members of the design team. Such “downstream” sharing of model data enables the
simulation of a building's behavior in terms of energy performance, construction costs, code
compliance, and other types of design analysis. Once such data exchange becomes technically
and financially viable, the value of CAD data will extend beyond the production of construction
documents to become a living model of the building design with applications for facilities
management, operations, and maintenance.
CAD is an integral function at most architectural firms. While 2D-CAD is ubiquitous for the
production of construction drawings, 3D-CAD has yet to significantly penetrate the architecture,
engineering, and construction community. 3D-CAD is considered important for increased
adoption of energy analysis tools, since importing a 3D description of the building directly into
an energy analysis tool can be a big time-saver.
Estimates by key informants contacted by our research team of the percentage of projects that
use 3D-CAD tools during the schematic design stage ranged from less than 10 percent to 100
percent, depending on the types of firms and projects involved. Though all of the largest projects
are said to include 3D-CAD during conceptual design, the vast majority of mid-sized and smaller
projects apparently do not. As a result, larger firms working on high-profile projects tend to
report higher percentages of 3D-CAD use.
2-3
While some exceptions are said to exist among the most technologically sophisticated firms,
most of the small buildings targeted by this project are unlikely to receive any 3D modeling. At
present, even where 3D modeling is used, its purpose is more for marketing to create a rendered
image or animated walk-through presentation than for the actual design of the building. Clearly,
the market for 3D conceptual design is growing. Firms are excited about improvements to the
technology and most realize they need to stay abreast of these changes to remain competitive.
2.2.2 Energy Analysis Tools
Energy analysis tools have been developed over the past 20 years to help designers determine the
annual energy consumption and the cost of various building designs, and compare the energy
savings resulting from different design strategies. Many designers were first exposed to these
tools as energy code compliance tools. More and more clients — such as the federal government
— are realizing the benefits of whole building energy analysis and requesting that it be included
in their projects.
Users of energy analysis tools were asked what tools they currently used and what the future
holds for organizations that use such tools. Energy engineers working for energy services
companies (ESCO) and electric utilities reported using simple “spreadsheet” models for most
customer requests, and DOE-2 (a sophisticated energy analysis tool from the US Department of
Energy) when detailed energy analysis is required. Recognition and approval by regulatory
agencies was cited as the main advantage of DOE-2 for utility program use.
Although electric utility and ESCO users frequently mention DOE-2, a design practices survey
conducted by RLW Analytics (1999) indicated that energy analysis software supplied by HVAC
equipment vendors has the largest market share among designers. Practicing mechanical
engineers interviewed for this study reported using both manufacturers software and code
compliance software in the design process. Past experience and rules of thumb are also used to
size equipment. Respondents reported that HVAC equipment is often sized based on "intuitive"
knowledge of the building, the size of existing units being replaced, recommendations from the
equipment manufacturer's sales representative, or customer preference.
None of the parties interviewed indicated that architects use energy analysis tools as part of their
typical practice when working on smaller buildings, since this is the engineer’s area of expertise.
The engineers stated that the use of energy analysis tools was dependent on the complexity of the
job and was driven in many cases by the need to carry out code compliance. When asked why
energy analysis design tools have not yet been implemented by practicing professionals to any
significant degree, the general response was that target users would view anything that added a
step to the design process with skepticism. In order to be adopted, any new software needs to
integrate into the flow of the existing design/construction process. Unless it can be shown that
cost savings, competitive advantage, or some other benefit to the user will result, new products
don’t have much of a chance of being successful. A developer of a suite of energy analysis
software products aimed specifically at small commercial and residential buildings stated that
value added features such as automated parts list and specification generation are required to
increase software sales. Several parties also stated that it is crucial that design/analysis tools
2-4
allow the user to easily compare the costs and benefits of different designs in an automated
manner.
2.3 Whole Building Design
Whole building design is an analytical process that treats the building as a series of interacting
systems, rather than individual components that function in isolation. Starting with the occupied
space, load avoidance strategies are employed to minimize the loads on the HVAC system.
Typical load avoidance strategies include energy-efficient lighting systems, daylighting, task /
ambient lighting designs, energy-efficient office equipment, high performance glazing, and
improved insulation and air leakage sealing measures.
Once the loads in the space have been reduced, the energy distribution system presents the next
opportunity. Since heat removal rates are proportional to flow rate, the load avoidance strategies
can reduce the required supply air flow rate. Air distribution system pressure can be reduced
through improved duct layout and use of low pressure drop filters and coils, thus reducing the
fan power per unit of air flow. The combination of load reductions and distribution efficiency
improvements reduces the HVAC system peak load, decreasing the HVAC system size and cost.
Energy-efficient HVAC equipment is used to meet the remaining loads at the greatest possible
efficiency. The incremental cost of energy-efficient equipment can be offset by reductions in
equipment size.
Besides these basic load avoidance/system capacity tradeoffs, additional systems integration
issues addressed through whole building design include:
• Interaction of lighting illuminance levels, glazing selection, and interior finishes on the visual
(luminous) environment
• Impact of glazing selection and placement on daylight availability, glare, thermal comfort,
and cooling loads
• Benefits of thermal mass inherent in the building structure or interior walls on the magnitude
and timing of peak cooling loads. Properly configured thermal mass can moderate
temperature swings in the space and reduce or delay the need for cooling or heating in some
climates.
• Benefits of mechanical equipment with improved part-load operation. Many heating and
cooling systems are designed to keep the space comfortable during the coldest and hottest
times of the year, but are not optimized for high efficiency operation during the milder
conditions that occur during the rest of the year. Selecting equipment that operates
efficiently at part-load conditions can save significant energy and money.
• Determining the ability of cooling and dehumidification equipment to maintain adequate
space humidity levels under all operating conditions.
• Match between thermal and electrical loads relative to on-site power generation. On-site
power generation is more cost-effective if the waste heat from the generator can be captured
and put to use for space and water heating or other uses.
• Investigate natural ventilation as means to provide cooling and ventilation in certain climates.
2-5
2.3.1 Conceptual Example of Whole Building Design
To illustrate the potential benefits of whole-building design, consider the following conceptual
example: A standard-practice office designed to just meet the local energy code is compared to
an energy-efficient version of the same building that makes use the whole building design
process. A summary of the building characteristics is shown in Table 2-1:
Table 2-1. Comparison of Standard vs. Energy-Efficient Design

Building Characteristic Standard Building Energy-Efficient Building Percent
Savings
Lighting power density 1.6 W/sf 1.1 W/sf 31%
Glazing system Single pane, tinted glazing, High performance glass,
Shading Coef. = .65 Shading Coef. = 0.34
Cooling system size 240 sf/ton 475 sf/ton 50%
Supply air requirements 1.7 cfm/sf 0.85 cfm/sf 50%
Fan power 0.8 W/cfm 0.6 W/cfm 25%
Fan power / sf 1.3 W/sf 0.5 W/sf 62%
Cooling system efficiency 8.5 EER 12.0 EER 29%
Cooling energy consumption 5.9 kWh/sf 2.1 kWh/sf 64%
The combination of lower lighting power and improved glazing reduced the size of the air
conditioning system by 50 percent. Similarly, the total fan flow rate was reduced 50 percent.
Lower duct static pressure reduces the fan power per unit of flow (W/cfm) by 25 percent. The
combined effect of reduced air flow requirement and improved duct design is 62 percent lower
fan power per square foot of floor area. Using a smaller packaged rooftop air conditioning
system with an energy efficiency improvement of about 30 percent reduces the total cooling
energy by more than 60 percent. The sum total of the energy savings for lighting, cooling and
fans is shown in Figure 2-3.
2-6
Energy Consumption Comparison
12
10
8
kWh/SF
0
Lighting Fans Cooling Total
Standard Building Energy-Efficient Building
Figure 2-3. Energy Consumption Comparison of Standard and Energy-Efficient Design.
As shown in this example, energy savings of greater than 50 percent are possible using the whole
building design process, primarily through a combination of load avoidance and modest
improvements in system efficiency.
2.3.2 Real-World Example of Whole Building Design
An example of a small building constructed using the whole building design process is the
16,700 square foot Victor Valley Water District Administration building in Victorville,
California (Energy Design Resources, 1999b). Located in a high desert climate, the building has
12-inch-thick exterior walls made from solid-grouted concrete masonry. Thermal insulation is
mounted on the interior walls, isolating the building’s interior as much as possible from the
effects of the extreme outdoor environment. The building relies on a highly efficient indirect /
direct evaporative cooling unit for space cooling. Although the building has a 20-ton direct
expansion cooling unit for backup, it is rarely needed since the evaporative system meets the
cooling load 98 percent of the time. Skylights are used to provide daylighting to most of the
occupied spaces. Other load avoidance strategies include extensive shading on the south and
west windows, energy-efficient lighting, and high-performance glass.
2-7
Figure 2-4. Victor Valley Water District Administration Building; Victorville, California
DOE-2 modeling was used to inform the design process and calculate energy savings.
According to Southern California Edison, the building uses about 67% less energy than a
comparable building design meeting the California energy code. The building operator notes
that the new building costs about the same to operate per year as the former 5,000 square foot
facility.
2.4 Market Barriers to Energy-Efficient Building Design
Classical market-based economic theory would indicate that cost-effective energy efficiency
strategies would be demanded by knowledgeable consumers and delivered by a responsive
market. However, efficiency levels in practice tend to lag behind this idealized “rational action”
model. Impediments to efficient operation of economic markets are called “market barriers.” In
the building design and construction world, several market barriers to the adoption of energy-
efficient building design practices have been identified (Eto et al., 1996). A partial list of the
relevant market barriers, and the potential for whole building analysis tools to help reduce these
barriers is shown in Table 2-2.
2-8
Table 2-2. Market Barriers to Energy-Efficient Building Design

Market Barrier Description Addressed in some
manner by whole
building design tools
Information costs Added costs of gathering information on new energy- ✔
efficient products and services.
Performance uncertainties Uncertainty in the value of future benefits relative to first ✔
costs.
Asymmetric information and Lack of consistent information between buyers and sellers of ✔
opportunism energy-efficient products and services.
Transaction costs Additional contracting or design costs associated with ✔
purchasing an energy-efficient building.
Hidden costs Unexpected additional costs, such as higher operations or
maintenance costs.
Access to financing Lack of consideration of energy efficiency in determining ✔
loan qualification and financing terms.
Bounded rationality Constraints imposed on the design based on previous ✔
experience rather than objective analysis.
Organizational practices Constraints within an organization that prevent or inhibit the
full consideration of energy-efficient design.
Split incentives Separate parties bearing the costs and receiving the benefits
of energy-efficient design.
Product availability Lack of availability or timely delivery of energy-efficient
versions of building products.
Externalities Lack of full consideration of external costs such as the ✔
environment and health
Feature inseparability Energy-efficient products may be bundled with unneeded
features that drive up the cost.
2.4.1 Institutional Barriers
Several social science researchers have studied the issue of organizational practices and their
impact on the adoption of energy-efficient design practices within architecture and engineering
firms. Janda (1996), during an evaluation of a utility sponsored energy efficiency program,
separated architectural design and engineering firms into six segments according to their
strategic strengths (strong delivery; strong service; strong idea) and their organizational values
(practice-centered vs. business-centered). Firms that pride themselves as “business-centered”
with “strong delivery” as a strategic strength are likely to integrate proven energy-efficiency
strategies into their designs. Firms that adopt “practice-centered” values with a “strong idea”
strategic strength are more likely to try experimental approaches. She further suggests that
engineering firms are better-positioned to move large quantities of energy-efficient technologies
into the marketplace than architecture firms (Janda, 1999). Activities to influence building
design practices should be tailored according to the organizational practices of the firms.
Lutzenhiser (1999) has been engaged in a project funded by the California Institute for Energy
Efficiency (CIEE) to characterize design practices in the commercial sector and explore market
transformation opportunities. His team of researchers found that the commercial/institutional
building markets are multifaceted and inherently complex social systems. The design and
building process is inherently “negotiative,” with multiple actors working out their own self-
2-9
interests governed by informal and professional norms. Under these conditions, design teams
tend to arrive at compromise solutions that result in fairly conventional building designs. “The
market functions as a sort of habitat that exerts selective pressures on efforts to innovate.” The
routine absence of owners, tenants, and other users of commercial buildings from the design and
construction process can inhibit the communication of user needs and reduce the incentive for
innovation.
In spite of the market barriers confronting designers of small buildings, whole building design is
being applied to a small but growing number of projects. The availability of software design
tools that are well-integrated into the business practices of firms designing small buildings can
address many of these barriers by providing easy access to critical design information and
sophisticated analysis of the costs and benefits of energy-efficient design practices.
2-10
3 REVIEW OF EXISTING BUILDING AND HVAC SOFTWARE
This chapter presents an overview of existing building- and HVAC-related software. The first
subchapter provides an overview and establishes a classification scheme for the different types of
software based on the capability and the intended audience. The remaining subchapters take an
in-depth look at the various types of software available in the established classifications.
3.1 Overview of Building and HVAC Software
The universe of the software tools related to the design and analysis of buildings and HVAC
systems is extremely broad. Software tools have been developed for numerous sectors of the
building and HVAC industry with varying degrees of complexity, for differing purposes, and
aimed at various audiences. Some tools are developed to provide a technically accurate
prediction of system / component performance. In other cases, the absolute technical accuracy is
secondary to ensuring that the tools are easy to use and address the everyday needs of design
professionals.
For instance, specialized software tools have been developed to help product development
engineers design and evaluate mechanical vapor compression HVAC equipment. These tools
calculate the detailed refrigerant-side performance of components such as compressors, heat
exchangers, and expansion devices to predict how the components behave when combined into a
system. Similarly, other detailed research tools exist to help architects and building scientists
understand the amount of energy and illumination that is transferred through a building window
at different times of the year.
Other software tools are aimed at building design practitioners – architects, engineers, and other
professionals that design buildings and specify the systems that go into them. Generally, these
tools assist with or speed up some common aspect of the design process, such as duct sizing and
layout, energy code compliance, or HVAC equipment sizing. These tools automate the
mechanical tasks and processes that designers currently do on a day-to-day basis.
In the middle of the spectrum are software tools, such as hourly building simulation models, that
combine many of the best available technical modeling features of advanced tools with an
intuitive user interface and pre-defined libraries of standard components. These tools were
usually developed for use by design practitioners to predict the annual energy use and operating
costs of a building. While these tools have not always been used by the audience originally
envisioned, they typically have developed a broad following with energy analysts and others in
specific niches of the building industry.
Historically, technical accuracy and ease of use were mutually exclusive properties. Today, with
the increasing speed and lower cost of computers, it is possible to develop simple user interfaces
for more technically detailed calculation engines. These software tools provide the power of
more advanced tools without burdening the user with more complicated details of the underlying
model. Often, the intelligent selection of default or unseen input data is central to the success of
these approaches.
3-1
3.1.1 Design vs. Energy Analysis
Software tools can generally be divided into two distinct groups:
1. Tools to assist with the process of building design.

2. Tools to analyze the energy use, operating costs, and environmental impact of buildings.
Tools in the first category fit well into the design process because they help designers more
efficiently complete tasks that they perceive are part of their normal, day-to-day efforts. The
second category of tools do not fit as well into current design processes (even though many argue
that they should). Specialized consultants and others who are concerned with quantifying the
energy use (and savings) in buildings and HVAC systems now use these tools. However, the
development of software tools to help designers comply with performance-based energy codes
has more widely exposed designers to these types of tools.
Many efforts are under way to quantify and communicate the benefits of using energy analysis
tools in the design process. The whole building approach or integrated design process has been
reported to result in significant energy savings; however, design professionals, who are driven by
many other concerns in their practice, have not widely adopted this new approach. The value of
the whole building approach in building design is being able to quantify and trade-off the energy
savings that are possible with different building systems, components, configurations, and
concepts. Many efforts are currently under way to develop tools that conform to the needs and
available information at various stages of the design process.
3.1.2 Classification of Software Tools
By considering both software functionality and the target audience, the research team has
developed the classification scheme listed in the tables below. The list of software tools that the
U.S. Department of Energy has posted under the Building section of the Efficiency and
Renewable Energy web site www.energytoolsdirectory.gov provide a starting point for this
effort.
While we have attempted to identify as many software tools as possible in the remainder of this
chapter, we probably have missed several (our apologies if we missed yours). However, our
purpose in identifying and listing these tools was not to form a complete list. Rather, we
assembled these lists to provide an overview or snapshot of the various software types and to
provide concrete examples in each tool category.
This list includes design and energy analysis software tools that broadly apply to the buildings
and energy fields. We have classified these tools into the following major categories:
Practitioner Design Tools. These are software tools that are currently available to and used by
professionals to design buildings. Practitioners include architects, engineers, drafters,
contractors, etc. Tools in this category attempt to automate common and repetitive tasks that are
part of the design process such as analyzing, sizing, selecting, layout, drawing, code compliance,
and costing building and HVAC systems. Some are integrated with industry-standard computer
3-2
aided drafting packages such as AutoCAD. While whole building energy analysis is becoming a
more common part of the design process in some firms, we have assigned these tools their own
major category below.
Whole Building Energy Analysis Tools. These tools are aimed at simulating building energy
use and operating conditions across the year and determining the annual operating costs – a task
that building professionals are only starting to regard as a valuable part of the design process.
The use of these tools for code compliance and to determine incentives in some regions (e.g.,
California, Pacific Northwest, Florida, and Canada) has increased the design community’s
exposure to their potential. Currently, specialized energy consultants and researchers are the
most common users of these tools in North America, though some innovative designers and
engineers apply them in their practice as well. Some web-based tools have been developed in
this category as well as technology-specific tools aimed at special market sectors (e.g.,
supermarkets). We have also included calculation engines and some other technically-detailed
research-grade whole building analysis tools in this category (instead of in the specialized
analysis tools category below).
Energy and Environmental Screening Tools. These tools evaluate the cost-effectiveness and
environmental impacts of various building and energy-related technologies. They include
screening tools that allow users to quickly evaluate the efficacy of particular technologies (e.g.,
solar heating, photovoltaics, geothermal heat pumps, etc.). Typically the technical calculations
have been simplified to allow for a quick analysis that focuses more on cost-effectiveness and
environmental benefits. Tools in this category provide detailed economic analysis of energy
projects on a life-cycle basis. Other tools determine the overall environmental impact of
buildings and energy projects by considering factors such as energy use, local pollutant
generation, and the environmental impacts of the construction process.
Specialized Analysis Tools. This class of tools includes technically detailed models that are
generally not in widespread use by building professionals. These tools use the best available
techniques to simulate specific aspects of building or energy system performance. They often
have poorly developed user interfaces, require large quantities of input data, require an expert
user, or are otherwise difficult to use. In some cases, the more mainstream practitioner and
energy analysis tools started out in this group, but were made easier to use by graphical user
interfaces or by assembling complex input data into libraries (often the calculation engine of
more mainstream tools will still fit into this category). We have also put detailed refrigeration
models into this category. These models are mainly used by manufacturers and researchers to
model the refrigerant-side performance details of HVAC equipment.
Tables 3-1 through 3-4 further classify and list examples of tools we have included in each of the
four categories.
3-3
Table 3-1. List of Sub-Categories in Practitioner Design Tools

Category Examples
CAD Environments AutoCAD, MicroStation Triforma
Lighting Design Tools LumenMicro, Radiance
Architectural Visualization Tools DesignWorkshop, 3D VIZ
Fenestration Selection Tools Catalogue
Shading / Solar Angle Tools Solar-2
Code Compliance Tools EnergyPro, REM/Design
Single Zone Load Tools Block Load
Multi-Zone HVAC System Load Tools HAP, TRACE Loads, CHVAC, Right-
CommLoad
Duct Sizing / Layout Tools Duct Design, MicroStation Triforma
Cost Estimating Tools WinEst, QuickQuote
Integrated Design Suites CADLink Mechanical, Right-Suite
HVAC Product Selection and Configuration Tools AHUBuilder, TOPSS
Engineers “Toolbox” HVAC Tools
Piping Analysis and Pump Sizing Tools HSYM, Cadpipe Commercial
IAQ / Standard 62 Compliance Tools IAQ-Tools
Psychrometric Tools PsyCalc
Refrigeration Load Tools Refrig, Coldwind
Coil Selection Tools AIRSOL
Geothermal HP Loop Sizing Tools GCHPCalc, GS2000
Acoustics Analysis Tools TAP
Solar DHW / PV System Design Tools F-Chart, SolarPro
Weather Tools and Utilities BinMaker
Home Energy Rating Tools REM/Rate , EnergyGauge
Air Flow Modeling Tools AirPak, Flovent
Table 3-2. List of Sub-Categories in Whole Building / Energy Analysis Models

Category Example
Simplified Energy Analysis Models (DD, bin analysis, day REM/Design
profile per month)
Basic Hourly Simulation Models (calculation engines) DOE-2, EnergyPlus, BLAST, IDA/ICE
General Hourly Simulation Models VisualDOE, eQUEST, Energy-10,
IDEA Server
Special Purpose Hourly Simulation Models SST, DESICALC
Screening Tools EDRCharette, EMCOR Energy Edge
Table 3-3. List of Sub-Categories in Economic and Environmental Analysis Tools

Category Example
General Life Cycle Tools BLCC, Energy Evaluator
Technology Screening / Assessment Tools D-Gen Pro, RETScreen
Environmental Impact Assessment Tools Green Building Advisor
3-4
Table 3-4. List of Sub-Categories in Specialized Analysis Tools

Category Example
Daylighting / Illumination Models Radiance
Fenestration Models WINDOW
Infiltration / Pollutant / Pressurization Models COMIS, CONTAMW
2D and 3D Heat and Moisture Transfer Models THERM
Computational Fluid Dynamics Models FLUENT, Flovent
Equation-Based Solvers SPARK, IDA
General Component-Based Mechanical Models TRNSYS
Hardware-Based Refrigeration Models HPDM, FrigoSim
Performance-Based Refrigeration Models CYCLE-D
3.1.3 North American vs. International Tools
For all the categories above, we have identified software tools from North America as well as
other regions around the world. In many cases, design practices used by building professionals
in North America differ from their counterparts in other countries. In Europe especially,
designers appear to complete considerably more detailed analysis of their designs. For instance,
hourly energy analysis models such as TRNSYS/IISiBat, APACHE, and ESP appear to be
widely used. The software tools available from these countries tend to reflect that philosophical
difference.
We found very few “load tools” in the European market. This may be because energy analysis
tools are used for this purpose, or because load calculations are trivial when focusing primarily
on the heating side. One of the most commonly stated uses of hourly analysis tools is to find the
peak space temperatures in an uncooled building. The issue is how many hours conditions
exceed a specified level (much as engineers in the US treat humidity). Since space temperatures
float, the Europeans put more emphasis on properly modeling: 1) envelope heat transfer and
shading effects, and 2) temperature and wind induced air flows in large spaces with natural
ventilation systems or displacement ventilation systems. Since the U.S. market uniformly uses
cooling, issues such as mechanical system performance, air flow rates, and controls are more
important. As a result, zones tend to be well mixed and space conditions are uniform so
radiation effects as well as temperature and wind-driven flows are less of an issue.
Different design and energy analysis software in each country. Gough (1999) states that the
most common building energy simulation tools in the UK are APACHE-sim, ESP, and Tas (all
have about 100 licensees each). In France and Germany, TRNSYS/IISiBat seems to have a few
hundred users. Still other countries appear to have their own national favorites as well.
3.2 Practitioner Design Tools
This subchapter describes the various subcategories of design tools used by practitioners and lists
many examples of the specific software tools we identified. While many software products
identify building and HVAC designers as the target audience, we tried to stick with a narrower
classification. This category includes tools to aid with tasks that architects, engineers, and
designers universally identify as part of the design process. Therefore, we have generally put
software tools that do annual energy analysis or economic evaluations into their own categories –
3-5
even though some designers may routinely use these tools as part of the design process. It is not
our intention to exclude these tools, but rather to highlight them in their own category.
3.2.1 Computer Aided Design
Computer Aided Design (CAD) tools are by far the most commonly-used tools among building
design practitioners. The table below lists three of the most popular CAD tools.
Table 3-5. List of CAD Tools

Name Organization and Web Site Description Platform
AutoCAD AutoDesk (USA) Full 2D- and 3D-CAD Win/Mac
www.autodesk.com environment with numerous
specialized add-ins and
environments such as
Architectural Desktop
MicroStation Bentley Systems (USA) Full 2D- and 3D-CAD Win
www.bentley.com environment with numerous
specialized add-ins and
environments
ArchiCAD Graphisoft (Hungary) Full 2D- and 3D-CAD Win/Mac
www.graphisoft.com environment
AutoCAD is by far the most popular CAD tool. A recent survey of A&E Firms (Fallon 2000)
found that AutoCAD was used by 100% of these organizations. About 20% reportedly used the
optional Architectural Desktop environment with AutoCAD. MicroStation is next most popular
CAD package. The same survey found that about 30% of A&E firms used this CAD tool.
ArchiCAD from Europe is a relatively new entry into the North American CAD market. This
package has received high marks in CAD competitions in the US and has become more popular
over the past few years.
CAD tools are important because they represent the central “data base” of building design. The
most significant changes to CAD tools over the past few years have been a trend towards treating
drawing information more like a computerized database of components and less as an electronic
version of a traditional paper drawing. As Noviski (1999) has pointed out:
“No longer are we automating the pencil; these models have become central repositories of
potentially everything we know about a building’s design”
Nearly all major CAD environments have embraced the object-oriented data models for
structuring CAD data and many are beginning to offer data exchange capabilities with other
software tools. This concept helps to move a drawing from a collection of lines, arcs and text
into a database of physical objects or components in a building. ArchiCAD was one of the first
CAD tools to embrace and promote the object-oriented approach to building design via its
Virtual Building Model™. They appear to be the farthest ahead towards directing the user to
enter drawing information as objects that can be stored in a database, in part because of their
experience in Europe where central data models and interoperability have started to be adopted
within the architecture, engineering, and design community. MicroStation and AutoCAD have
3-6
also embraced this approach and are beginning to allow interoperability with other software
tools. MicroStation has developed ProjectBank, a central project database that includes a
revision history and other pertinent design information.
Many CAD environments also have closely-coupled tools that can provide a host of visualization
and engineering analysis features. Some of these closely coupled tools associated with each
CAD environment are listed in the table below. Many of these specific tools are also identified in
the subcategories below.
Table 3-6. Summary of Tools Linked and Associated with Major CAD Packages
AutoCAD MicroStation ArchiCAD
(AutoDesk, USA) (Bentley, USA) (Graphisoft, Hungary)
Interoperability / Central Data IFC format data ProjectBank Virtual Building Model
Model exchange with (central database with (3D)
Architectural Desktop revision history) CADLink Exchange
add-in IFC-2.0
Solids Modeling / Visualization 3D Studio Viz TriForma
Lighting / Radiosity Analysis Lightscape CADLink Lighting
Cost-Estimating Software Timberline Timberline
Structural Analysis Structural TriForma CADLink Structural
Ductwork Design and Layout HVAC TriForma CADLink Mechanical
Load and Energy Analysis CADLink Mechanical
& Psychro
Electrical Design and Analysis CADLink Wiring
Web-Based Project ProjectWise Web links to external
Collaboration product databases
3.2.2 Lighting Design Tools
Lighting design is a mature discipline, with many software tools available to the lighting
designer. The tools can be generally classified by the calculation techniques employed; typically
either the lumen method or the radiosity method is used by the practioner tools (see 3.5.1 for a
description of these calculation procedures).
Lighting design software is provided by many lighting fixture manufacturers as a customer

support tool. These programs are generally offered for free or for a nominal charge. Extra cost
upgrades are available to increase the capability beyond basic fixture layout and illuminance
calculations. The programs all offer average lighting levels based on the zonal cavity method,
and most also provide point-to-point illuminance calculations using a radiosity algorithm. They
do not address specular surfaces, and most are limited to rooms described by a series of
orthogonal surfaces. All offer some level of CAD import and export capability, and most can
generate an automated bill of materials or fixture schedule. A list of popular manufacturers’
software is shown in the table below.
3-7
Table 3-7. List of Manufacturers’ Lighting Design Tools

Name Organization and Description Platform
Web Site
Genesys II Canlyte/Genlyte Point-to-point calculations of horizontal and vertical Win95/98/NT
www.lightolier.com illuminance, and wall and ceiling exitance using
radiosity method. Windows interface, imports and
exports CAD files (.dwg and .dxf format). Provides
illuminance plots, color and grayscale renderings, and
fixture schedules. Includes electronic catalog of
product spec sheets and photometric reports.
Lite Pro 1.0 Columbia- Point-to-point calculations of horizontal and vertical Win95/98/NT
Prescolite- illuminance, and wall and ceiling exitance using
Moldcast radiosity method. Windows interface, imports and
www.columbia- exports CAD files (.dxf format). Provides
ltg.com illuminance plots, color and grayscale renderings, and
Luxicon Cooper Lighting Point-to-point calculations of horizontal and vertical Win95/98/NT
2.2.8 www.cooperlighting. illuminance, and wall and ceiling exitance using
com radiosity method. Windows and CAD interface,
operates within the CAD environment and imports
and exports CAD files (.dwg and .dxf format).
Provides illuminance plots, grayscale renderings, and
Visual Lithonia Lumen method design program for simple interior Win95/98/NT
Basic 2.0 www.lithonia.com lighting designs where uniform horizontal
illuminance is the primary objective. No CAD
interface, rendering, or fixture schedules
Visual Pro Lithonia Point-to-point calculations of horizontal and vertical Win95/98/NT
2.0 www.lithonia.com illuminance, and wall and ceiling exitance using
radiosity method. Handles non-orthogonal surfaces.
Windows interface, imports and exports CAD files
(.dwg and .dxf format). Provides illuminance plots
and fixture schedules. Includes electronic catalog of
3.2.3 Fenestration / Window Selection Tools
These tools are automated catalogs that provide access to detailed specifications of windows and
other fenestration systems. They provide data such as shading coefficient (SC), heat transfer
coefficient (U-value), physical dimensions, and other information necessary to specifiers. They
are aimed at architects, designers, specifiers, and others who apply windows and other
fenestration products. The tools are computerized multi-vendor databases that can be searched
for options that meet a designer’s physical and performance criteria. Examples of these tools are
listed in the table below.
3-8
Table 3-8. List of Fenestration / Window Selection Tools

Catalogue Enermodal Engineering, Kitchener, Ontario Searchable catalog of Win
www.enermodal.com windows
Fenspec EnerAction, LaMesa, CA Searchable catalog of Win
www.energytoolsdirectory.gov/software/ windows
fenspec.htm
3.2.4 Shading / Solar Angle Tools
Several software tools are available to help architects design building overhangs and understand
how the sun will strike building components at various times of the day and year. These tools
are generally less concerned with quantitative issues (such as energy transmission through
windows and walls) but instead focus on qualitative aspects of solar design (such as building
appearance, lighting, glare, etc.). In some cases the software tools create customized versions of
sun path diagrams that have historically been used in paper form by architects and designers.
While many whole building energy analysis software tools quantitatively address the issue of
overhangs and shading from an energy point of view, the tools in this subcategory are aimed at
helping designers understand and visualize the more qualitative aspects of solar design.
Examples of these tools are listed in the table below.
Table 3-9. List of Shading / Solar Angle Tools

AWNSHADE FSEC, Cocoa, FL Calculates shading on window DOS
www.fsec.ucf.edu due to awnings
LESO-Shade LESO Building, Lausanne, Switzerland Calculates shading factors for Win95
lesowww.epfl.ch building surfaces due to external
obstructions
Overhang Sustainable by Design, Seattle, WA Calculates building overhang size Web
Design www.susdesign.com/overhang for window shading
ParaSol University of Lund, Sweden Calculates shading effects Win95/NT
www.byggark.lth.se/shade/computer.htm
ShadowFX CA Design Associates Ltd, Stalybridge, Sun position and shading Win98
UK program
www.shadowfx.co.uk
Solar-2 UCLA, Los Angeles, CA Building shade analysis Win95/NT
www.aud.ucla.edu/energy-design-tools
Solarch Kahl Consultants, San Rafael, CA Solar building design tools Win
www.kahl.net/solarch
Sun Chart Optical Physics Technologies Creates solar position charts for DOS
www.srv.net/opt/sunchrt.html shading analysis
SunAngle Sustainable by Design, Seattle, WA Calculates sun angle Web
www.susdesign.com/sunangle
SunCast IES Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland Shading analysis of building Unix,
www.ies4d.com WinNT
Sundi Institut fur Elektrische Maschinen - Calculates irradiance losses due Win
Solargruppe to shading
emsolar.ee.tu-berlin.de/simulation/sundi.html
SunPath FSEC, Cocoa FL Calculates sun position DOS
www.fsec.ucf.edu
SunPosition Sustainable by Design, Seattle, WA Calculates sun position Web
www.susdesign.com
3-9
Many of these tools are available at little or no cost from universities, institutes, and government
agencies.
3.2.5 Code Compliance Tools
With the adoption of energy codes by state and local governments, various software tools have
been developed to help architects and engineers comply with code requirements. Nearly all
codes include a performance-based compliance path that, in some cases, requires (or
recommends) that the building designers to use an approved software tool to show that the
building meets the requirements. Some state governments and regions (California, Pacific
Northwest, and Florida) have developed tools to aid designers with compliance to local codes.
In other cases compliance tools have been developed to help designers determine what level of
financial incentive should be paid to a customer based on how much energy savings have been
achieved compared to code (such as Canada’s Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP)).
The table below lists some of these code compliance tools. In many cases, these tools are
specialized versions of more general whole building energy analysis tools (with the full
functionality of the more general tool).
Table 3-10. List of Energy Code Compliance Tools

AC RES Pacific Northwest National Lab, Richland, WA Code compliance software for Win
www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/buildings/ DOE Residential code
CAPS Pacific Northwest National Lab, Richland, WA Code compliance calculator DOS
www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/buildings for federal residences
CBIPScreen Canmet Energy Technology Centre, Ottawa, Uses correlations to check for Web
Canada compliance with Canada's
nrn3.nrcan.gc.ca/cbipscreen/ CBIP
ComCheck Pacific Northwest National Lab, Richland, WA Checks for compliance with Win
www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/buildings ASHRAE/IES 90.1
Comply-24 Gabel-Dodd/EnergySoft LLC., Novato, CA Original tool to check for Win
www.energysoft.com Title 24 compliance
CostSafr Pacific Northwest National Lab, Richland, WA Calculates code compliance DOS
www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/buildings for federal residential
buildings
EE4 CBIP Canmet Energy Technology Centre, Ottawa, Simulates building annual Win95
Canada energy use to check for
greenbuilding.ca/can-sfb.htm compliance with Canada's
CBIP program
Energy Florida Solar Energy Center: Code compliance software for Win
Gauge/FlaRes www.energygauge.com Florida energy code
EnergyPro Gabel-Dodd/EnergySoft LLC., Novato, CA Building annual simulation, Win95
www.energysoft.com California Title 24 calcs,
building loads
ENVSTD, Pacific Northwest National Lab, Richland, WA Checks for compliance with DOS
LTGSTD www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/buildings DOE energy standards for
new commercial and high rise
residential
3-10
Table 3-10. List of Energy Code Compliance Tools (continued)

MECcheck Pacific Northwest National Lab, Richland, WA Checks for compliance with Win, DOS
www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/buildings CABO Model Energy
Building Code
Micropas 4 Enercomp Inc., Auburn, CA Residential annual energy use, DOS
www.micropas.com used for Title 24 compliance
in California
Perform98 Calif. Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA Front end for DOE-2, DOS
www.energy.ca.gov California Title 24 check
(from Gabel Dodd)
REM/Design Architectural Energy Corporation, Boulder, Residential annual energy use, Win
CO MEC and ASHRAE 90.2
www.archenergy.com compliance
3.2.6 Simple Zone Load Tools
Probably the most widely-used tool among design engineers is load calculation software. A
range of software tools have been developed to calculate cooling and heating loads required for
each building zone. These programs are generally computerized versions of established load
calculation procedures such as the ASHRAE CLTD method or the ACCA Manual J / Manual N
methods2. The tools require the user to describe the building envelope and internal loads in the
space. The peak cooling loads are then calculated using design weather data. The engineer can
use the calculated loads to select appropriately-sized cooling and heating equipment.
The table below lists several software tools available to calculate loads. The software is often
divided into residential and commercial load calculation tools, in part because they address
different audiences or markets. The Air Conditioning Contractors Association (ACCA) has also
developed differing load calculations for residential (Manual J) and commercial (Manual N)
applications, so software tools have been developed using both procedures.
These tools generally calculate cooling and heating loads at design conditions for the selected
climate or location. Other tools use the hourly temperature profile for the design day to calculate
the peak loads. The single zone load tools generally do not address system sizing and zone
diversity issues. The most widely used software packages are from major equipment
manufacturers such as Carrier and Trane as well as mainstream HVAC software companies such
as Wrightsoft, Elite Software, and Carmel Software. These tools are often the “entry-level”
software products offered by these companies. The next subchapter describes the more widely
known multi-zone and system load calculation tools.
2
With the agreement of ASHRAE’s two cognizant Technical Committees (4.1-Load Calculations and 4.7-Energy
Calculations) to standardize calculation approaches, the methods used in load and energy calculation tools can be
expected to become very similar. At least one software supplier (Carrier) now uses the transfer-function calculations in
both their loads and energy analysis tools.
3-11
Table 3-11. List of Simple Zone Load Calculation Tools

AC Calc Clik Software, Ashton Gate, UK Building load calculation tool Win95
www.adacam.co.uk
Block Load Carrier, Syracuse, NY Multi-zone design load DOS
www.carrier-commercial.com calculation
Block Load Lite Carrier, Syracuse, NY Single zone commercial peak DOS
www.carrier-commercial.com load, cfm
BTU Analysis Enchanted Tree Software, High Point, NC Residential and light Win95
plus Members.aol.com/etreesw or commercial heating and
www.hisresources.com/hvac (btus340.zip) cooling load tool
BTU Analysis Enchanted Tree Software, High Point, NC Residential and light Win95
regular members.aol.com/etreesw commercial heating and
cooling load tool
Building Heat Randall Wilkinson (Hvacware.net) Calculates heat load for Excel
Load www.hvacware.net building
Energy University of Oregon, Eugene, OR Building load analysis for 4 Mac
Scheming Department of Architecture days of the year
Heat Loss/Gain www.hisresources.com/hvac (heatgl1e.zip) Heat load calculation tool Excel
HeatPro Ares Inc., Barnegat, NJ Heat loss calculation tool DOS
www.aresinc.com
HVAC Checker Enchanted Tree Software, High Point, NC Building heat load calculation Win
members.aol.com/etreesw program
HVAC-Calc HVAC Computer Systems Ltd., Ottawa, Single zone heat load calc, air Win95
Commercial Canada cfm, with occupancy
www.hvaccomputer.com schedules considered
HVAC-Calc HVAC Computer Systems Ltd., Ottawa, Manual J heat loads, with Win95
Residential Canada www.hvaccomputer.com some duct and baseboard
sizing
J-Works MicroWorks, Inc., Culleoka, TN Manual J heating / cooling Win
www.microworksinc.com loads, cfm per room or whole
house.
Load Express TRANE, LaCrosse, WI Light commercial heating / Win
www.trane.com/commercial/software cooling loads, air flow
LoadPac Crabtree Engineering Software, Claremont, Heat load calculation tool Win
Australia
Members.iinet.net.au/~crabby
Residential 3.0 Carmel Software, San Francisco, CA 500 zone residential and light Win95/NT
www.carmelsoft.com commercial heating / cooling
loads, per zone, with
occupancy and equipment
scheduling
RHVAC Elite Software, Bryan, TX Manual J residential heating / Win
www.elitesoft.com cooling load, cfm per room,
equip selection
RL5M - MC2 Engineering Software, Miami, FL Residential and small DOS
Res/Com Loads www.mc2engineeringsoftware.com/index.h commercial energy simulation
tm?451 tool, Manual J methods
3-12
Table 3-11. List of Simple Zone Load Calculation Tools (continued)

System Design Carrier, Syracuse, NY Calculates design loads, with DOS
Loads www.carrier-commercial.com consideration of HVAC
system effects
Toolkit for ASHRAE This toolkit provides all the Platform
Building Load http://www.ashrae.org/ source code required to indep
Calculations develop a true heat balance Fortran 90
based load calculation source
program code
3.2.7 Multi-Zone HVAC System Load Tools
This category of software tool calculates loads in multiple zones and in many cases also
calculates air flows and coil capacities for all HVAC components in large commercial systems.
The trade-names of these tools are well known within the industry: HAP (Carrier), TRACE 700
(Trane), and CHVAC (Elite). These tools take into account the diversity of loads in large
commercial buildings (i.e., zones on the east and west side of the building peak at different
times). Knowing the timing and diversity of all zones allows peak air flow requirements and
chilled water loads for VAV boxes and air handlers to be calculated in an systematic fashion.
The table below lists the tools in this category.
Table 3-12. List of Multi-Zone HVAC System Load Tools

APACHE-Calc / IES Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland Building and equipment model Win95/NT
APHL www.ies4d.com
CHVAC Elite Software, Bryan, TX Calculates building loads, Win
www.elitesoft.com supply air cfm, and provides
some duct sizing info.
CL4M - Com Htg, MC2 Engineering Software, Miami, FL Building load calculator and
Clg loads www.mc2engineeringsoftware.com/index.htm?451 equipment sizing
HAP 4.0 Carrier, Syracuse, NY Calculates building and Win 95/NT
www.carrier-commercial.com equipment (version 3.2 does
energy calcs)
HBLC Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL Uses BLAST to model building Win
www.bso.uiuc.edu performance on design day
Load Calc Plus All-Calc Energy Consultants, Tombstone, Resid/Lt Comm(10 zone) Win95
AZ members.aol.com/~n9bkj/loadcalc heating / cooling / refrigeration
loads, duct or fin tube sizing,
seasonal energy use and cost
estimating
Loadsoft 4.0 / Carmel Software, San Francisco, CA 2000 zone heating / cooling Win95/NT
Uvalue 3.0 www.carmelsoft.com load, 24 hr analysis on design
day, considers occupancy
schedules & system type
Right-N Wrightsoft Corp., Lexington, MA Manual N commercial heating / Win
www.wrightsoft.com cooling loads
Right-CommLoad Wrightsoft Corp., Lexington, MA Uses ASHRAE 24 hr method. Win
www.wrightsoft.com Replaces Right-N.
TRACE Load 700 Trane, LaCrosse, WI Uses TRACE 700 to calculate Win
www.trane.com/commercial/software loads, check ASHRAE 90.1
compliance
3-13
Many of the software vendors in this category also offer whole building energy analysis software
that is closely linked to these tools. In many cases, the energy analysis tool appears to be given
less priority than the more popular “loads” tool. For instance, Carrier, Trane, and Elite offer
closely-related energy analysis tools that are still in a DOS environment3, even though the more
popular loads programs have been in Windows for several years. This demonstrates the relative
importance the market has placed on load calculations as compared to annual energy analysis.
The multi-zone load tools from the UK appears to buck this trend. In this market, energy analysis
tools are more closely coupled with other tools into an integrated suite (see 3.2.10 below). The
lack of load-focused tools from Europe implies that whole building energy analysis tools (which
are widely used there) are used to size and select heating and cooling equipment.
3.2.8 Duct Sizing / Layout Tools
Many software tools are available to assist designers with sizing and laying out ductwork in
commercial buildings. This labor-intensive task has historically been completed by drafters and
entry-level engineers. These tools are aimed at automating this process. Automation speeds up
the process, simplifies any changes, and reduces the potential for errors. Many tools work within
a CAD environment or can export the final result into a layer of a CAD drawing. Some
examples of these tools are listed in the table below.
Table 3-13. List of Duct Sizing / Layout Load Tools

AutoDuct Viaware, St. Catherine's, Ontario, Canada AutoCAD duct sizing software AutoCAD
www.autoduct.com
Cad_HVAC Heatproof Inc., Wichita, KS Ductwork drafting tool, add-on AutoCAD
(Ducting) www.heatproof.com to AutoCAD
Cadpipe HVAC AEC Design Group, Gaithersburg, MD Facilitates 3D drawing of piping AutoCAD
2000 20878 www.cadpipe.com and ductwork 2000
DD4M Air Duct MC2 Engineering Software, Miami, FL Automated duct sizing DOS
Design www.mc2engineeringsoftware.com/index.htm?451 calculations
DDS HVAC Data Design Systems, Norway HVAC drafting and sizing Win95/NT
Partner www.dds.no module for DDS CAD program
Duct Design Carrier, Syracuse, NY Duct design tool DOS
www.carrier-commercial.com
DuctLink Carrier, Syracuse, NY Duct design tool linked to a DOS
www.carrier-commercial.com CAD drawing utility
Duct Design Thermal Analysis Systems Co., Elk Duct design tool Win95
Grove, IL
www.cuservices.net/software.htm
Duct Designer TRANE, LaCrosse, WI Automated duct sizing Win
www.trane.com/commercial/software calculations
Duct Size 4.0 Carmel Software, San Francisco, CA Duct design tool Win95/NT
www.carmelsoft.com
Duct Sizer Randall Wilkinson (Hvacware.net) Automated duct sizing AutoCAD,
www.hvacware.net calculations Win, DOS
Ductwork Randall Wilkinson (Hvacware.net) Draws and sizes ductwork AutoCAD
www.hvacware.net
3
Trane’s TRACE was just converted to Windows as of March 2001.
3-14
Table 3-13. List of Duct Sizing / Layout Load Tools (continued)

DuctPac 2 Crabtree Engineering Software, Duct sizing tool Win
Claremont, Australia
Members.iinet.net.au/~crabby
Ductsize Elite Software, Bryan, TX Duct layout and sizing tool, with Win
www.elitesoft.com noise level calculations
HVAC for Bentley Systems Inc., Exton, PA Drafting tool for duct layout Win95
Microstation www.bentley.com
Triforma
HVAC Pro 4.0 Palisades Research, Pacific Palisades, CA Duct system layout and sizing AutoCAD
www.aay.com (no longer available) program
INDUS IES Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland Automated duct sizing Win95/NT
www.ies4d.com calculations
Right-CommDuct Wrightsoft Corp., Lexington, MA Does automatic duct sizing and Win
www.wrightsoft.com schematic layout; can write
schematic layout to specified
layer in CAD drawing
These tools are often the most closely coupled to CAD environments. The labor-intensive nature
of ductwork design and the interrelated nature of sizing and physical layout have driven many
designers to consider these tools.
3.2.9 Cost Estimating Tools
Many software tools are available to assist designers and contractors with the tasks of developing
bill of materials and estimating costs for a job. Some tools are aimed at designers to help them
with cost estimates for budget purposes. Other contractor-focused tools are more detailed and
automate many of the labor-intensive tasks required for preparing bids. Feedback from designers
in the focus group indicates that the labor-intensive nature of cost estimating is one of the main
factors that limits their ability to incorporate innovative or energy-efficient design changes.
Most tools are aimed at contractors to automate the processes of drawing “take-offs”, where the
contractor lays out the paper drawing and locates/counts up the number of each component, adds
up areas, and determines other information to determine project costs. Automated takeoff tools
make cost estimating essentially a computer/CAD, to paper, and back to computer process that is
a consequence of the central role that conventional paper drawings have historically played in the
design-bid-spec construction process. Some costing tools are now developing the ability to pull
in information directly from CAD files, eliminating the inefficiencies introduced by the paper
drawing step. Design / build-based teams (either contractor or architect lead) are probably in the
best position to capitalize on the advantages of these tools, since they control the entire process
and can direct the design team to prepare drawings in the format required to realize the
downstream benefits of automated costing. The more integrated costing tools have also been
developed for the vertically-integrated residential construction sector.
Some tools focus on a specific segment of the construction process, such as HVAC, but most are
general cost estimating tools. Another class of tools – that have now migrated to the web as
either freeware or pay per use services – are “per square foot” costing tools. These tools
3-15
generally consider several aspects of the building application and HVAC details to develop an
accurate cost estimate.
Automated cost generation from CAD files is currently uncommon in the U.S. market, but is
more common in Europe (perhaps due to the more central project management role that the
architect plays in European construction projects). A number of CAD and costing software
developers in that market have developed the ability to seamlessly transfer data into costing
applications. Many have adopted the IFC data model for interoperability between tools.
Examples of costing tools with the capability for automated data exchange with CAD are the
residential drawing package CADsoft Build (Canada), Timberline’s Precision Estimating tools,
WinEst (U.S.), and the CAD package ArchiCAD from Graphisoft (Hungary). Several of these
software vendors are members of the Building Lifecycle Interoperable Software (BLIS) project
(www.blis.project.org). This is a consortium of vendors working together to implement and
demonstrate the benefits of IFC-based interoperability.
Generic cost data for construction components are typically available from “branded” sources
such as R.S. Means, G.O. Richardson, and Marshall and Swift. These databases are used by
various third party software tools and updated cost databases are generally made available on a
quarterly or annual basis (or via the web). Many of these organizations also provide software
tools to access and use their own databases.
Often cost estimating software tools are also available within an integrated environment, with
CAD, HVAC design, and layout tools. These integrated tools are described in the next
subchapter.
Table 3-14. Drawing Takeoff Hardware Tools: Digitizer Hardware and Software
Interfaces
Program Name Organization and Web Site Description Platform
Benchmark Contractors' Software, Oceanside, CA Digitizer takeoff tool Win
Digitizer Program Http://contractors-software.com/
BidPoint XL VertiGraph, Dallas, TX Digitizer interface for Excel Win, Excel
http://www.vertigraph.com/
BidScreen XL VertiGraph, Dallas, TX CAD file takeoff tool Win
http://www.vertigraph.com/
CadMeasure Elstree Computing ltd., UK AutoCAD takeoff tool AutoCAD
http://www.elstree.uk.com/cato/cadmeasure.ht
m
Precision CAD Timberline Software, Beaverton, OR Digitizer takeoff tool Win
Integrator http://www.timberline.com/
ProEst Takeoff CMS Construction Software, San Diego, Digitizer takeoff tool Win95/NT
CA
http://www.proest.com/
Scale Link Estek, UK Scaler wheel and interface tool Win95/NT
http://www.estek.co.uk/
3-16
Table 3-15. Drawing Takeoff Hardware Tools: Integrated Costing Software with Digital
Takeoff Capability
ArenaSoft Arenasoft, Sand Lake, NY Detailed estimating tool, with Win95/NT
Estimating http://www.arenasoft.com/ digitizer takeoff
AutoBuild QuickPen, Denver, CO Detailed estimating tool, with Win95/NT
Mechanical http://www.quickpen.com/ digitizer takeoff
BidWorx XL VertiGraph, Dallas, TX Detailed estimating tool, with Win95/NT
http://www.vertigraph.com/ digitizer takeoff
ICE2000 Management Computer Controls, Conceptual (square foot) or Win95/NT
Memphis, TN detailed estimating tool, with
http://www.mc2-ice.com/ digitizer takeoff
QuoteExpress Quote Software, Eugene, OR HVAC cost estimating tool, with Win95/NT
http://www.quotesoft.com/ digitizer takeoff
The Cost Estimator EBC Software Dist., Canada Detailed estimating tool, with Win95/NT
http://www.ebc.ca/ digitizer and CAD takeoff
TurboEstimating QuickPen, Denver, CO Detailed estimating tool, with Win95/NT
http://www/quickpen.com digitizer takeoff
Visual Cost CadProducts, Woodstock, GA Detailed estimating tool, with Win95/NT
http://www.cadprojects.com/ digitizer takeoff and scheduling
Table 3-16. List of General Cost Estimating Tools

Commercial Marshall and Swift, Los Angeles, CA Conceptual (square foot) cost Win95/NT
Estimator http://www.marshallswift.com/ estimating program
Construction.com Construction.com Online estimating program, uses WWW
Estimator http://www.construction.com/cest/ Marshall and Swift data
CostWorks R.S. Means, Kingston, MA Conceptual (square foot) or Win, Web
http://www.rsmeans.com/ detailed cost estimating program
WinRACE Richardsons Engineering Services, Inc. Process engineering cost Win
www.resi.net estimating tools and database
Accubid Pro 4 Accubid, Concord, Ontario Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
(Mechanical) http://www.accubid.com/
AutoCell Dotsoft, Interface between AutoCAD and AutoCAD,
http://www.dotsoft.com/ Excel Excel
Be$t E$timate Be$t E$timate, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
http://www.best-estimate.com/
Benchmark Contractors' Software, Oceanside, CA Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
Estimating System http://contractors-software.com/
BSD Costlink Building Systems Design, Atlanta, GA Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
http://www.bsdsoftlink.com/
CadSoft Build Cadsoft, Canada Integrated CAD/materials Win95/NT
http://www.cadsoft.com/index1.html estimating for residential
construction.
CHARM CHARM Software Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
http://www.charmsoftware.com/
Construct-it Construction Software Services, Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
Lincolnshire, UK
http://www.construct-it.co.uk/
3-17
Table 3-16. List of General Cost Estimating Tools (continued)

DeccaPro Deccan Systems, Louisville, KY Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
Costwind Mistral Ltd., Snettisham, UK Cost estimating tool for cold Win95
www.mistral.ltd.uk rooms
EasyEst Advanced CSC Software, Bonita, CA Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
http://www.cscsoftware.com/
Ebid 98 Pyxis Technologies, Somers, NY Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
http://www.ebid98.com/default.htm
EstiMaster EAH Estimating Systems, Riverwood, Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
Australia
http://www.estimate.com.au/
Estimate 4.0 Carmel Software, San Francisco, CA HVAC system cost estimating Win95/NT
www.carmelsoft.com tool
Estimator Constructive Computer Services, Detailed estimating program Win /Mac
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.ccsi.com.au/
Expert Estimation Project Cost Engineering, Bracken Ridge, Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
3.0 Australia
http://www.costengineer.com.au/
Extimate DeLoach Corp., Gonzales, LA Add-in for Excel Win, Excel
http://www.deloachcorp.com/
Fast Estimate Estek, UK Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
http://www.estek.co.uk/
G2 Estimator Valli Information Systems, Caldwell, ID Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
http://www.valli.com/
Icarus 2000 AspenTech, Cambridge, MA Detailed estimating program, Win95/NT
http://www.aspentech.com/ with scheduling
LiteningQuick Litening Software, Fremont, CA Detailed estimating program, Win95/NT
http://www.litning.com/ with scheduling
National Craftsman Book Company, Carlsbad, CA Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
Construction http://craftsman-
Estimator book.com/tne32/tne32_main.html
Precision Timberline Software, Beaverton, OR Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
http://www.timberline.com/
ProEst CMS Construction Software, San Diego, Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
CA
http://www.proest.com/
Pulsar Estimating Systems Detailed estimating program, Win95/NT
http://www.estimatingsystems.com/ focused on government projects
QuickQuote Elite Software, Bryan, TX HVAC cost estimating software Win
www.elitesoft.com
Residential Marshall and Swift, Los Angeles, CA Conceptual (square foot) cost Win95/NT
Estimator http://www.marshallswift.com/ estimating program
Right – Wrightsoft Corp., Lexington, MA HVAC cost estimating program Win95/NT
CommProposal www.wrightsoft.com
Success Estimator U.S. Cost Co., Atlanta, GA Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
http://www.uscost.com/
VisualEstimator BNI Publications, Anaheim, CA Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
3.0 http://www.cprsoft.com/
WinEst WinEstimator, Inc., Kent, WA Detailed estimating program Win95/NT
http://www.winest.com/
3-18
3.2.10 Integrated Design Suites
Several software vendors have integrated multiple design functions into a single software suite.
These integrated suites typically allow the user to calculate cooling loads; size equipment, design
and lay out ductwork; create detailed bill of material lists; and determine system costs. In some
cases they automatically create drawings (such as duct layout details) that can be imported into a
CAD drawing. In other cases they entirely function within a CAD environment (such as
AutoCAD). Other vendors, such as Wrightsoft and Elite Software, have integrated their load
calculation and sizing tools within their own simplified drafting tools. Some tools appear to be
aimed at engineers and create formal CAD-like drawings and schedules. Other tools appear to
be intended to address the needs of contractors (e.g., Wrightsoft and Elite). These tools create
less formal drawings and also integrate costing and bill of material functions.
The integrated suites from Europe appear to focus more on integrating analysis into the design
process and maintaining a central design database. In contrast, the North American tools are
more oriented towards the practical concerns of contractors and design/build oriented
construction teams. An important North American exception is the Building Design Advisor
(BDA), a research project at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory that is intended to provide an
integrated suite of design tools to assist building decision-makers from the initial, schematic
phases of building design through the detailed specification of building components and systems.
The BDA is built around an object-oriented representation of the building and its context, which
is mapped onto the corresponding representations of multiple tools and databases. BDA acts as a
data manager and process controller, automatically preparing input to simulation tools and
integrating their output in ways that support multi-criterion decision-making. Current versions
of the BDA include a dedicated drawing package with the ability to generate prototypical
building designs, daylighting and electric lighting analysis packages, and the DOE-2 building
energy simulation program.
3-19
Table 3-17. List of Integrated Design Tools

Building Design LBNL, Berkeley, CA Research grade tool integrating a Win95/98/
Advisor http://gaia.lbl.gov/bda/ drawing program, lighting and NT/ 2000
daylighting analysis, and the DOE-
2 simulation engine.
CADLink Cymap Corporation, Bristol, UK Building load analysis, duct, Win95/98/
Mechanical www.cymap.co.uk, www.cymap.com piping and electrical design NT/ 2000
closely linked to ArchiCAD
Design Build 4.0 Carmel Software, San Fransisco, CA Design tools collection of Win95/NT
www.carmelsoft.com Carmelsoft programs (loadsoft,
psychrometric, u-value, duct size,
estimate)
Elite Elite Software, Bryan, TX Individual load, duct sizing, Win
www.elitesoft.com drawing, and costing tools are
highly integrated
IES Virtual IES Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland Integrated suite of building design Win95/NT
Environment www.ies4d.com and analysis tools
MeMate HVAC Energy and Mechanical Sys. Heating / cooling load calculation AutoCAD
2000 Consultants, Santa Monica CA tool with duct sizing and drafting, R14
www.memate.com runs from AutoCAD. Optional
cost estimating
Right-Suite Wrightsoft Corp., Lexington, MA Load calculation tool, drawing Win
Commercial www.wrightsoft.com utility, duct design tool, cost
proposal tool
3.2.11 HVAC Manufacturer Product Selection and Configuration Tools
Nearly all manufacturers now offer electronic versions of their equipment catalogs on the web or
on CD. These tools are especially common for complex product lines such as air handlers where
several thousand options are available. We have listed a few examples in the table below.
Virtually every manufacturer has such a tool available. It is interesting to note that
manufacturers who offer design software, such as Carrier and Trane, have generally tried to
“distance” their software products from their product selection tools. The goal appears to be to
maintain the independence, integrity, and credibility of the commercially-offered design tools
(while not making it too hard to transfer product specific data into the design tools).
3-20
Table 3-18. Partial List of Manufacturers' Product Selection Tools

Carrier, Syracuse, NY Selection tool to configure air
AHUBuilder/ECAT www.carrier-commercial.com handler units Win
Lennox Payback Lennox Industries, Dallas, TX Economic analysis of Lennox L
Calculator www.lennox.com series RTUs Win
Modular Climate Trane, LaCrosse, WI Searchable catalog of TRANE air
Changer www.trane.com/commercial/software handlers Win
OIT Clearinghouse, Olympia, WA Selection tool for finding efficient
Motor Master+ www.oit.doe.gov/tools.shtml/software motors of a desired size Win
Trane, LaCrosse, WI Searchable catalog of Trane
TOPSS www.trane.com/commercial/software equipment Win
York International, York, PA Selection tool to configure air
YorkWorks www.york.com handler units Win
3.2.12 Engineer's “Toolbox”
Several vendors also offer a collection of software utilities that perform miscellaneous tasks that
are part of the design process. In some cases the toolboxes include tools listed in other
subcategories such as duct sizing, piping pressure drops, psychrometrics, etc. Many vendors
have used the “toolbox” metaphor, implying these are specific tools aimed at specific tasks.
Table 3-19. List of “Engineer’s Toolbox” Software

Engineer's Toolbox Trane, LaCrosse, WI Computer Ductilator, Psych Chart, Win95
www.trane.com/commercial/software Reference tables, Refrigerant line
sizing
HVAC Tools Elite Software, Bryan, TX Automated collection of common Win
www.elitesoft.com HVAC tasks
Right-HVAC Tools Wrightsoft Corp., Lexington, MA Various automated calculations Win
www.wrightsoft.com
Tim's Tools Tim Brown, Madison, AL Many calculation and sizing
aardweb.com/tims-tools routines
Toolbox 3.0 Carmel Software, San Francisco, CA Automated calculations for HVAC Win95/NT
www.carmelsoft.com professionals
3.2.13 Piping Analysis and Pump Sizing
Several software tools have been developed to assist HVAC engineers with piping layout, sizing,
and analysis. Many of these tools have migrated from more comprehensive packages developed
for the analysis of complex industrial process piping systems. These tools range from AutoCAD
add-ins to assist with 3-D layout and interference testing (CadPipe) to flow analysis tools that
predict flows, pressure drops, and pumping power in complex networks.
3-21
Table 3-20. List of Piping Analysis and Pump Sizing Software

AFT Fathom Applied Flow Technology, Woodland Incompressible flow piping Win95
Park, CO www.aft.com calculations
AFT Mercury Applied Flow Technology, Woodland Piping calculations with Win95
Park, CO www.aft.com optimization
Cadpipe AEC Design Group, Gaithersburg, MD Facilitates 3D drawing of AutoCAD
Commercial Pipe www.cadpipe.com commercial and HVAC piping 2000
C-MAX UNICADE INC., Bellevue, WA Fluid flow systems model, w/ Win95
www.unicade.com/cmax economic analysis
CoilPac Crabtree Engineering Software, Refrigeration system piping Win
Claremont, Australia sizing
members.iinet.net.au/~crabby
ESP-Plus Bell & Gossett, Morton Grove, IL Software to analyze pumping Win &
www.bellgossett.com/software.stm systems and select pumps Web
HSYM Elite Software, Bryan, TX HVAC piping system analysis Win
www.elitesoft.com
Pipe Designer Trane, LaCrosse, WI Sizes piping systems Win
www.trane.com/commercial/software
Pipe Network Thermal Analysis Systems Co., Elk Analyzes a piping network Win95
Grove, IL
PipeNet/AquaNet Finite Technologies Inc., Anchorage, AK Piping network analysis with Win/Java
www.finite-tech.com contaminate tracking
Pipe Size 2.0 Carmel Software, San Francisco, CA Piping system design tool Win95/NT
www.carmelsoft.com
Pipe Sizer Randall Wilkinson (Hvacware.net) Win
www.hvacware.net
Piping Pressure Thermal Analysis Systems Co., Elk Calculates pressure loss in a Win95
Loss Grove, IL pipe
PISCES IES Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland Analyzes or sizes piping Win95/NT
www.ies4d.com systems
Water Piping Carrier, Syracuse, NY Piping system design tool DOS
Design www.carrier-commercial.com
Bell & Gossett’s freeware tools have become especially popular among engineers for analyzing
pumping systems and selecting pumps. This is an example of a manufacturer-supplied tool that
has developed credibility as a design tool, while also integrating the ability to select equipment
from this manufacturer’s product line.
3.2.14 IAQ / Standard 62 Compliance Tools
This class of tools is aimed at automating the steps necessary to comply with ASHRAE Standard
62-1989 or determining other aspects of ventilation rates and space contaminate levels. Several
tools from one software vendor (Taitem Engineering) are also marketed by at least two other
organizations. One of these packages is Ventilation Tools, which helps engineers with many of
the calculations and procedures necessary to comply with ASHRAE 62-1989. This tool also
provides on-line guidance to help the user through the practical aspects of IAQ issues.
3-22
Table 3-21. List of IAQ / Standard 62 Compliance Software

Heavent Elite Software, Bryan, TX Industrial exhaust system DOS
www.elitesoft.com ventilation design
IAQ Tools Elite Software, Bryan, TX Calculates contaminant levels in a Win
www.elitesoft.com space as a function of time
IAQ-Tools Carmel Software, San Francisco, CA Same as IAQ-Tools by Taitem Win95/NT
www.carmelsoft.com Engineering
IAQ-Tools Taitem Engineering, Ithaca, NY IAQ contaminant concentration Win3.1
calculations, transient or steady
state
Indoor Humidity Elite Software, Bryan, TX Calculates moisture loads, Win
Tools www.elitesoft.com humidifier or dehumidifier sizing,
and potential for humidity
problems (from Taitem)
Indoor Humidity Taitem Engineering, Ithaca, NY Humidity calcs for buildings; same Win
Tools as above
VentAir 62 TRANE, LaCrosse, WI Design tool for ventilation system, Win
www.trane.com/commercial/software complies with ASHRAE 62
(no longer on web page)
Ventilation Tools Elite Software, Bryan, TX Calculates ventilation rates, lag Win
www.elitesoft.com and lead times (from Taitem)
VentPac Crabtree Engineering Software, IAQ calcs, duct and pipe sizing Win
members.iinet.net.au/~crabby
3.2.15 Psychrometric Tools
Several tools are available to calculate psychrometric properties, determine mixed air conditions,
and plot process lines on the psychrometric chart. Some of these software tools are listed in the
table below. These tools range from web-based property calculators to add-ins for Excel. One
Windows-based program (PsyCalc from Linric Co.) is also marketed by other software vendors
on the list. It is also licensed and provided as freeware by various dehumidification-related
companies (e.g., Munters). The Climate Consultant software is somewhat unique in that it is
aimed at architects evaluating issues such as bioclimatic design. The other tools are more
oriented towards engineers.
3-23
Table 3-22. List of Psychrometric Software Tools

AHH Zeller Consulting Suisse, Ittigen, Psychrometric process analysis Win95
Switzerland www.zcs.ch
Air, AirExcel Utility Software, Seattle, WA Psychrometric properties, Win/Excel
www.w-link.net/~fherring steam tables
Climate Consultant UCLA, Los Angeles, CA Bioclimatic design and DOS
www.aud.ucla.edu/energy-design-tools psychrometric analysis
GetPsyched! KW Energy Engineering, Oakland, CA Excel-based psych chart Win/Excel

www.kw-energy.com/home.htm
PMTherm Automated psych chart
www.hisresources.com/hvac//software
PsyCalc Linric Company, Bedford, NH Automated psych chart Win
www.linric.com
Psychart Elite Software, Bryan, TX Automated psych chart Windows
www.elitesoft.com
Psychrometric 4.5 Carmel Software, San Fransisco, CA Interactive psych chart Win95/NT
www.carmelsoft.com
Psychrometric Acton Associates Inc, Concord, CA Automated psych chart Win95/NT
Chart4.0
Psychrometrics Thermal Analysis Systems, Elk Grove, Automated psych chart Win95
IL
Right-Psych Wrightsoft Corp., Lexington, MA Computerized psych chart Win
www.wrightsoft.com
Psych on the Web Trane, LaCrosse, WI Psych calcs on Web Web
www.trane.com/commercial/software
3.2.16 Refrigeration Load Tools
Several tools are available to calculate the loads on refrigerated boxes (i.e., coolers or cold
rooms), size refrigerant piping, and size compressors for refrigeration systems. They are listed in
the table below. One company in the UK (Mistral) offers an especially broad array of tools to
specifically design supermarket refrigeration as well as refrigeration systems for a broad range of
commercial applications. Software tools in the US appear to be more narrowly aimed at
calculating cooler (or cold box) loads and sizing refrigeration piping.
3-24
Table 3-23. List of Refrigeration Load Software

Casewind Mistral Ltd., Snettisham, UK Supermarket refrigeration system Win95
www.mistral.ltd.uk design tool
Cellwind Mistral Ltd., Snettisham, UK Beer cellar refrigeration room load Win95
www.mistral.ltd.uk calculation
Cold Room Calc Michael Leshenko, St Petersburg, Calculates cold room heat gain Win
Russia www.leshenko.bizland.com/en
Coldwind Mistral Ltd., Snettisham, UK Refrigeration room load calcs Win95
www.mistral.ltd.uk
Compwind Mistral Ltd., Snettisham, UK Compressor selection tool Win95
www.mistral.ltd.uk
Condwind Mistral Ltd., Snettisham, UK Condenser selection tool Win95
www.mistral.ltd.uk
Cool Calc Clik Software, Ashton Gate, UK Cold room load calculation tool Win95
www.adacam.co.uk
Coolwind Mistral Ltd., Snettisham, UK Cooler selection tool Win95
www.mistral.ltd.uk
Linewind Mistral Ltd., Snettisham, UK Refrigerant piping design tool Win95
www.mistral.ltd.uk
Packwind Mistral Ltd., Snettisham, UK Packaged A/C unit selection tool Win95
www.mistral.ltd.uk
Pipewind Mistral Ltd., Snettisham, UK Refrigerant piping design tool Win95
www.mistral.ltd.uk
Refrig Elite Software, Bryan, TX Refrigeration box loads (24 hr Win
www.elitesoft.com calculations)
Refrigerant Piping Carrier, Syracuse, NY Piping system design tool Win
Analysis www.carrier-commercial.com
Refrigeration 3.0 Carmel Software, San Fransisco, CA Refrigeration load calculation tool Win95/NT
www.carmelsoft.com
Excluded from this subcategory are tools that analyze refrigeration system performance. These
detailed refrigeration analysis tools are generally not used by designers and therefore have been
included in the specialized analysis tools category.
3.2.17 Coil Selection Tools
These tools allow engineers to complete detailed sizing and analysis of refrigeration or chilled
brine coils. In some cases the tools can also consider multiple coils and components combined
into a complex system. The tools listed in the table below are from international software
vendors. In the U.S. market, nearly all heat transfer equipment vendors offer coil selection
software for free that performs a similar function.
3-25
Table 3-24. List of Coil Selection Software

AIRSOL Zeller Consulting Suisse, Ittigen, Multiple heat exchanger analysis Win95/NT
Switzerland www.zcs.ch tool
FrigPac Crabtree Engineering Software, Coil selection tool Win
members.iinet.net.au/~crabby/
HEH, ACH Zeller Consulting Suisse, Ittigen, Finned heat exchanger analysis Win95/NT
Switzerland www.zcs.ch tool
3.2.18 Geothermal HP Loop Sizing Tools
Several software tools are available to size the ground loop heat exchangers for geothermal heat
pump systems. The Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium web site provides an extensive
comparison of these tools (www.geoexchange.org). These specialized tools generally
incorporate ground loop sizing calculations based on methods developed at the University of
Alabama or line-source algorithms developed by the University of Lund in Sweden. A study at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory compared these software tools and sizing approaches in a series
of technical papers4. GCHPCalc, a DOS based tool, appears to be the most widely used program
in the US. The calculation methods used by GCHPCalc and several of the other tools are
described in the ASHRAE Design/Data Manual for Closed-Loop Ground-Coupled Heat Pump
Systems (1997).
Table 3-25. List of Geothermal HP Loop Sizing Software

ECA Elite Software, Bryan, TX Geothermal loop sizing / heat Windows
www.elitesoft.com pump design tool
GCHPCalc University of Alabama, Dept. of Geothermal loop sizing / heat DOS
Mechanical Engineering, Birmingham, pump design tool
AL bama.ua.edu/~geocool/Software.htm
GLHE-PRO Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Geothermal loop sizing / heat Win
OK www.igshpa.okstate.edu pump design tool
GL-Source DynCorp, Overland Park, KS Excel-based Geo loop sizing tool Excel
www.geoexchange.org/dsgntool/grldes9.htm
GS2000 Caneta Research Inc., Mississauga, Sizes geothermal heat pump Win
Ontario, Canada systems
greenbuilding.ca/gs2k-1.htm
Right-Loop Wrightsoft Corp., Lexington, MA Geothermal loop sizing / heat Win
www.wrightsoft.com pump design tool
3.2.19 Acoustic Analysis Tools
These tools analyze the acoustic environment in a building. The tool from the U.S. appears to be
aimed more at fan systems while the European tool is a more generalized program aimed at
space acoustics.
4
Thornton et al (1997) and Shonder et al (2000) carefully compared the performance of these loop sizing tools.
3-26
Table 3-26. List of Acoustic Analysis Software

ACOUSALE LESO Building, Lausanne, Switzerland Analyzes acoustic performance of Win95
lesowww.epfl.ch spaces
TAP (Trane Trane, LaCrosse, WI Calculates noise levels due to Win3.1
Acoustics Program) www.trane.com/commercial/software HVAC equipment
3.2.20 Solar DHW / PV System Design Tools
Several design (and energy simulation) tools have been developed for solar water heating and
photovoltaic systems. While these two solar systems are technically very different, many tools
address both system types since they tend to be designed and applied by the same people. Many
of these “design” tools do hour-by-hour annual energy simulations. In this market, hourly
energy analysis appears to be part of the design process. The use of annual energy simulations
may be due to the innovative tendency of designers in this small market niche or because these
tools have primarily been developed by and for the research community as an attempt to build a
new market.
F-Chart is the oldest and one of the most well-known design tools for solar systems. It was
developed from correlations of numerous detailed TRNSYS simulations.
Table 3-27. List of Solar DHW / PV Design Software

F-Chart F-Chart software, Middleton, WI Active and passive solar energy various
www.fchart.com systems design tool
Valentin Energie Software, Berlin, Photovoltaic system
PV*Sol Germany www.tsol.de/PVSOL/pvsol0.htm simulation tool Win
ISET e V, Kassel, Germany Simulation of photovoltaic array
PVCAD www.iset.uni-kassel.de/pvcad performance Win95/NT
Maui Solar Energy Software, Haiku, HI Simulation of photovoltaic array
PV-DesignPro 4.0 www.mauisolarsoftware.com performance Win95
PV F-Chart F-chart software, Middleton, WI Solar energy systems design tool Win
www.fchart.com aimed at photovoltaic systems
Maui Solar Energy Software, Haiku, HI
SolarPro www.mauisolarsoftware.com Simulates a solar water heater Win
DreSys, Magdeburg, Germany
SolDesigner home.foni.net/~c-a-drescher/dresysdl.html Solar water heater design tool Win
Valentin Energie Software, Berlin, Solar heating system simulation
T*SOL Germany www.tsol.de tool
3.2.21 Weather Tools and Utilities
These tools are aimed at helping engineers develop custom weather data for their specific needs.
BinMaker is a tool that develops customized bin data from larger TMY files. It was developed
to help designers understand that design conditions for dehumidification systems are much
different from conventional cooling load calculations. Weathermaker is a utility in Energy-10
that allows users to develop “synthetic” weather files for more than 4000 US locations by using
more detailed typical year data from the 233 main NOAA weather stations. Climate Server is a
web-based service that collects recently published actual observation NOAA weather data, and
then cleans and pre-formats a file for use with energy analysis tools (e.g. DOE-2).
3-27
Table 3-28. List of Weather Tools and Utilities Software

InterEnergy Software, Chicago, IL Generates bin-style weather data
BinMaker Plus www.interenergysoftware.com for many locations Win
Generates hourly weather files for
Sustainable Buildings Industries Council 4,000 US locations. Part of
Weathermaker www.psic.org/energy10.htm Energy-10 Win
Displays design values,
coincidence/joint frequency tables,
or summary statistics for climate
WDView ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA www.ashrae.org data from ASHRAE handbooks Win
Collects, cleans and formats hourly
GeoPraxis, Inc. Petaluma, CA weather files for load shape
Climate Server www.idea-server.com calibration and other analyses Web
3.3 Whole Building Energy Analysis Tools
This major category has been separated out from the more general category of practitioner design
tools above because of its importance. While these tools are only now starting to become part of
the design process in the U.S., they have significant potential to help practitioners design more
efficient buildings. We have identified several subcategories of energy analysis tools that
evaluate whole buildings. These range from simple “auditing” tools that use degree-day methods
to calculate annual energy use in residential applications, to full hour-by-hour building
simulation tools that use typical year weather data to calculate loads, space conditions, and
HVAC system energy use in multi-zone commercial buildings. Other tools that are web-based
or are aimed at a very specific market have also been separately classified.
3.3.1 Simplified Energy Analysis Models
Many software tools have been developed to provide a quick analysis of annual energy use in
buildings. Many these tools, such as ASEAM, have been in wide use for years. They were
originally developed as simplified calculation procedures for use on desktop computers, but have
become somewhat obsolete with the increased speed of modern PCs. Other tools are designed to
provide a quick answer to energy retrofit questions with minimal input required by the user.
PEAR is an example of a simplified tool that was developed by correlating the results of
thousands of DOE-2 runs on a residential building. This approach was developed to eliminate
the need to wait for time-consuming hourly simulations. However, the greater speed of
computers has made this approach less appealing.
3-28
Table 3-29. List of Simplified Energy Analysis Software

DOE, Washington DC Calculates monthly savings from
ASEAM www.fishbaugher.com retrofits of federal buildings Win
Models annual cost of HVAC in
Elite Software, Bryan, TX residential and light commercial
AUDIT www.elitesoft.com settings Win
Oarsman Corp., College Station, TX
Beacon www.oarsman.com/site/products.asp Web-based energy auditing tool Web
Building energy use estimating
tool; considers window, lighting
BEEM EPRI www.epri.com configurations DOS
SBIC, Washington, DC Residential annual heat and cooling
Builder Guide www.sbicouncil.org/soft/index.html load program DOS
Assoc for Energy Affordability, New Building simulation that examines
EA-Quip York, NY possible energy-efficient retrofits DOS
CRN Applications, Austin, TX Energy audit worksheet & CAD
EASY www.bga.com/crnapps/easyhome.htm tool DOS
MC2 Engineering Software, Miami, FL
EN4M - Energy www.mc2engineeringsoftware.com/index.ht Calculates annual energy use and
Analysis m?451 costs by modified bin method Win
Building simulation program,
LESO Building, Lausanne, Switzerland simplified algorithm, monthly heat
LESO-SAI lesowww.epfl.ch load Win95
Calculates annual energy use of
ORNL, Oak Ridge, TN manufactured home, examines
MHEA www.ornl.gov retrofit possibilities DOS
LBNL, Berkeley, CA Residential annual energy use,
PEAR eetd.lbl.gov/BT.html costs, based on DOE-2 simulations DOS
EPA, Washington, DC Projects economic benefit of
QuikPlan www.epa.gov/buildings various upgrades to buildings Win
Residential building model with
Architectural Energy Corp , Boulder, CO code compliance checks
REM/Design www.archenergy.com (CABO/MEC, ASHRAE 90.2) Win
Energy use simulation program for
LBNL, Berkeley, CA DOE's ICP (Institutional
RESEM eande.lbl.gov/BTP/resem.htm Conservation Program). DOS
Equinland Ltd., Bildeston, UK Passive solar house simulation
SolaCalc www.solacalc.freeserve.co.uk program Win
Daily residential an small
Sunday Ecotope, Inc., Seattle, WA commercial energy simulation tool DOS
TRANE, LaCrosse, WI Estimates building loads, energy
System Analyzer www.trane.com/commercial/software use, and life-cycle costs Win
3.3.2 Basic Hourly Simulation Models (Calculation Engines)
Several detailed hour-by-hour energy simulation tools were originally developed as text-based
programs that required users to edit ASCII input files. In many cases, graphical user interfaces
have been developed for these tools to simplify the task of describing the building and viewing
the results. The underlying simulation models, now commonly referred to as calculation
engines, still remain in many cases. EnergyPlus, the newest building simulation tools being
developed by U.S. DOE, also fits into this category. EnergyPlus is being developed as a
3-29
calculation engine, leaving the task of user interface development to commercial software
developers.
Table 3-30. List of Basic Hourly Simulation Models (Calculation Engines)

Adm Energy Corp, Sacramento, CA
ADM-DOE2 www.adm-energy.com Version of DOE-2 DOS
Building simulation research tool,
Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL highly configurable. Will be
BLAST www.bso.uiuc.edu replaced by EnergyPlus DOS
VTT Building Technology, Finland
IAQ, energy use, noise level,
www.energytoolsdirectory.gov/software/
BUS++ bus.htm ventilation (not released) Win
LBNL, Berkeley, CA Original, DOS-based energy
simulationresearch.lbl.gov also available modeling software. Will be
DOE-2.1E from JJ Hirsch & Assoc: www.doe2.com replaced by EnergyPlus various
DOS-based calculation engine for
PowerDOE and eQUEST. Based
JJ Hirsch & Assoc on DOE-2.1; developed by JJ
DOE-2.2 www.doe2.com Hirsch and LBNL. DOS
DOE-2.3 (with JJ Hirsch & Assoc Update to DOE-2.2 with
refrigeration) www.doe2.com (in beta testing) refrigeration modeling capabilities DOS
DOE, Washington, DC
www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/energy_tools/en New calculations engine, best of
EnergyPlus ergyplus DOE-2 & BLAST various
Strathclyde Univ, Glasgow, Scotland Research-grade building simulation
ESP-r www.esru.strath.ac.uk program Unix
IES Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland Commercial version of ESP-r, with
ESP 4D+ www.ies4d.com user interfaces Win
FEM building model, calculates
FSEC, Cocoa, FL heat transfer, moisture transfer,
FSEC 3.0 www.fsec.ucf.edu IAQ VAX, PC
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Small time-step simulation of
OH residential envelope, HVAC &
HOUSE1, HOUSE2 www.battelle.org controls DOS
NREL, Golden, CO Finite difference method building
SERIRES www.osti.gov/estsc simulation tool DOS
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI General component-based
TRNSYS sel.me.wisc.edu/trnsys simulation tool Win95/NT
Danish Building Research Institute
www.by-og-
byg.dk/english/publishing/software/bsim2000 Building simulation tool, replaced
Tsbi3 /index.htm by Bsim2000 DOS
3.3.3 General Purpose Hourly Simulation Models
Tools in this subcategory are whole building energy analysis tools that include a mature user
interface and simulate building performance on an hour-by-hour basis for all 8,760 hours of the
year (tools that do hourly simulations for a few representative days each month are listed in the
“Simplified” subcategory above). These are the primary whole building energy analysis tools
used to design buildings and evaluate efficiency improvements. Many of them have a wide
audience. In the US, the most popular and widely-known tools are HAP (Carrier) and TRACE
(Trane). These energy analysis tools each have 1-2,000 users world-wide, with nearly twice that
3-30
many using the loads-only version of these tools. These tools use proprietary calculation engines
that have evolved over the years from the original DOS-based versions. Because market demand
for the energy analysis tools has been lower, the interface for these tools have typically lagged
behind the loads-only versions. HAP is only available as a DOS program (version 3.2) while
Trane just recently (March 2001) introduced the full Windows version of TRACE 700 that does
calculations for 8,760 hours.
Another significant group of tools are based on the DOE-2.1E and DOE-2.2 calculation engines.
The tools based on DOE-2.1E include VisualDOE, EZDOE, and EnergyGauge. Both
PowerDOE and eQUEST have been developed using the DOE-2.2 calculation engine now
maintained and marketed by JJ Hirsch and Associates. The other energy analysis tools use a
variety of public domain and proprietary calculation engines coupled to an interface. The most
popular tools in this subcategory are examined in detail later in the report.
Table 3-31. List of General Purpose Hourly Simulation Software

Mistral Ltd., Snettisham, UK Building simulation tool, energy
AirWind 2001 www.mistral.ltd.uk use, temperatures Win95
IES Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland
APACHE-Sim www.ies4d.com Building and equipment model Win95/NT
Danish Building Research Institute
www.by-og-
byg.dk/english/publishing/software/bsim2000 Comprehensive hourly building
Bsim2000 /index.htm model, continuation of tsbi3, Win95
University of Lund, Sweden
DEROB-LTH www.bkl.lth.se/derob.htm Building simulation research tool Win95/NT
Hourly analysis of residential and
small commercial energy use, with
PSIC, Washington, DC energy-efficient changes
Energy-10 www.sbicouncil.org/enTen/index.html recommended Win
FSEC, Cocoa, FL Hourly analysis of residential
EnergyGauge www.fsec.ucf.edu structures Win95/NT
Enermodal Engineering, Kitchener, Hourly analysis of residential and
Enerpass Ontario, Canada www.enermodal.com small commercial structures Win
Texas A&M University, College Station,
Enerwin TX archone.tamu.edu/~energy/enerwin.htm Hourly analysis of structures Win
Energy Design Resources, CA Front end for DOE-2.2, calculates
eQUEST www.energydesignresources.com gas and electricity use, costs Win
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA Residential energy use model, with
ESPRE www.epri.com cost analysis, system performance Win95/NT
Elite Software, Bryan, TX Front end to DOE-2.1E building
EZDOE www.elitesoft.com energy analysis program DOS
Finite Technologies Inc., Anchorage, Version DOE-2.1E with Java-
FTI/DOE-2 AK www.finite-tech.com based interface DOS, Win
HAP 3.2 Carrier, Syracuse, NY Calculates hourly building DOS
www.carrier-commercial.com performance (ver 3.2)
Canmet Energy Tech Centre, Ottawa,
Canada Calculates residential annual
Hot2000 greenbuilding.ca/can-sfh.htm energy use, code compliance Win95/NT
Canmet Energy Technology Centre, Calculates residential annual
Ottawa, Canada energy use, easier-to-use version of
Hot2XP greenbuilding.ca/can-sfhx.htm Hot2000 Win95/NT
3-31
Table 3-31. List of General Purpose Hourly Simulation Software (continued)

IDA Indoor Climate EQUA, Sundbyberg, Sweden Models energy use, thermal
and Energy www.equa.se comfort IAQ Win95/NT
Web-based integration interface for
DOE-2.1e, DOE-2.2, and
GeoPraxis, Petaluma, CA EnergyPlus (gbXML/SOAP Web,
IDEA Server www.geopraxis.com compliant) WinNT
Web-based front and back end
GeoPraxis, Petaluma, CA interface for DOE-2 and Web,
IDEA server www.geopraxis.com EnergyPlus WinNT
CSTB, France
IssiBAT www.tess-inc.com User front end for TRNSYS Win
SRC Systems Inc, Berkeley, CA
MarketManager www.siliconenergy.com Hourly building simulation tool Win
MCI Ltd, Hatfield, South Africa Annual calculation of building
NewQuick www.newquick.com loads and energy use Win95
JJ Hirsch & Assoc
PowerDOE www.doe2.com User interface to DOE-2.2 Win
Solar Energy Research Center,
Borlange, Sweden
PreSIM www.du.se/ekos/serc/research/presim.html Interface for TRNSYS Win
Olof Granlund OY, Helsinki, Finland
RIUSKA www.granlund.fi/English/tyo-riuska.htm User interface for DOE-2.1E Win95/NT
UCLA, Los Angeles, CA Building heat gain/loss simulation
Solar-5 www.aud.ucla.edu/energy-design-tools tool Win95/NT
EDSL Ltd, Milton Keynes, UK
TAS ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/edsl Building thermal simulation tool WinNT
Trane, LaCrosse, WI Building thermal simulation tool
TRACE 700 www.trane.com/commercial/software (released March 2001) Win
Multi-zone residential model
targeting contractors (developed
TREAT Taitem Engineering, Ithaca, NY with funding by NYSERDA) Win
Eley Associates, San Francisco, CA
VisualDOE www.eley.com User interface for DOE-2.1E Win
3.3.4 Special Purpose Hourly Simulation Models (Technology Focused Tools)
We created this subcategory to differentiate hourly building simulation models that were
developed for a narrow market or to evaluate a specific technology. For instance, DesiCalc was
developed as a screening tool to evaluate the application of desiccant systems in a variety of
commercial building applications (available models in other tools do not adequately represent the
current technologies). Similarly, the Supermarket Simulation Tool (SST) was developed to
model the hourly interactions of refrigerated display cases and HVAC equipment in supermarket
applications. IHAT is another screening tool being developed to evaluate the benefits of
enthalpy recovery wheels in school applications.
3-32
Table 3-32. List of Special Purpose Hourly Simulation Software

Hourly simulation of desiccant-
based equipment vs. conventional
InterEnergy Software, Chicago, IL cooling equipment. Based on
DesiCalc www.interenergysoftware.com DOE-2.1E Win
Humidity analysis tool to evaluate
EPA, Washington, DC impact of enthalpy recovery in
IHAT schools. Based on DOE-2.1E Win95
Hourly simulation of buildings
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR using stressed-skin insulating
SIP Scheming Department of Architecture, panels Mac
Supermarket Simulation Tool -
EPRI Palo Alto, CA hourly analysis of supermarket
SST www.epri.com HVAC and refrig. energy use. Win95
Screening tool for building
ORNL, Oak Ridge, TN combined heating and power.
BCHP www.ornl.com Based on DOE-2. (in development) Win
3.3.5 Web-Based Hourly Simulation Models
This subcategory includes whole building energy analysis tools that have been given a web
interface. We differentiated this group of tools to highlight the benefits of this new type of
interface. Like other screening tools, these tools require relatively simple inputs from the user
and makes various “smart” assumptions to develop inputs for a full building model, such as
DOE-2.
Table 3-33. List of Web-Based Hourly Simulation Software

Free web-based “what-if”
Energy Design Resources, CA modeling tool for architects and
EDR Charette www.energydesignresources.com owners (DOE-2.1E) Web
Web-based energy audit, with
EMCOR (GeoPraxis), Norwalk, CT benchmarking to other buildings of
Energy Edge www.emcor-energy-edge.com similar type. (DOE-2.1E) Web
LBNL, Berkeley, CA Calculates residential annual
Home Energy Saver www.HomeEnergySaver.lbl.gov energy use (DOE-2.1E) Web
LBNL, Berkeley, CA Calculates annual infiltration and
RVSP epb1.lbl.gov/ventilation/program.html ventilation energy use and cost Web
California Energy Commission, CA Free web-based energy audit and
Your California www.consumerenergycenter.org/homean decision tool for homeowners
Home dwork/homes/index.html (DOE-2.2) Web
3.4 Economic and Environmental Analysis Tools
This major category includes tools that are capable of detailed life-cycle calculations as well as
technology specific screening tools (that do not use a full hour-by-hour whole building
simulations). We also included software tools aimed at determining the environmental impact of
buildings over their entire life-cycle into this category. Generally these tools use simplified
3-33
energy calculations (i.e., they did not fit into the whole building energy analysis category) and do
not provide design level information.
3.4.1 General Life-Cycle Analysis Tools
This subcategory of tools are used to complete detailed economic calculations on energy
projects. The user inputs detailed economic data such as interest/discount rates, projected utility
rates, annual energy savings, capital costs, tax-related information, and project life.
Table 3-34. List of General Life-Cycle Analysis Software

National Institute for Standards and
Technology (NIST)
www.eren.doe.gov/femp/techassist/ Life-cycle cost analysis for Federal
BLCC softwaretools/softwaretools.html/blcc5 energy projects Win
User Friendly
Building Life-Cycle JJ Hirsch and Assoc. Spreadsheet-based implementation
Costing www.doe2.com of BLCC Excel
Engineering Carrier, Syracuse, NY Economic analysis of HVAC
Economic Analysis www.carrier-commercial.com systems DOS
Energy Design Resources, CA Life-cycle cost program for
eVALUator www.energydesignresources.com building energy systems Win
Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL Economic analysis add-on for
LCCID www.bso.uiuc.edu BLAST Win
3.4.2 Technology Screening / Assessment Tools
Technology screening tools include a whole range of simplified software packages aimed at
making a quick assessment of whether a technology is appropriate for a given application. Tools
in this group generally do fairly simplified energy calculations and compare the new technology
to a base case. The comparison is often done in terms of energy, operating costs, and
environmental impacts. Since the focus is on a quick understanding by non-experts, these tools
often ignore subtle (and not-so-subtle) technical details. These tools are often developed to
promote a technology such as cogeneration/BCHP, gas cooling, solar water heating, or
renewable energy.
3-34
Table 3-35. List of Technology Screening / Assessment Software

Calculates annual HVAC costs,
MicroWorks, Inc., Culleoka, TN given weather data and system
Co$tWorks98 www.microworksinc.com performance data Win
Thermal Analysis Systems Co., Elk
Cogeneration Grove, IL Calculates economic benefit of
Analysis www.cuservices.net/software.htm cogeneration Win95
Architectural Energy Corporation, Cogeneration / distributed
D-Gen Pro Boulder, CO www.archenergy.com generation screening tool Win
IES Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland CHP system and demand-side
ERGON www.ies4d.com management analysis Win95/NT
NREL, Golden, CO
www.eren.doe.gov/femp/techassist/softwaret Screening tool for retrofits of
FRESA ools/softwaretools.html renewable energy technologies DOS
Annual cost and savings of gas
InterEnergy Software, Chicago, IL cooling equipment in a
Gas Cooling Guide www.interenergysoftware.com representative facility Win
Canmet Energy Technology Centre,
Ottawa, Canada greenbuilding.ca/can- Screening tool for retrofits of
RETScreen sfb.htm renewable energy technologies Excel
Calculates economic benefit of
NREL, Golden, CO solar hot water heating system
SolarBenefits www.eren.doe.gov/solarbuildings (works inside Excel) Win, Mac
3.4.3 Environmental Impact and Educational Tools
A new class of software tools has emerged to determine the impact that buildings have on their
environment. These tools factor in energy use, water use and disposal, indoor environmental
quality, construction materials, and debris discarded during construction and over the life of the
building. We have also included software tools / modules that are intended to educate designers
and building owners in this category.
Table 3-36. List of Environmental Impact and Educational Software

ASMI, Ottawa, Canada Ecological impact decision model
ATHENA www.athenaSMI.ca for buildings Win95
NIST, Gaithersburg, MD Holistic decision model to
BEES www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/bees.html determine environmental impact Win95
BRE, Garston, UK More complicated version of
BREEAM www.bre.co.uk/envest Envest Win
Deringer Group, Berkeley, CA
EcoAdvisor www.ecoadvisor.com Educational training tutorial Web
Energy Trainer for
Energy Managers Deringer Group, Berkeley, CA
(HVAC Module) www.deringergroup.com Educational training tutorial Win95
BRE, Garston, UK
Envest www.bre.co.uk/envest Ecological impact analysis Win95/NT
Suggests ecological design
Green Building Building Green, Inc. strategies based on building and
Advisor www.greenbuildingadvisor.com site parameters Win, Mac
3-35
3.5 Specialized Analysis Tools
This category includes detailed analysis tools that are primarily used by building science
researchers and other specialized consultants. This class of tools includes models that use the
best available technical algorithms to simulate a particular physical phenomena or building
system. For example, one subcategory includes illumination models that predict the distribution
of light on surfaces in a space from both natural and artificial sources. Another subcategory
evaluates the detailed thermal performance of windows. Still other tools can provide a detailed
assessment of 2D and 3D heat and mass transfer through the building envelope. We have also
included equation-based solvers aimed at simulating the performance of buildings and HVAC
equipment in this category as well as CFD (computational fluid dynamics) tools that can
consider flows and stratification in complex zones.
This category was the starting point for many mainstream design and whole building analysis
tools that have been listed in the previous subchapter. It is likely that some of these tools (or
their underlying algorithms) will migrate into the more mainstream tools in the future. For
instance two of the tools listed below are planned for incorporation into EnergyPlus (SPARK and
COMIS).
Several limitations have historically placed tools into this category, including CPU intensive
calculations, extensive data input requirements, and poorly developed user interfaces. However,
increasing computer power, simpler interfaces, and databases of standard input data are helping
to overcome some of these barriers. It is possible that more open energy simulation tools and
user interfaces that intelligently assemble complex input data could make it practical to put these
technically advanced features into the hands of design practitioners.
3.5.1 Daylighting / Illumination Models
Several tools are available for detailed lighting design calculations. These programs generally
feature more robust calculation and rendering capability, and improved interface features. Many
of these specialized tools are making their way into design practice. The tools typically use one
of more of the following technical approaches:
Lumen method. The lumen method is a simplified design procedure that calculates average
illuminance on the work plane from lamp light output, fixture design, fixture layout, and room
characteristics. A key component of the lumen method is the coefficient of utilization, which
represents the fraction of the initial lamp lumens that reach the work plane. The coefficient of
utilization is a function of the fixture design, room geometry, and room surface reflectance.
Coefficients of utilization can be obtained from tables listed in standard references or
manufacturers’ literature, or calculated directly using the zonal cavity method. The lumen
method only calculates average illuminance; point-to-point values may vary dramatically,
depending on the fixture spacing and photometrics. The lumen method is generally applied to
simple interior lighting designs where uniform horizontal illuminance is the primary objective.
3-36
Radiosity approach. The radiosity approach is a more rigorous lighting design modeling
approach, allowing point-to-point calculation of illuminance on all enclosing surfaces. The
space is divided into small elements, and radiant energy exchange “form factors” are calculated
for each element. The element intensities are calculated from the intensity of the light sources
and radiant energy balance on the overall space. A fundamental limitation of the radiosity
approach is that the form factor calculations assume a perfectly diffuse surface; specular surfaces
are not considered. The radiosity approach can be used to calculate point-to-point illuminance
values and surface luminance, and generate simple renderings of the space. Once the form
factors are calculated, regenerating different views of the space is fairly quick; thus the radiosity
method is often used to create animated “walk-through” renderings.
Ray tracing. Ray tracing techniques are the most rigorous lighting design simulation method
currently available. Ray tracing analysis is used to predict light levels and produce a
photorealistic rendering of a space. The picture plane is a composed of a fine grid of pixels.
Rays of light are traced from the source to each pixel to the eye (light forward tracing) or from
the eye to the pixel to the source (light backwards tracing). Direct light, specular reflections, and
diffuse reflections are considered. Ray tracing calculations resulting in photorealistic renderings
of a space can take many hours of computer time. Each view is calculated separately, making
this technique impractical for animated walk-through renderings.
Table 3-37. List of Third Party Lighting Design and Daylighting Tools
AGI 32 Lighting Analysts Radiosity based lighting design and rendering Win95/98/NT
www.lightinganalysts. com program. Handles curved and tilted surfaces.
Includes CAD tool for generating complex
architectural forms. Photometrically-correct color
rendering, CAD file import and export (.dwg and
.dxf format), catalog of spec sheets and photometric
reports for popular manufacturers and fixtures,
automatic fixture quantity takeoffs, and automatic
lighting power density (Watts/sf) calculations.
LumenMicro Lighting Technologies Radiosity based lighting design and rendering Win95/98/NT
2000 www.lighting- program. Limited to orthogonal surfaces. Includes
technologies.com CAD tool for generating space description, or
import/export from CAD program (.dwg and .dxf
format). Photometrically-correct color rendering,
catalog of spec sheets and photometric reports for
popular manufacturers and fixtures, and automatic
fixture quantity takeoffs. Also does daylighting
calculations.
SuperLite 2.0 Lawrence Berkeley National Freeware lighting and daylighting analysis program DOS
Laboratory from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Uses the
eetd.lbl.gov/btp/wdg/superlite/ radiosity approach; limited to rectangular and
superlite2.html orthogonal surfaces. Can model interior partitions
and light shelves. Input files generated from
companion 3D modeling tool for import CAD file
(.dxf format). Generates illuminance levels and
daylight factors at specified points. Output can be
linked to DOE-2, TRNSYS, and BLAST.
3-37
Table 3-37. List of Third Party Lighting Design and Daylighting Tools (continued)
Radiance Lawrence Berkeley National Freeware lighting and daylighting analysis and WinNT/ Unix
Laboratory rendering program from Lawrence Berkeley
radsite.lbl.gov/radiance National Lab. A combination of Monte Carlo and
deterministic ray tracing algorithms provides
illuminance plots, exitance plots, and photo-realistic
renderings. Desktop Radiance operates within
AutoCAD. Fixture photometric data and material
properties must be supplied, as libraries are limited.
A research grade tool generally not used in
commercial design practice.
Lightscape Discreet Logic Lighting and daylighting design and rendering
www.lightscape.com program uses radiosity techniques combined with
ray tracing for specular materials. Produces
illuminance plots, exitance plots, and photo-realistic
renderings. CAD import and export features.
Extensive materials and lighting fixture library.
Animated walkthroughs possible when specular
effects are removed.
SkyCalc Energy Design Resources Excel template for calculating the illuminance and Win
www.energydesignresources.co HVAC impacts skylights. Average illuminanc
m calculated using IESNA skylighting methodology
3.5.2 Detailed Window / Fenestration Models
This subcategory of tools use highly accurate calculations to simulate solar transmission and
thermal conduction through fenestration systems. These models are used by researchers or
developers of window systems. The window libraries in DOE-2 and EnergyPlus have been
developed with Window.
3-38
Table 3-38. List of Detailed Window / Fenestration Models

Predicts the thermal properties of
building components, such as
window frames, doors, and walls
using detailed 2D heat conduction
Enermodal Engineering, Kitchener, Ontario, calculations. Links with Window
FRAME Canada www.enermodal.com and VISION DOS, Win95
Calculates optical properties of
glazing materials, including coated
and laminated products. Links to
OPTICS LBNL, Berkeley, CA windows.lbl.gov Window program Win95
Calculates energy use for different
window options in residential
buildings. Uses DOE-2 as the
RESFEN LBNL, Berkeley, CA windows.lbl.gov calculation engine. Win95
Analyzes two-dimensional heat
transfer through building products
such as windows, walls, and doors. Win95/98/
THERM LBNL, Berkeley, CA windows.lbl.gov Links with Window program NT
Models the combined optical and
thermal performance of glazing
Enermodal Engineering, Kitchener, Ontario, systems. Links with FRAME
VISION Canada www.enermodal.com program DOS, Win95
Calculates window thermal
performance, linked to DOE-2 and
WINDOW LBNL, Berkeley, CA windows.lbl.gov EnergyPlus DOS, Win95
Window Heat Sustainable by Design, Seattle, WA Calculates solar heat gain through
Gain www.susdesign.com/windowheatgain windows Web
University College, Dublin, Ireland Window thermal and solar
Wis erg.ucd.ie/passport/passport.html performance tool
3.5.3 Infiltration / Pressurization / Pollutant Transport Models
These assess induced airflow and pollutant concentration levels in single and multi-zone
applications. COMIS and CONTAMW predict zone-to-zone and zone-to-ambient air flow rates
that are driven by stack effect, wind, and mechanical systems. CONTAMW also simulates stack,
wind, and mechanically-driven air flows, and can additionally predict the transport and dispersal
of contaminants within a multi-zone building.
3-39
Table 3-39. List of Detailed Infiltration/Pressurization/Pollutant Transport Models

Calculates infiltration and
LBNL, Berkeley, CA ventilation in a building, plus
COMIS www-epb.lbl.gov/comis contaminant concentrations Unix, Win95
Calculates infiltration and
NIST, Gaithersburg, MD ventilation in a building, plus
ContamW www.bfrl.nist.gov/863/contam contaminant concentrations Win95
National Research Council, Ottawa,
Canada Material emissions database and
MEDB-IAQ www.nrc.ca (not released yet) analysis tool Win
LESO Building, Lausanne, Switzerland Analyzes stack-driven ventilation
LESOCOOL lesowww.epfl.ch in buildings Win95
3.5.4 Detailed Heat and Moisture Transport Models
Several tools are available to evaluate two- and three-dimensional transient heat transfer through
building components. These tools are often used to determine transient rates of heat transfer to
the ground through basements, slabs, and other complex geometry. Other tools model combined
moisture and heat transfer though wall assemblies to determine where and when condensation
occurs. These detailed models are often the tools used to develop approximations/correlations
that can be integrated into simpler models (such as hourly building simulation models).
Table 3-40. List of Detailed Heat and Moisture Transport Models

Canmet Energy Technology Centre,
Ottawa, Canada Calculates heat transfer from
BaseCalc greenbuilding.ca/canm-pg1.htm basement walls and slabs Win
Enermodal Engineering, Kitchener, Calculates window U value and
FramePlus Ontario, Canada www.enermodal.com SHGF DOS
BLOCON, Lund, Sweden Calculates 2D heat transfer through
Heat2 www.blocon.se, www.buildingphysics.com building components Win95/NT
BLOCON, Lund, Sweden Calculates 3D heat transfer through
Heat3 www.blocon.se, www.buildingphysics.com building components Win95/NT
Calculates heat and moisture
LESO Building, Lausanne, Switzerland transfer through a building
LESO-Kai lesowww.epfl.ch component Win95
Calculates heat and moisture
NIST, Gaithersburg, MD transfer through a building
MOIST www.bfrl.nist.gov/863/moist.html component Win
UCLA, Los Angeles, CA Calculates U value and temperature
Opaque www.aud.ucla.edu/energy-design-tools profile for a wall section DOS
Physibel, Maldenen, Belgium 2D/3D heat & moisture transfer
Physibel www.physibel.be through building components DOS, Win
ThermoAnalytics Inc, Calumet, MI
RadTherm www.thermoanalytics.com Calculates heat transfer via C,C&R Win, Linux
LBNL, Berkeley, CA 2D heat transfer analysis through
Therm windows.lbl.gov/software/therm/therm.html building components Win95
3-40
Table 3-40. List of Detailed Heat and Moisture Transport Models (continued)
Universitat Erlangen Nurnberg,
Erlangen, Germany
www.nt.e-technik.uni-
erlangen.de/~rabe/Thermosim/Thermosi Building component heat transfer
Thermosim m.html analysis Web
Pontifical Catholic University of
Parana, Curitiba, Brazil Temperature and moisture profiles
Umidus www.pucpr.br/pesquisa/lst/ across a wall assembly Win95
3.5.5 CFD / Air Flow Models
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models can be used to predict air flow and temperature
patterns in buildings. Conventional whole building simulation models make the assumption that
a zone is well mixed. CFD models can be used to predict the degree of thermal stratification and
the impact of diffusers on air distribution in a room. AirPak and FLOVENT are both general
purpose CFD codes that can be applied to building science problems. Microflow can be coupled
to the other general thermal building simulation models to look at heat transfer and air flow
problems simultaneously.
Table 3-41. List of CFD / Air Flow Models

Fluent, Inc, Lebanon, NH CFD-based HVAC system design Unix,
AirPak 1.0 www.airpak.fluent.com tool WinNT
Flomerics Ltd., Hampton Court, UK CFD air flow and heat transfer Unix,
FLOVENT www.flovent.com visualization tool WinNT
3-D finite difference software (K-
IES Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland epsilon turbulence model),
Microflow www.ies4d.com calculates heat transfer, IAQ Win
3.5.6 Equation-Based Simulation Models
Equation-based simulation models use generalized solution techniques to solve arbitrarily

complex sets of differential and algebraic equations. The advantage of this continuous
simulation approach is that the system is described by the general set of equations instead of a
mathematical algorithm that is only valid for a certain set of conditions (e.g., finding the space
temperature at an hourly time step). The proponents of this approach cite the ease of developing
and maintaining models as one of the main advantages. This simulation approach has become
popular in other industries such as chemical engineering (Sahlin 2000). The Neutral Model
Format (NMF) was developed as a standard way to represent component models in equation
form. A standard tool-independent means to represent NMF components has been developed as
part of ASHRAE project RP-839. As part of this project, component models from the ASHRAE
Secondary Toolkit were converted into NMF. A public domain database of well documented
NMF component models, known as Simulation Model Network (SIMONE,
home.swipnet.se/nmf/simone.htm), has been created in Europe under the auspices of
International Energy Agency Solar Heating and Cooling Program Task 22.
3-41
The general equation solver IDA has been used to used to develop the software application
Indoor Climate and Energy (ICE) aimed at building simulation. The ICE whole building energy
analysis tool includes a well developed user interface for use by building designers and energy
analysts. The ICE tool has 300 users, mostly in Scandinavia.
Similarly, the equation solver EES has become a popular tool for engineering analysis. EES also
has provisions to allow developers to create and distribute user-friendly software applications.
The CoolPack refrigeration model from Denmark was developed using EES.
SPARK allows users to build customized models of building energy systems by connecting
calculation objects that are equations or groups of equations. It is aimed at simulation of
innovative and/or complex systems that are beyond the scope of whole-building programs like
DOE-2 and EnergyPlus. The main elements of SPARK are a user interface, a network
specification language, a solver for solving simultaneous algebraic and differential equations at a
user-selected time step, and a results processor. With the Network Specification Language users
create equation-based calculation objects, and link the objects into networks that represent a
building's envelope or HVAC components and systems. The solver solves this network each time
step for user-specified input parameters. The results processor allows graphical display of the
calculation results.
Table 3-42. List of Equation-Based Models

F-Chart Software, Middleton, WI Generalized engineering equation
EES www.fchart.com solver & development environment Win
IDA Simulation EQUA, Sundbyberg, Sweden General equation-based simulation
Environment www.equa.se environment Win
LBNL, Berkeley, CA General equation-based simulation Win95/NT,
SPARK simulationresearch.lbl.gov environment Unix
3.5.7 HVAC Component and Plant Models
This subcategory includes a range of tools that focus on the HVAC or plant portion of a building
system. We have listed TRNSYS here (again) to highlight the fact that this general simulation
tool works best with mechanical systems. Other tools such as Analysis Platform, Coolaid, and
VisualPlant are fairly simplified tools that are (or have been) used by practitioners to design
chilled water systems. HVACSIM+ is a research tool that was developed to evaluate the detailed
transient performance of mechanical systems and controls on a small time step.
3-42
Table 3-43. List of HVAC Component and Plant Models

Arthur D Little Inc., Cambridge, MA Equipment simulation for HVAC
Analysis Platform www.arthurdlittle.com plants (DOE sponsored) DOS
IES Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland GUI interface for HVAC portion of
APACHE-HVAC www.ies4d.com APACHE Win95/NT
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA Cool/thermal storage systems
Coolaid www.epri.com analysis tool DOS
NIST, Gaithersburg, MD
HVACSIM+ www.nist.gov Building and equipment model DOS
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
TRNSYS sel.me.wisc.edu/trnsys General simulation tool Win95/NT
Eley Associates, San Francisco, CA
VisualPlant www.eley.com Chiller plant simulation model Win
3.5.8 Detailed Refrigeration Models (Hardware-Based)
These tools can model the steady state (and in a few cases transient) performance of refrigeration
systems. These tools are primarily used by researchers and engineers who design or develop
refrigeration or space conditioning equipment. Most the tools that have been discussed above
focus on the “application” of this equipment into a building system, and therefore use fairly
simple performance maps to represent these components. Often these detailed refrigeration
models were used to develop the simplified performance maps.
Very few software tools integrate refrigeration system modeling with hourly building
simulations. Only two building simulation models, SST and DOE-2.3, have the ability to
simulation the performance of a refrigeration system integrated into a building. Modeling the
refrigeration system and the time-varying loads imposed on it is useful for simulating
supermarket performance. Both these building simulation tools solve for the steady-state
performance of the refrigeration system given the imposed loads and operating temperatures for
each hour. Then the impact of the refrigeration system on the building simulation problem is
factored into that analysis.
This subcategory of tools are called “hardware-based” models, since they include detailed heat
exchanger and component models (i.e., tube-by-tube HX models, expansion device behavior,
charge tracking, etc). The tools are used by equipment designers and researchers to understand
the detailed performance of systems. In contrast, the performance-based models in the next
subchapter use simple (UA-based) heat exchanger models and are intended for making
generalized cycle comparisons that consider various refrigerants.
In some cases, the “hardware-based” refrigeration component models in each tool are based on
first principles while in other instances empirical and semi-empirical algorithms are used. For
instance, HPSim from NIST uses a theoretical compressor model while HPDM uses the ARI
compressor curves available from manufacturers. Some models can simulate critically-charged
systems (that are typical of most unitary products). These tools predict the amount of
refrigeration charge, its location, and its impact on performance. Others are models are aimed at
larger, more complex systems with multiple components where charge location is less important.
3-43
Several modular models are available to model refrigeration systems. These flexible programs
include features more focused on evaluating larger refrigeration systems. Many of the programs,
especially those tools from Europe, are offshoots of more generalized thermodynamic models
capable of simulating power plants and manufacturing processes. These programs have the
flexibility to simulate combined heat, power, and refrigeration systems of any arrangement and
complexity.
One of the most widely used fixed-configuration tools for air conditioning system analysis is
Heat Pump Design Model (HPDM) from ORNL. This steady-state tool has been used for several
years in the U.S. air conditioning industry. While many equipment manufacturers have their
own in-house tools for day-to-day refrigeration system design, HPDM has often been used as a
public domain “reference tool”. An ASHRAE research project is currently under way to update
the charge tracking algorithms in HPDM5 after the currently-used algorithms were found to be
lacking in a previous ASHRAE study (859-RP). HPDM is now available on the web. The web-
based tool provides graphical results and is capable of doing parametric runs. The IEA Heat
Pump Centre is currently completing a survey of these types of tools.
Table 3-44. Tools for Refrigeration Cycle Analysis (Hardware-Based Models)

Tube-by-tube and segment-by-
ACMODEL Purdue University segment HX model DOS
Crabtree Engineering Software,
AcuPac members.iinet.net.au/~crabby A/C system simulation tool Win
CoolTool I_KET and Dehon, Germany Developed by German Institute of
www.cooltool.de/download.htm Refrigeration. Marketed by Dehon. Win
Copeland Corp. Sidney, OH
COPESIM www.copeland-corp.com Windows version of ORNL HPDM Win
University of Maryland, College Park, User-configurable. Modular
Cycle Builder MD www.enme.umd.edu/ceee sequential. Under development. Win
CETIAT, France Detailed HX design tool; Modular
Cyrano, MoMo (Mondot, Bensafi) model
EDF EDF, France TRNSYS-based simulation program
Thorbergsen Frigosoft, Norway
Ed.interconsult.com/frigosoft/frigosim
Frigo-Sim /index.html Modular refrigeration system model Win
HPDesign M. Conde Engineering, Switzerland Unitary HP and AC design
ORNL, Oak Ridge, TN
HPDM (Heat Pump www.ornl.gov/~wlj/hpdm/doehpdm. Models performance of heat pump
Design Model) html components DOS, Web
NIST, Gaithersburg, MD Models performance of heat pump
HPSIM www.nist.gov components; tube-by-tube model DOS
University of Illinois, ACRC User-configurable, based on Newton-
RAC Acrc.me.uiuc.edu Raphson method
WSYS, ASYS, Commercially sold. Used for design
ACU R&R / Heatcraft by various equipment manufacturers DOS, Win
5
ASHRAE RP-1173 is currently updating the algorithms for tracking charge in a critically-charged refrigeration system.
3-44
3.5.9 Detailed Refrigeration Models (Performance-Based)
Another subcategory of refrigeration models is performance-based. These tools have primarily

been developed to compare the generalized performance of various refrigerants that are
alternatives to CFCs and HCFCs. These screening tools often use the REFPROP database from
NIST that includes the “equation of state” or properties for numerous refrigerants and mixtures.
Generally these tools do not address the details of heat exchanger performance but instead use
simple UA models. Details such as single-phase heat transfer and refrigerant side pressure drops
are not considered.
Table 3-45. Detailed Refrigeration Models (Performance-Based)

DTU, Denmark
CoolPack 130.225.70.33/Software/Index.html Tools based on EES from F-Chart Windows
TNO, Netherlands
www- Power systems model with
CYCLE, CYCLE- pe.wbmt.tudelft.nl/ev/cycle/cycle.html refrigeration system components
Tempo included Win3.1/95
NIST, Gaithersburg, MD Fixed configuration, based on
CYCLE-D www.nist.gov/srd/nist49.htm REFPROP Windows
University of Maryland, College Park, Fixed configuration, based on
HACI MD www.enme.umd.edu/ceee REFPROP DOS
KMKreis FKW, Germany
St. Mary's University, Halifax, Nova
Scotia, Canada Fixed configuration, based on
RTRP poisson.me.tuns.ca/~tarnawsv/ REFPROP Windows
REFCYCLE, Fixed configuration, based on
BICYCLE, ORNL, Oak Ridge, TN REFPROP; ABSIM is a flexible
TRICYCLE, www.ornl.gov/ORNL/BTC/modeling.ht solver for hybrid absorption and
ABSIM m compression systems. DOS
3.6 Market Penetration of Whole Building Energy Analysis Tools
Computerized tools for building energy analysis are becoming increasingly popular. The
numbers of licenses sold for several common whole building energy analysis and loads tools are
estimated in Table 3-46. These numbers were taken from either the DOE software tools web
site, which are self-reported by the vendor, or from other sources, as listed in the table. While
these estimates are highly variable, they do confirm several trends cited previously.
HAP and TRACE are by far the most widely used tools. Their popularity is driven primarily by
the loads-only versions of these two tools, which typically account for 60 to 80 percent of the
user base. As discussed in the next chapter, most of the development effort has focused on the
loads-only version. CHVAC, another loads-only tool from Elite Software, is probably the next
most popular tool among design engineers.
Of the other energy analysis tools, DOE-2 and its various derivatives appear to be the most
popular energy analysis tool. Other tools, such as Energy-10, seem to have wide distribution
3-45
because they have been incorporated in classes for architecture students. Since its recent release,
more than 4,000 copies of EnergyPlus have been downloaded. EE4, the compliance tool for
Canada’s Commercial Building Incentive program, has also been widely downloaded. Since
both of these tools can be downloaded at no charge, it is difficult to know how many continuing
users these programs have.
Table 3-46. Estimated Numbers of Software Licenses

Program Type Number of Source
Licenses
Trane TRACE Loads Manufacturer’s load 3,000–4,000 Trane Company and DOE
calculation Software directory1
Trane TRACE 700 Manufacturer’s energy 900–1,200 Trane Company and DOE
analysis Software directory1
Elite CHVAC Third party load calculation 500–1,000 Elite Software
Carrier HAP (includes V4.0 Manufacturer’s load and 5,000 DOE Software directory1
loads, V3.2 energy) energy calculation
DOE-2 Public domain energy 1,000–2,500 Gough (1999) & DOE
analysis Software directory1
EZDOE Third party user interface to 100 Elite Software
DOE-2
EE4 CBIP2 Public domain energy 500 NRCan CBIP page
analysis
ESP Public domain energy 100 Gough (1999)
analysis
Tas Private sector energy analysis 100 Gough (1999)
APACHE-Sim Private sector energy analysis 100 Gough (1999)
3
TRNSYS Public domain energy 2,000 DOE Software directory1
analysis
Energy-10 Public domain energy 1,6004 SBIC
analysis
VisualDOE Third party user interface to 300 DOE Software directory1
DOE-2
Indoor Climate & Energy Private sector energy analysis 200–300 Sahlin (2000)
(IDA)
EnergyPlus5 Public domain energy 7,000+ Personal communication
analysis Dru Crawley (Feb. 02)
Notes:
1
See www.energytoolsdirectory.gov
2
EE4 may be downloaded at no cost.
3
TRNSYS has been distributed for 20 years via low-cost academic licenses. This may explain the high quantities of
this tool. Professional licensing fees are higher than other tools.
4
Energy-10 appears to be used in many architecture classes, which may explain its high numbers.
5
Number of individuals who have downloaded software or documentation.
3.7 Software Interoperability
As is evident from the research compiled in this chapter, many software tools are available to
help building design professionals perform their tasks. However, the vast majority of the input
and output files associated with a given application are incompatible with other applications that
might benefit from access to these data. In order to share building characteristics data between
3-46
applications, a universal way to represent building data elements is required. Programs that can
interact and share data are said to be “interoperable” with one another.
For many years, efforts have been under way in the standards, research, and software
development communities to establish standards for representing these data. This work is now
concentrated in an organization called the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI). The
mission of the IAI is to “promote effective means of exchanging information among all software
platforms and applications serving the architecture, engineering, and construction / facility
management community.” Its goal is to allow interoperability among work processes by
enabling all participants’ computer applications to share and exchange project information
through the entire project life-cycle (strategic planning, design, engineering, construction, and
operation).
3.7.1 Industry Foundation Classes
The IAI has been working to develop comprehensive Industry Foundation Classes (IFC)—a
cross-platform, vendor-neutral standard that allows architectural CAD users to transfer a
complete and accurate building data model from one CAD platform to another, with no loss of
data. The IFC system is a set of definitions of virtually all the objects used in the building
industry, ranging from tangible items such as doors, windows, fans, and HVAC systems to
abstract concepts like schedule activity, space, and organization. These definitions are plain text
formats stored in a data file. Each CAD vendor can store their own data in whatever binary file
format best suits their system. The IFC definitions are mapped to the CAD system’s
representation of those objects using “Save As IFC” and “Read IFC’ options in the CAD
software. This means that perfect data transfer between any products with IFC save and read
capabilities is possible. Although significant progress has been made, the IFC model is not yet
complete and is only now beginning to be implemented in software applications by private
vendors.
IAI Standards development is organized according to the following “domains,” each governed
by a “Domain Committee:”
• Architecture
• Building Services
• Codes and Standards
• Facilities Management
• Libraries
• Project Management
• aecXML
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) leads the efforts in the overall Building
Services (BS) domain. Similar efforts, or projects, are under way in other domains such as
Architecture (AR), Codes and Standards, (CS), Facilities Management (FM), etc. The ongoing
and completed projects in the BS domain are listed in the table below.
3-47
Table 3-47. Projects in the Building Services Domain of IAI

Project Lead Description
Status
BS-1 complete Original Project in BS domain
HVAC Equipment & Systems /
System Design
BS-2 Ongoing T. Baxter Extension for lights and
Power and Lighting Systems Design (R3) (UK) electrical equipment
BS-4 complete
HVAC Loads Calculations
BS-5 Ongoing K. McGraw Extension to BS-1 to include
HVAC System Extensions (R3) (N. America) plumbing and control
processes
BS-6 complete J. Foster, Performance targets/goals;
Performance Metrics Marinsoft measured data; both scalar and
(N. America) time-series data
BS-7 Ongoing V. Extensions for fault detection
HVAC Performance Validation (R3) Lappalainen, and operation/performance
VTT (Nordic) tracking; radiator heating
systems, AHUs and cooled
beams.
BS-8 Ongoing V. Bazjanac Extensions for energy

HVAC Modeling and Simulation (R3) LBNL simulation and analysis
(N. America)
In an effort to implement IFC object models into software applications, the IAI implemented the
Building Life-cycle Information Systems (BLIS) Project. This international team of software
developers is working to demonstrate the use of IFC models for data exchange. The team
includes Timberline, Microsoft Visio, and Graphisoft, along with several European companies.
For more information, consult the BLIS web site at www.blis-projects.org.
3.7.2 aecXML.
In 1999, some segments within the architecture, engineering, and construction software
community were concerned about the capability of the IFC models to produce a workable
interoperability solution in a reasonable timeframe. In August, 1999 Bentley Systems, Inc.
proposed another standard called aecXML to meet the narrower, more immediate needs of data
transfer between software applications. This approach was based on the rapidly developing
technology of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) which is now being widely applied across
numerous sectors of the information technology industry. XML has gained considerable
attention since its release in December 1997. Many computing industry leaders, including
Microsoft, Oracle, Sun, and IBM, consider XML to potentially be the universal standard format
for exchanging data.
The aecXML schema is an XML vocabulary that is specific to the architecture, engineering, and
construction industry. It is a means of describing and sharing data between the many participants
in the building design and construction industry, including architects, engineers, contractors,
owners / operators, estimators, consultants, materials suppliers, building product manufacturers,
3-48
and so on. One of the many features that makes aecXML so useful is its capacity to use existing
software and databases to exchange information rather than creating a completely new and
overarching data model.
The backbone of the Internet, Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), is a simple, text-based
protocol for describing the contents of web sites and the links between them. This is
accomplished with the use of tags that are not displayed on the page. Extensible Markup
Language (XML) uses a similar syntax to HTML. Like HTML, XML can be used to define web
pages; however, there is a significant difference between the two languages. HTML cannot
determine the meaning of a number, i.e., whether it is a quantity, a unit of measure, or a
telephone number. However, XML can define both the content and meaning. This means an
XML web page can be queried as if it were a database by using metatags; this powerful feature
eliminates the need for a separate database system and complex subsystems to link web pages to
databases. For instance, the specifications, price, and availability of each product in an online
catalog could be labeled with metatags describing them as such. Prices from several vendors can
be compared, regardless of differences in the appearance, format, or layout of a vendor’s web
site.
Currently there are eight working groups and over 600 interested participants involved in the
development of aecXML. XML schema development has proceeded much more quickly than
IFC development because schemas have been developed ‘organically’ to share certain types of
data between applications based on current market needs. These “solution-oriented” schemas are
then published openly via the aecXML initiative. Other competing applications may then adopt
and use the same schema to achieve the same purpose.
In an attempt to better meet the mutual goals of true interoperability and standardization, Bentley
and IAI joined forces in December of 1999. IAI assumed responsibility for the aecXML
initiative and aecXML was integrated as a “domain” within the IAI structure.
The aecXML domain is organized into the following “Working Groups:”
• Catalogs
• Design / Specification / Schedule / Cost
• Facility Management Operations & Maintenance
• Performance & Analysis6
• Project Management
• Project News
• Plant
3.7.3 Role of IFC and aecXML Approaches
While the IFC-based object model and the aecXML schema appear to be competing approaches
to meeting the same goal, it is now likely that there will be a role for each system. Their
6
The Performance and Analysis working group, chaired by John Kennedy of GeoPraxis, is the aecXML committee
devoted to improving the integration of building performance simulation tools with other architectural, engineering and
construction applications.
3-49
integration under the IAI will help to ensure that these two approaches are developed in a non-
competing and mutually beneficial manner.
The IFC approach is a comprehensive, object-oriented model of all the elements in a building.
Its strengths include the highly structured approach of the model and the ability of data objects to
inherit properties from other similar data objects. Inheritance provides the intelligence to the
model structure. The drawback of the IFC approach is that it is considered to be difficult and
time consuming for software developers to adopt for their specific needs. In contrast, aecXML
represents a ‘keep-it-simple’ approach. The aecXML schema was developed to allow software
applications to only exchange the specific information that they need. While aecXML has
developed limited inheritance logic, more effort has been devoted to linking specific applications
together.
The IFCs and aecXML will initially be used for different tasks. With aecXML, one can transfer
specific attributes between programs, allowing them to “talk” to one another about a specific
issue. AecXML will allow a CAD program to interact with an energy analysis program about
the selection of an HVAC system by transferring only the data needed for the task. The IFC
model would provide much extraneous information not required for this specific task, but might
be more appropriate for whole file transfer from one CAD system to another or for general
analysis, such as estimating construction costs for the entire building.
3-50
4 WEB SURVEY
The market research component of this study contained two primary elements: a web-based
survey of design professionals and two focus groups. The first step in the market research
process was development of a design practices survey implemented on the World Wide Web.
This approach was seen as more cost-effective and less intrusive than a traditional phone or mail
survey.
The web survey was launched on October 18, 2000 and completed on December 15, 2000. It
attracted 337 interested respondents and 198 eligible participants from 17 countries. Survey
participation was entirely voluntary and encouraged by means of a sweepstakes giveaway of a
personal digital assistant or digital camera. Announcements of the Design Methods survey were
posted on many online news groups and web sites frequented by architects and other building
design professionals. In addition, approximately 65,000 direct e-mail solicitations were made to
many organizations, including the following:
• 1999 DesignCommunity.com / CEC Design Methods Web Survey Participants

• Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI)
• Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA)
• American Institute of Architects (AIA)
• ArchitectureWeek Architects Directory
• ArchitectureWeek Subscribers
• Artifice Opt-in Emailing List of DesignWorkshop downloads
• ASHRAE Technical Committees, selected chapters
• BIG GREEN Discussion Group
• BLDG-SIM Discussion Group
• Energy Efficiency Builders of America (EEBA)
• EnergyDesignResources.com (EDR) Registrants
• International Building Performance Simulation Association
• National Association of Energy Service Providers
• National Society of Professional Engineers
• Sheet Metal & AC Contractors National Association (SMACNA)
The announcement that greeted all who visited the survey is shown in Figure 4-1.
4-1
Figure 4-1. Web Survey Announcement

4.1 Survey Sampling
With this web survey we were seeking to draw a representative sample of North American
market participant building design practitioners, including both professionals and the
paraprofessionals who work with and for them. Previous qualitative research has suggested that
surveys aimed exclusively at licensed architects and engineers may present an overly normative
4-2
view of prevailing design practices, failing to account for the habits and preferences of junior
design practitioners. The lower level designers are generally the more computer savvy
employees at the firms and may contribute to many important design decisions.
Survey participation was limited to practitioners who self-identified with one of the following
qualified positions:
Architect — Registered Designer — Generalist

Architect — Unlicensed Engineer — Mechanical, Licensed
Architect — Intern Engineer — Mechanical, Unlicensed
Contractor — General Engineer — Electrical, Licensed
Contractor — Electrical Engineer — Electrical, Unlicensed
Contractor — Mechanical Engineer — Structural, Licensed
Contractor — Design/Build Engineer — Structural, Unlicensed
Developer Energy Code Compliance Specialist
Designer — Architectural CAD Drafter — Architectural
Designer — Lighting CAD Drafter — Engineering
Designer — Interiors
Based on the participation data, the survey’s statistical precision is estimated to be ±5.8 percent
at the 90 percent confidence level.
Table 4-1. Estimated Statistical Precision Design Practices Web Survey 2000
Survey Estimate Standard Error Error Bound
0% 0.000 0.0%
10% 0.021 3.5%
20% 0.028 4.7%
30% 0.033 5.4%
40% 0.035 5.7%
50% 0.036 5.8%
60% 0.035 5.7%
70% 0.033 5.4%
80% 0.028 4.7%
90% 0.021 3.5%
100% 0.000 0.0%
4.2 Characteristics of Participants
4.2.1 Professional Background.
Of the 198 total respondents who completed the survey, 57.1 percent are architecture/design
professionals, 31.3 percent are engineers, and 10.6 percent are contractors and others. The
majority of engineers and contractors responding indicated their focus was on mechanical
systems. Two of the respondents (1 percent) failed to indicate a profession.
4-3
4.2.2 Geographical Representation.
Survey responses were collected from 17 countries; however, the vast majority (88.9 percent) of
these are from the United States, followed by Canada (3.5 percent). The states most prominently
represented are California (17.7 percent), New York (7.1 percent), Wisconsin (7.1 percent),
Colorado (6.6 percent), and Oregon (4.0 percent).
4.2.3 Scale of Firms and Projects.
The size of projects most common in the offices of respondents as a whole is fairly well
distributed, with most (33.2 percent) commonly working on projects 20,001–50,000 square feet
in size. Within the context of the survey respondents, architects are the main design
professionals working on smaller projects, while engineers more commonly work on larger
projects.
40%
35%
30%
25% Architects & Designers
20% Engineers
15% Contractors & Others
10%
5%
0%
Less than 20,001- 50,001- 100,000
20,000 sq. 50,000 sq. 100,000 sq. ft. or
ft. ft. sq. ft.. greater
Figure 4-2. Size of Most Common Projects
Most respondents in all three professional categories work predominantly on Commercial /

Institutional (C/I) buildings during 1999. Engineers in particular tend to focus on C/I projects to
a much greater extent than either architects or contractors. In terms of project types, most
respondents work primarily on a mix of both new and remodeling projects, and the rest work on
remodeling / renovation projects. Compared to engineers and contractors, architects and
designers are more likely to focus primarily on new construction. However, most contractors (62
percent) prefer to diversify with a mix of project types.
4-4
100
90
Percentage of Respondents
80
70
60 Architects & Designers
50 Engineers
40 Contractors & Others
30
20
10
0
More Than 80%
Commercial/Institutional
Commercial/Institutional
Mixed Residential and
Residential
More Than 80%
Figure 4-3. Mix of Building Types Completed in 1999
4-5
100
90
80
70
60 Architects & Designers
50 Engineers
40 Contractors & Others
30
20
10
0
More Than 80% New
Remodeling/Renovation/
Mixed New and

Tenant Improvements
Remodeling
More Than 80%
Construction
Figure 4-4. Mix of Project Types Completed in 1999
The average number of employees per firm is fairly evenly distributed across the survey
population. However, analysis by profession indicates a general trend of engineers working for
larger firms, architects for smaller firms, and contractors falling into the middle range.
4-6
Architects &
Designers
50
Engineers
45
Contractors & Others

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2-10 11-50 51- 201- >1,000
200 1,000
Figure 4-5. Size of Firm

4.3 Office-Wide Design Practices
Early in the survey a “gatekeeping” question asked respondents to indicate which of the design
decisions they personally made or significantly influenced:
• Building Form, Siting, and Orientation

• Lighting and Daylighting
• Envelope and Glazing Materials Specification
• HVAC Systems
• Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation Analysis
• Refrigeration System Design
• Green Design and Materials Specification
• Energy Analysis and Code Compliance
Respondents indicating yes to any of the above categories were allowed to continue. A series of
questions were asked to determine the frequency of various tool usage for commercial new
construction. These questions were broken down into two categories: projects greater than
20,000 square feet and projects less than or equal to 20,000 square feet. Generally, there is little
significant difference in responses among project sizes for all categories.
4-7
A great majority of respondents (79.8 percent) indicated that they “always” use 2D-CAD on
smaller projects, with an additional 9.6 percent who “frequently” use 2D-CAD. Conversely, only
9.8 percent of all respondents “always” and 17.8 percent “frequently” use simple 3D-CAD
models. Detailed 3D-CAD models are used even less; only 6.9 percent “always” and 10.4
percent “frequently” use detailed 3D-CAD, with engineers being the least likely group to
“always” use 3D-CAD models.
Web-based project management tools (on smaller projects) are used primarily by contractors (30
percent either “always” or “frequently” use them), with no engineers responding that they
“always” use them and 7 percent “frequently” use them. Architects closely follow engineers,
with a total of only 7.6 percent “always” or “frequently” using web-based project management
tools on smaller projects. Not surprisingly, the numbers increase on projects larger than 20,000
square feet: the responses for “always” and “frequently” are 33.4 percent of engineers, 17.2
percent of architects, and 13.6 percent of engineers (again, with no engineers responding that
they “always” use web-based project management tools).
Most commercial construction projects require compliance with some kind of energy code,
according to 87.2 percent of the respondents. Concerning use of software-based tools, 34.6
percent of respondents “always” or “frequently” use this method on smaller projects (the greater
percentage (49.2 percent) being engineers). The least used method for energy analysis is
advanced analysis beyond code compliance; 17.8 percent “always” or “frequently” use this
method on smaller projects.
The following charts show the numbers of respondents who indicated they “always” use these
various tools.
On Commercial New Construction On Commercial New Construction

>20,000 sq. ft. <20,000 sq. ft.
("Always" use) ("Always" use)
100 100
Architects & Designers Architects & Designers
90 90
Engineers Engineers
80 Contractors & Others 80 Contractors & Others
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2D-CAD 3D-CAD 3D-CAD Web- 2D-CAD 3D-CAD 3D-CAD Web-
Simple Detailed Based Simple Detailed Based
Project Project
Mgmt. Mgmt.
Figure 4-6. Use of CAD and Web-Based Project Management Tools
4-8
There appears to be a pattern in the types of energy analysis tools used by each group.
Architects tend toward paper-based energy code compliance methods, while engineers more
often use software for this routine task. By a small margin, contractors appear to be the group
most likely to use advanced energy analysis tools beyond those designed specifically for code
compliance. Engineers, traditionally thought to be the primary target user group for advanced
energy analysis tools, appear to be the least likely to use them.
On commercial new construction >20,000 sq. ft. On commercial new construction <20,000 sq. ft.
(“Always” use) (“Always” use)

40 Architects & Designers 40 Architects & Designers
35 Engineers 35 Engineers
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
based Energy
Paper-based
requirements
Paper-based
requirements
energy code
based energy
energy code
compliance
compliance
compliance
Advanced
compliance
Advanced
Software-
Software-
analysis
analysis
beyond
beyond
energy
energy
co
code
de
Figure 4-7. Energy Analysis and Code Compliance Tools
Roughly a quarter of all engineers reported “always” performing some kind of “simple”
commissioning of HVAC equipment, regardless of project size. Less than 10 percent do
“advanced” commissioning (activities that include operator training and system monitoring to
verify that design intent was realized) this often. Interestingly, self-identified contractors perform
“advanced” commissioning more often than their engineer colleagues.
4-9
On Commercial New Construction On Commercial New Construction

>20,000 sq. ft. (“Always” use) <20,000 sq. ft. (“Always” use)
40 Architects & Designers 40 Architects & Designers
35 Engineers 35 Engineers
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
Simple Advanced Simple Advanced
commissioning of commissioning of commissioning of commissioning of
HVAC systems HVAC systems HVAC systems HVAC systems
Figure 4-8. Building Commissioning
The chart below outlines the percentage of the respondents’ firms that spend a total of more than
four person-hours on various aspects of typical projects. Only respondents who indicated they
are involved in the decision-making for each category are included in the analysis. For instance,
74.3 percent of architects indicated they personally make or significantly influence “green
design” and materials specification decisions. Of these 74.3 percent of architects, 60.7 percent
responded that their firm spends more than four person-hours on green design and material
specification decisions. In contrast, 46.8 percent of engineers and 23.8 percent of contractors
indicated they make these decisions.
More Than 4 Person-Hours on Typical Projects

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
em
.
ng
is
ls
n
.
nt
nt
VA htin
tio
ys
at
Ve
zi
rie
st
M
ra
al
la
Sy
lig
O
&
An
G
e
&
rig
Q
&
C
e
n
a
IA
gy
op
ig
ef
ng
D
Architects & Designers

es
R
er
vl
&
iti
H
En
En
D
,S
g
tin
Engineers
en
rm
gh
re
Fo
Li
G
Contractors & Others

dg
Bl
Figure 4-9. Time Spent on Project Tasks
4-10
4.4 Tools Used Most Often
There is a large range in responses to “What reference, design aid, or software tool do you use
most often?” For a quick overview the responses are grouped for the survey respondents as a
whole. When analyzed as a group, most design decision categories feature previous experience
and manufacturers’ software as the tools most heavily relied upon.
4.4.1 Building Form, Siting, and Orientation.
For building form, siting, and orientation decisions, all respondents rely most often on non-
computerized methods such as “previous experience” and “sketches and renderings.” Computer-
based methods account for only 26 percent of the responses.
Sun angle protractor Architectural

Physical scale model Graphics Standards
1%
3%
Shading analysis 1%
software Time Savers
3% Standards
Other 1%
3%
Building energy
simulation program
10%
Previous experience,
rule of thumb
33%
3D rendering
software
13%
Sketches and
renderings
32%
Figure 4-10. Building Form, Siting, and Orientation Design Tools
4-11
4.4.2 Lighting and Daylighting.
For lighting and daylighting decisions, fully half the respondents use previous experience most
often. Manufacturers’ literature is the next most common method. These “manual” methods
comprise almost two-thirds of all responses. Lighting design software of some description was
cited only 27 percent of the time, despite the wide availability of third party and manufacturers’
lighting design software. Many manufacturers’ software is available for free, but this response
was mentioned only 3 percent of the time.
Manufacturers' Daylighting physical

software scale model
IES Handbook 3% 3%
4%
Other
8%
Simplified lighting
rule of thumb
design software
50%
8%
Detailed lighting
design and rendering
software
11%
Manufacturers'
literature
13%
Figure 4-11. Lighting and Daylighting Design Tools
4-12
4.4.3 Envelope and Glazing.
For envelope decisions, again the tool cited as used most often (38 percent of respondents) is
previous experience, with manufacturers’ literature featured as the second most commonly used
tool. In total, “manual” methods comprise over 70 percent of all responses. HVAC load
calculation and building energy simulation software account for just under 20 percent of the
responses. The integration of envelope and glazing design with HVAC sizing and energy
analysis is one of the key elements of whole building design, yet is practiced in relatively few
buildings.
Energy code
Manufacturers'
compliance software Other
software
5% 4%
ASHRAE Handbook 1%
6%
Building energy
simulation software
rule of thumb
9%
38%
Energy code
documents
9%
HVAC load calculation

software
10% Manufacturers'
literature
18%
Figure 4-12. Envelope and Glazing Design Tools
4-13
4.4.4 HVAC Sizing.
Manufacturers' sizing software is by far the most commonly used tool for HVAC equipment
sizing decisions (51 percent). Taken together, computerized methods for HVAC sizing represent
about two thirds of the responses. This relatively high penetration of computerized methods
suggests that whole building design is not so much an issue of whether to use software tools, but
rather when to use them. The low penetration of computerized methods in lighting and envelope
design suggest that design decisions affecting HVAC loads are made outside of the load
calculation process, with the resulting HVAC load as a consequence of these decisions.
Building energy Manual J worksheet

simulation software 4%
7%
Third party sizing

software
9%
Other
12% Manufacturers' sizing
software
51%
rule of thumb
17%
Figure 4-13. HVAC Sizing Tools
4-14
4.4.5 HVAC Equipment Selection.
Manufacturers’ printed literature is the main tool for HVAC equipment selection (47 percent).
Computerized methods, including catalogs on CD and the world wide web, currently represent
only about one fourth of the responses.
Manufacturers'
website
7%
rule of thumb
14%
Manufacturers'
printed literature
Other
47%
16%
Manufacturers'
software catalog
16%
Figure 4-14. HVAC Equipment Selection Tools
4-15
4.4.6 Refrigeration Systems.
As with HVAC equipment selection decisions, refrigeration decisions rely heavily on non-
computerized tools: 49 percent use manufacturers’ literature and an additional 26 percent rely on
previous experience. Software is mentioned only 15% of the time, with manufacturers’ software
more popular than third party software. This result may be a function of the relative scarcity of
third party refrigeration design software, and the fact that most HVAC engineers attempt to
design only simple refrigeration systems. Larger, custom-engineered systems (such as grocery
store systems) are generally designed by the equipment manufacturers, or in-house engineering
staff at large grocery chains or specialty refrigeration design firms, rather than general HVAC
design firms.
Third-party software
Other 3%
10%
Manufacturers'
software
12%
Manufacturers'
literature
49%
rule of thumb
26%
Figure 4-15. Refrigeration System Design Tools
4-16
4.4.7 Green Design.
Another design decision category that relies heavily on non-computerized tools is green design
and materials specification, with 31 percent using previous experience and 20 percent relying on
manufacturers’ literature. Taken together, computerized methods, including web sites,
databases, and discussion groups, represent only 16 percent of all responses
Other
Third-party websites
3% Manufacturers'
3%
Online green building websites
discussion groups 3%
4%
City green building Previous experience,
codes/guidelines rule of thumb
4% 31%
Green materials
databases
6%
Third-party resource
guides
13% Manufacturers'
literature
Green Building rating 20%
system
13%
Figure 4-16. Green Design Tools
4-17
4.4.8 Energy Analysis and Code Compliance.
Energy analysis and code compliance is a category in which the tool use is segmented a bit more
evenly. Non-computerized methods account for about 37 percent of the responses.
Manufacturers’ energy analysis software is the most frequently mentioned computerized method,
mirroring the preference for manufacturers’ software in HVAC load analysis. Non-manufacturer
energy analysis software (not including code compliance software) represents about 15 percent
of the responses.
Simplified energy
Third-party front end analysis software
Multiple tool interface
to public-domain (e.g., Energy10,
(e.g., Building Design
software (eg., EZ eQuest)
Public-domain detailed Advisor)
DOE) 3%
energy software 2%
6%
(e.g., DOE-2, BLAST)
6%
Paper-based code
compliance
Detailed code worksheets
compliance software 27%
(e.g., EnergyPro)
8%
Manufacturers'
Simplified code energy analysis
compliance software software (e.g., Trane
(e.g., ASHRAE 90.1) Trace)
Other
10% 18%
10% Previous experience,
rules of thumb
10%
Figure 4-17. Energy Analysis and Code Compliance Tools
4-18
4.4.9 Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation.
Only 7 percent of indoor air quality and ventilation decisions are made using some type of
software tool. ASHRAE Standard 62 combined with State energy codes (which generally
reference ASHRAE Standard 62) represent about 60 percent of the responses. This indicates a
heavy reliance on “prescriptive” approaches to indoor air quality and ventilation design, rather
than more innovative engineered approaches that benefit from computerized methods.
Manufacturers'
software program Third-party software
5% 2%
other
7%
ASHRAE Standard 62
State energy code 37%
documents
23%
rule of thumb
26%
Figure 4-18. Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation Tools
4-19
4.4.10 Duct and Pipe Sizing.
The most popular tool for HVAC duct and piping design decisions is the “ductilator” manual
design tool (57 percent), with 18 percent of respondents citing previous experience. Taken
together, manual methods were cited by more than three quarters of the respondents. Software is
most often used by just over 10 percent of those who make these decisions.
Third-party duct
design software Friction chart
Manufacturers' duct
3% 2%
design software
8%
Other
12%
Ductilator
57%
rule of thumb
18%
Figure 4-19. Duct and Pipe Sizing Tools
4-20
The following table shows the most popular tool used for each design decision. Although
software packages are available to assist in all of these decisions, only the HVAC equipment
sizing decision involves software most frequently. Previous experience and rule of thumb still
dominate the design decision process.
Table 4-2. Most Frequent Tool Used

Design Decision Most Frequent Tool Used % of Respondents
Building Form, Siting, and Orientation Previous experience, rule of thumb 33
Lighting and Daylighting Previous experience, rule of thumb 50
Envelope and Glazing Previous experience, rule of thumb 38
HVAC Equipment Sizing Manufacturers’ sizing software 51
HVAC Equipment Selection Manufacturers’ literature 47
Refrigeration System Design Manufacturers’ literature 49
Green Design and Materials Previous experience, rule of thumb 31
Energy Analysis and Code Compliance Paper-based code compliance worksheets 27
Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation ASHRAE Standard 62 37
4.5 Research Priorities from Web Survey
Respondents were asked what would best help them specify systems and technologies in three
categories: building shell systems, HVAC and controls, and renewable energy systems. The
response categories are: “Easier-to-Use Tools and Information,” “More Accurate Tools and
Information,” “Both,” and “Not a Priority.” The following table ranks each group’s perceived
priorities by profession. Architects’ priorities differ greatly from those of both engineers and
contractors. This finding suggests that tool capabilities should be closely matched with the needs
of their target user group.
Table 4-3. Priorities for Design Tool Features

Rank Architects Engineers Contractors
Daylighting/skylighting Economizers and advanced Heat recovery systems
1
controls
High performance windows Heat recovery systems Economizers and advanced
2
controls
Passive solar heat Natural and mixed mode Natural and mixed mode
3
ventilation ventilation
4 Ventilated façade Variable-speed pumping VVT systems
5 Photovoltaics Displacement ventilation Water loop heat pumps
Transpired solar walls Radiant heating and cooling Two-speed / variable-speed
6
unitary equipment
7 Radiant heating and cooling Desiccant dehumidification Displacement ventilation
Mass cooling 100% makeup air/dual path Desiccant dehumidification
8
systems
9 Cool roofs VVT systems Low-temperature cooling
Natural and mixed mode Cooling towers/fluid coolers Radiant heating and cooling
10
ventilation
4-21
Priorities for new software research and development were considered in two categories:
“Analysis Capabilities” and “Common Design Problem Solutions.” All respondents were asked
to rank lists of each on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 =“Most Important”). Analysis capability results are
displayed in the following chart.
Priorities for New Software R&D--Analysis Capabilities

Scale of 1-5 (5=Most Important)
5 Mean
Std. Deviation
4 3.68 3.64 3.63
2.97 2.95
3 2.63
g
s
g
s.
cs
in
m
i
li n
ys
lc
al
el
te
up
ca
al
od
c
ys
an
co
rt
M
.S
fo
IA
ng
d
om
g
un
nt
ld
di
&
ve
/B
c
ro
ha
n
al
AC
t io
n
.s
he
m
i la
V
er
xt
it c
/H
nt
Th
E
K
Ve
g.
fri
Re
ed
at
gr
te
In
Figure 4-20. Priorities for Software R&D
4-22
“Exterior shading analysis,” “thermal comfort calculations,” and “ventilation and IAQ
calculations” were rated the most important analysis capability priorities from the list provided.
These results reflect the dominance of architects in the survey sample. The priority levels of
several listed “Design Problem Solutions” are ranked below.
Priorities for New Software R&D--Common Design

Problem Solutions
5 Mean
Scale of 1-5 (5=Most Important)
Std. Deviation
4
3.45 3.4 3.35 3.31
3.19
0 n
e
ms
s
io
ag
lem
m
at
le
le
ak
rm
ob
ob
ob
le
fo
pr
pr
pr
t
uc
d
n
e
ing
ol
io
d
nc
/m
at
iz
of
a
if ic
al
re
er
ts
b
tu
id
c
ov
ir
pa
um
ois
A
em
Im
M
h
de
st
/
sy
ty
di
C
mi
A
Hu
HV
Figure 4-21. Priorities for New Software R&D
4.6 Research Priorities: Comparison to Previous User Survey
The above results paint a rather different picture of user-reported research priorities when
compared with a prior study that asked similar questions just one year earlier. The LBNL
Simulation Research Group conducted an informal survey (October–December 1999) asking 79
users of DOE-2, BLAST, and Energy-10 to select the features they would like to see included in
EnergyPlus. Daylighting and window analysis, long known to be important to mainstream
architects, appears to be less important to this group of users than ventilation analysis and radiant
heating and cooling.
Selected results (most frequent mentions) of that survey are shown below (numbers in
parentheses indicate the absolute number of times each item was mentioned).
4-23
Table 4-4. R&D Priorities from Building Simulation Model Users

Category Priority
Calculation Radiative heating (6)
Photovoltaics (6)
Natural ventilation (6)
Trombe walls (5)
Radiative cooling (4)
Build system and plant from modules (4)
Solar hot water (4)
Multi-zone air-flow (4)
Passive solar heating (4)
Passive cooling (radiation to sky) (4)
Improved daylighting (3)
Underfloor air systems (3)
Variable-frequency drives for fans / pumps (3)
IAQ (3)
Evaporative cooling (3)
Night venting for cooling (3)
Utilities Customizable weather processor

Weather file editor
Modify weather to account for heat island effect
Easy use of on-site weather data
Algorithms to reconcile simulation and bills/metered data
WeatherMaker
DOE-2 input translator
User Interface (Input) CAD link (4)

Simplified geometry generation (3)
Simplified envelope generation (2)
Visualization of building envelope (2)
User Interface (Output) Easy output to spreadsheet (4)
Graphical output (3)
Visualization of airflow on psychrometric chart (2)
There can be little doubt that the two studies actually reflect the perceived priorities of the target
groups surveyed. However, the wide discrepancy begs serious policy questions: Who is the
appropriate target population for energy analysis tools? Should tools be built around the needs
of current users or should greater efforts be made to solicit input from a wider population of
more mainstream design professionals?
4-24
5 FOCUS GROUPS
The second step in the market research process was to conduct focus groups in the western and
eastern United States to probe some of the more interesting results from the web survey. Data
from the web survey were analyzed prior to conducting the focus groups in order to develop the
moderators’ guide.
In November and December 2000, the research team conducted focus groups in Denver,
Colorado and Syracuse, New York. The purpose of the focus groups was to gather opinions from
design professionals (primarily architects, engineers, and contractors) on what kind of software
innovations would help them design buildings that are more comfortable to live in, more
productive to work in, more energy-efficient, and more resource-efficient. The research
objectives of conducting the focus groups were to gain insight into:
• Who on the design team makes decisions?

• What constraints affect the decision (such as lack of time / budget, lack of knowledge /
awareness, split incentives)?
• What tools and design aides are you using to make these decisions?
• What do you like / dislike about current tools?
• What tools would be ideal?
Attendees for both focus groups were recruited from online yellow pages and online databases of
the following professional associations: Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), Sheet
Metal Air Conditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA), Air Conditioning
Contractors of America (ACCA), Design Build Institute of America (DBIA), and Energy and
Environmental Building Association (EEBA). Additional sources used for the Syracuse group
are the Building Trades Directory; AIA; architectusa.com; American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc (ASHRAE); and Mechanical Contractors
Association of America (MCAA). The plan was designed to recruit a mix of architects,
engineers, and design/build professionals. A short screening survey pre-qualified only those
individuals who:
• Personally made design decisions that impact the construction of commercial or institutional
buildings.
• Worked as a professional architect, construction project manager, engineer, or similar
position.
• Most commonly worked on smaller commercial projects of 100,000 square feet or less.
The eight Denver group attendees included individuals representing a reasonably wide range of
firm sizes and types. Four of the participants said they use 3D-CAD software, and an equal
number use 2D-AutoCAD software. The majority of the group was familiar with smaller
commercial projects. Likewise, the eight Syracuse participants were individuals from a range of
firm sizes and type. Four of the Syracuse attendees said they use 3D-CAD software and six said
they use 2D-CAD software. As with the Denver group, those in Syracuse are most familiar with
AutoCAD.
5-1
5.1 Characteristics of Attendees
The characteristics of the focus group attendees are summarized in the tables below.
Table 5-1. Characteristics of Denver, Colorado Attendees

Primary Most Common
Title Type of Firm Work Commercial Project Size Software Tools Used
Director of Eng. Design / Build Contracting Engineer 20,001–50,000 sf 2D-CAD, 3D-CAD
2D CAD, manufacturers’ printed
Associate product literature, green building
Architect Architectural Design Firm Architect Less than 20,000 sf. guidelines
Equal mix of projects
<20,000 sf.; 20,001– 2D-CAD, manufacturers’ printed
50,000 sf and 50,001– product literature, manufacturers’
General Partner Design / Build Contracting Architect 100,000 sf product selection software
2D-CAD, 3D-CAD, building energy
code compliance software, green
Architect / building guidelines, estimating
Owner Architectural Design Firm Architect Less than 20,000 sf software
2D-CAD, 3D-CAD, manufacturers’

printed product literature,
manufacturers’ product selection
software, building energy code
Principal Architectural Design Firm Architect 50,001–100,000 sf compliance software
Manufacturers’ printed product
Senior literature, manufacturers’ product
Project.
selection software, building energy
Manager Design / Build Contracting Engineer 50,001–100,000 sf code compliance software
2D-CAD, manufacturers’ printed

product literature, manufacturer's
Senior product selection software, building
Mechanical energy code compliance software,
Engineer Engineering Design Firm Engineer 20,001–50,000 sf green building guidelines

manufacturers' product selection
software, building energy code
compliance software, green
building guidelines, cost-estimating
Principal Architectural Design Firm Architect 20,001–50,000 sf software
5-2
Table 5-2. Characteristics of Syracuse, New York Attendees

Primary Most Common
Title Type of Firm Work Commercial Project Size Software Tools Used

manufacturers’ product software,
Engineering
HVAC sizing or duct design
Manager
Engineering Design Firm Engineer 50,001–100,000 sf software, green building guidelines
literature, manufacturers' product
selection software, green building
Architect Architectural Design Firm Architect 50,001–100,000 sf guidelines
Construction literature, manufacturers’ product
President Design / Build Contracting Project Mgr. 20,001–50,000 sf selection software
Fi 2D-CAD, 3D-CAD, manufacturers’
manufacturers’ product selection
Architect Architectural Design Firm Architect <20,000 sf software
2D-CAD, manufacturers' printed
Owner Architectural Design Firm Architect 20,001–50,000 sf product literature

product literature, manufacturers’
product selection software, green
Mechanical building guidelines, custom sizing &
Engineer Engineering Design Firm Engineer 20,001–50,000 sf spreadsheet for piping & HVAC

Senior Partner, manufacturers' product selection
CEO Architectural Design Firm Architect 20,001–50,000 sf software, green building guidelines
product literature, HVAC sizing or
Associate Engineering Design Firm Engineer 20,001–50,000 sf duct design software
5-3
Table 5-3. Characteristics of Attendees and the Firms They Represent; Denver, Colorado
Employees Employees
Office's Mix Office's Mix Iin Office Iin Firm Personal Experience
Office, Retail, Warehouse, Education,
>80% Commercial/ Mixed new & Lodging, Public Assembly, Food Service,
Industrial remodeling >100 201–1000 Healthcare
Office, Retail, Warehouse, Education,
>80% Commercial/ Mixed new & Lodging, Public Assembly, Food Service,
Industrial remodeling 4–10 2–10 Food Sales
Office, Retail, Warehouse, Public Assembly,
>80% Commercial/ >80% new Public Order / Safety, Food Service, Food
Industrial construction 2–3 11–50 Sales, Healthcare
Mixed Residential/ Mixed new &

Commercial/Industrial remodeling 1 1 Office, Retail, Education
>80% Commercial/ >80% new Office, Retail, Warehouse / Storage, Lodging,
Industrial construction 21–50 51–200 Healthcare
Office, Retail, Warehouse / Storage,
>80% Commercial/ >80% new Education, Lodging, Public Assembly, Food
Industrial construction 21–50 51–200 Service, Food Sales, Healthcare
Office, Retail, Warehouse / Storage,
Education, Lodging, Public Assembly, Public
>80% Commercial/ Mixed new & Order/Safety, Food Service, Food Sales,
Industrial remodeling 11–20 11–50 Healthcare
Mixed Residential/ Mixed new & Office, Retail, Warehouse / Storage,

Commercial/Industrial remodeling 4–10 11–50 Education, Lodging, Food Sales
5-4
Table 5-4. Characteristics of Attendees and the Firms They Represent; Syracuse, New
York
Employees in Employees. in
Office's Mix Office's Mix Office Firm Personal Experience
>80%
Remodeling/
Renovation/
>80% Commercial/ Tenant Office, Warehouse, Education, Public
Institutional Improvments 4–10 2–10 Assembly
>80%
Remodeling/
Renovation/ Office, Mercantile and Service (Retail),
>80% Commercial/ Tenant Warehouse, Education, Public Assembly,
Institutional Improvments 51–100 51–200 Healthcare
Mixed New
>80% Commercial/ and Office, Education, Public Assembly, Food
Institutional Remodeling 4–10 2–10 Service, Healthcare
>80% Commercial/ >80% New Office, Mercantile & Service (Retail),
Institutional Construction 11–20 11–50 Education, Public Assembly
>80%
Remodeling/ Office, Mercantile and Service (Retail),
Renovation/ Warehouse, Education, Lodging, Public
>80% Commercial/ Tenant Assembly, Public Order / Safety, Food Service,
Institutional Improvments 2–3 2–10 Healthcare
Mixed New
>80% Commercial/ and Office, Warehouse, Education, Public
Institutional Remodeling 51–100 51–200 Assembly, Food Service, Healthcare
Office, Mercantile and Service (Retail),
Mixed Res. & >80% New Warehouse, Lodging, Public Assembly, Food
Commercial/Inst. Construction 2–3 2–10 Sales
Office, Mercantile and Service (Retail),
>80% Commercial/ >80% New Warehouse, Lodging, Food Service,
Institutional Construction 51-100 51–200 Healthcare
5.2 Design Practices
The same list of design decisions covered by the web survey was used to guide the focus group
discussions. A summary of the responses to questions about each of these design decisions
follows:
5.2.1 Building Form, Siting, and Orientation
Most siting, form, and orientation decisions are first addressed when the design program is
established. These decisions are usually highly constrained by the physical limitations of the lot
and the requirements of the client. Examples of the former are grading, drainage, parking, access,
utilities, and setback requirements. Architects typically rely on civil engineers to determine these
design constraints. Examples of client-imposed design constraints that affect these decisions
include preferences for views or space use plans. These limits are even more pressing on smaller
lots and buildings since the designer usually has so much less to work with. One architect
described how a client's requirements could drive the ultimate form of a building:
“The site tells you a lot about what you can do. Then you go to the program and if you’ve
got six presidents or six vice-presidents and they all want a western view [of the
5-5
mountains]…and if the next building to the west is three stories high then maybe you’ve
got to go to four stories so you can see the mountains, which means you’ve got a thin
building, but a tall one.”
Some architects explained that they get input from their mechanical engineers prior to finalizing
these decisions. An example might be having the mechanical engineer run load calculations that
take the orientation of the glazing into account. Several engineers quickly countered that this is
rarely their experience. Instead, their input isn't requested until later in the process, often long
after these decisions have already been made. Both groups acknowledged that the design/build
approach encourages more of this early-stage, collaborative decision-making. However, the fact
remains that most designers consider their flexibility to be limited by factors beyond their
control.
A checklist series of guidelines to remind designers to consider best-practice form, siting, and
orientation alternatives was mentioned. Based on the comments collected, it would appear that
the form of these guidelines (e.g., paper-based or embedded in software) is not important.
5.2.2 Lighting / Daylighting
Everyone concurred that occupant needs drive the lighting design, which is defined according to
tasks performed and furniture layout in each space. Many attendees also indicated that their
clients are concerned about glare on CRT screens and eyestrain. In an effort to address this
concern, indirect lighting is something many try to accommodate in their designs, but the
ultimate design is driven by prior expectations of budget and technology. Most of the architects
reported a desire to get daylight as far into the interior of the space as possible, but also use
blinds everywhere for glare control, thus limiting the potential for providing daylight to the
space. One architect emphasized that her clients ask for daylighting and it is important to her to
have access to simple tools to calculate the impact of lighting and daylighting design decisions,
such as the impact of lighting and daylighting design on cooling loads and lighting levels.
There seems to be a strong reliance on product representatives, consultants, or electrical

engineers to make lighting decisions on projects. One architect indicated that she plans to use the
rendering option in Revit 3.0, to see how much light is getting to interior spaces from daylighting
and electric lighting sources, and how this might affect placement of skylights, fixtures, etc.
Another attendee said his firm tries to bring in natural daylighting but he does not “think [their]
engineers are aware they can get light from outside.” There was also a discussion on determining
the quantity of light provided from daylight versus fluorescent lights. Designers stated that they
would love to find a tool to help them determine this. The group agreed that the lack of a
daylighting design tool is a barrier to incorporating daylighting into a design.
It was also discussed how, from an HVAC standpoint, downlights, halogens, spotlights, and
other low-voltage lights can create hotspots and problems with controlling temperature, since
these types of lights are often a tenant finish item and not on the initial plans. The group agreed
that it would be helpful to have a model that can analyze the impacts of localized heat sources on
HVAC loads and thermal comfort. However, there was some disagreement about who would
actually use this type of thermal model. One person indicated it would usually be the electrical
5-6
engineer, but another disagreed, saying this is something that would concern the mechanical
engineer because mechanical engineers are more concerned about thermal problems. Yet another
attendee stated that the architect needs to have these tools to analyze the space because the
electrical engineer does only what the architect tells him or her to do.
“It’d be nice for software to start solving some of those problems… to change fixtures, to
change ballasts… to play with it a little bit, it would give the whole world a lot better
lighting.”
There was agreement, though, that this is one of the design considerations that often gets
dropped.
5.2.3 Envelope and Glazing.
The topic of envelope and glazing decisions revealed a difference in opinion with respect to how
early in the design process engineers become involved, but generally architects reported that they
trust the mechanical engineers to make these decisions. The architects working in design/build
firms reported that they generally check with their mechanical engineer about the impact of
glazing selection on overall HVAC loads, and then begin to tune in the design of the façade
based on the engineer’s calculations. The engineers working within design/build firms reported
that they are able to demonstrate trade-offs before decisions get made, such as the impact of
better glass on HVAC system size and cost.
However, the experience of one senior project engineer was very different; in most of the
projects he gets, the enveloping and glazing are already set and his job is to merely tell the
architects if they comply with the energy code. Most architects he has worked with do not ask for
the engineer’s input ahead of time regarding the impact of glazing and envelope design on
HVAC equipment size. In his experience, once the glass areas and types are set, the architects do
not want to change drawings or go through an extra cost estimation step.
The majority of attendees in all three groups use manufacturers’ software programs to make
envelope and glazing decisions, such as Carrier HAP and Trane products (System Analyzer,
TRACE), but some feel they receive poor support from manufacturing representatives on
products and software.
The Syracuse group discussed how glazing characteristics are generally not considered unless
large glazing areas with huge amounts of heat loss are present in the design. Also, electric
lighting is not considered in the energy analysis unless daylighting is involved. An interesting
discussion arose when one architect mentioned that he felt his mechanical engineers needed
better, more updated information on equipment from manufacturers because they have had
problems in the past with equipment not operating as the manufacturer claimed it would. An
engineer in the room stated that ARI ratings generally overstate what the units are really capable
of, so they always de-rate the published performance when making equipment selections.
There was consensus that the analysis necessary to optimize a building’s performance (e.g.,
running iterations on glass area, type, cost, and HVAC cost) is very time-consuming and tedious.
5-7
The need to estimate the cost of each design scenario was considered a major barrier to
considering more design alternatives.
5.2.4 HVAC Sizing and Selection.
Much discussion focused on tools for HVAC sizing. All agreed that smaller projects go quickly
and many decisions are made early. But as project size increases, there is more likelihood of
using rules-of-thumb in lieu of actual design data because of coordination issues between the
various disciplines and the need to stay on schedule. One approach discussed to address the lack
of detailed information is to initially assume the worst case envelope design. As the project
proceeds, the analysis is refined and the equipment selections are finalized. There was agreement
that the determination of the quantity of glass is an important architectural decision affecting
many aspects of the design.
Some feel that it is best to use mechanical engineers to make HVAC sizing decisions -- even on
small jobs. Others find that HVAC contractors make most of the decisions on smaller projects,
and the architects and engineers can only hope the contractor will ask for help if he or she needs
it. However, there was discussion about how choices made by HVAC contractors often lead to
problems later. With “cookie-cutter” type projects, the common experience is that corporate
clients rely upon their own engineering staff to make design decisions, or at least review these
decisions.
It was generally felt that paper-based sizing methods such as Manual J are being phased out.
Most firms represented used manufacturers’ software to do load calculations, but found it
tedious, time-consuming, and fraught with problems. Some participants complained that when
they have used manufacturers’ software, they did not believe the results, nor could they get
repeatable results. The design of some manufacturers' software tends to focus on large built-up
systems, and is a bit cumbersome to apply to simple buildings consisting packaged single zone
equipment.
Other attendees mentioned that although they have manufacturers' sizing software available and
find it good for number crunching and record keeping, they do not use it in every case because of
the complexity and learning curve. Training is a big factor: currently vendors are heavily relied
upon to do training, but not all markets are well-served by the vendors. Most of the participants
agreed that manufacturer supplied software is more popular even though it is more expensive
because manufacturer’s representatives come in to promote their products and provide training.
Even though some third party packages are less expensive, no one is actively selling the
software, and the user must rely on the manual for training. Many participants rely on
manufacturers’ representatives to do some of the analysis and help make the equipment
selection. There were some complaints about how prices go up and equipment selection is locked
in when manufacturers do the design work. As one participant stated, when it gets down to
construction documents time:
“If the manufacturer has the pencil involved with designing the heat pump systems or the
systems—whatever they may be, VAV or whatever, then I think that’s a problem. That
should be left solely in the engineer’s department. He should try to make it as general as
possible.”
5-8
Another discussion focused on how design decisions continually change and mechanical
engineers feel they cannot wait for a final design to make equipment selections and run load
calculations—a few percent difference in the load is not worth re-doing the equipment selection.
Generally, the worst case is assumed and calculations are rerun only if something unusual is
done to the design. For example, adding or removing skylights from a design would justify
rerunning loads. One engineer indicated that his firm calculates a 25 percent safety factor in
heating and 10 percent in cooling. Users would like to see a program with the ability to quickly
analyze as series of design alternatives. It was agreed that clients always look for the bottom line:
how much will it cost to heat and cool the building. A useful tool would offer the capability to do
energy cost calculations, cost estimation, financial and capital analysis to quickly demonstrate
differing scenarios.
Most designers reported using computer-based methods, not catalogs, for HVAC system
selection. As one participant explained:
“When you look at a catalog, you’re given ARI conditions [and] you have to interpolate
and bring it up to your conditions, especially elevation… but with the software they
[manufacturers] provide, you have corrections built into the program.”
Another participant countered that he still prefers hard copy catalogs over CD versions. The
importance of looking at the performance curves of various equipment selection options,
particularly pumps and fans, was stressed, but this is not easy to see electronically—one must
flip from screen to screen or print multiple pages to make a comparison between various
selections. Computer-based selection tools that provide comparative analysis would be a big
improvement over tools that are simply electronic representations of paper-based catalogs.
There was discussion about how time is a predominant restraint and it would be beneficial to
have CAD program interoperability to capture the building geometry quickly and accurately.
One participant mentioned using Quick Pen, an estimating software program that allows one to
click on a rendering of the plan to get the building geometry quickly. Another participant
described a similar program used by contractors that allows them to easily do area takeoffs by,
for instance, setting a scale and tracing the perimeter of a plan.
One big benefit of CAD is the ability to graphically overlay layers and foresee problems or
conflicts between the different building elements. No one person can pick out all these problems,
and thus meetings are the best way to catch them.
“On complex jobs it very much goes back to the team. Now we’re getting into the ceiling
plenums…a lot of the things that have to do with the ability to fit in the building. And if
our engineers work off on their own—happily, dumbly—they’re going to find when the
job gets near the end they didn’t get the input they needed from other members of the
team and that isn’t going to work.”
The need was expressed for a program or tool that can catch these conflicts; 3D-CAD and other
piping/ducting layout tools could be used, but currently they are not used very often. A big
5-9
problem with CAD is being able to see only small portions of the drawing at a time; the “big
picture” is easier to visualize by rolling out a full set of plans.
Several participants mentioned the use of web sites for exchanging data on multi-firm teams.
One participant has clients who want to set up a project web site, but this has not yet been done.
He is concerned about problems that could occur if these sites are not maintained, such as having
to wait weeks for meeting minutes. Also, without a high-speed internet connection or enough
disk space, handling large files can be problematic.
5.2.5 Refrigeration
In general, architects and engineers in the focus group are not looking for tools with refrigeration
analysis capabilities. Refrigeration system design is a specialty practice. For instance, with
corporate grocery projects, the corporate engineers are the experts, often supported by
specialized consultants. In smaller applications, such as walk-in coolers in restaurants, package-
type systems are typically used. Research pertaining to refrigeration system design tools should
be targeted to engineers who specialize in this type of design.
5.2.6 Green Design and Materials
Many feel that environmental or "green" design is a niche market and is strongly client-driven.
One major problem with the tools currently available for green design is that there is no way to
adequately demonstrate and quantify the benefits to clients at the design stage, making it difficult
to prove the value of the design. According to one architect with experience in this area,
however, the value of these buildings become apparent after they are built -- they are more
comfortable and will save tenants money.
Various sources mentioned for making decisions in green design include the AIA Environmental
Resource Guide manual, suppliers’ technical data and videos, and web-based and catalog
information from product distributors. Two green design software tools mentioned by the
participants are BEES and Energy-10.
5.2.7 Energy Analysis and Code Compliance
The group agreed that at the design phase, energy consumption is at the bottom of a long list of
design considerations. However, there is a trend in smaller buildings toward greater concern
about operating costs. There was consensus in the groups that energy codes provide a useful
service by setting limits that help enforce better design.
Again, there was much discussion about different tools in the energy analysis category. Some
participants use ASHRAE 90.1 software to demonstrate compliance and a web-based system for
selection decisions. Others have used manufacturers’ energy analysis software; however, it was
agreed that it is very unforgiving and that the extra effort required to go from a computerized
loads analysis to an annual energy analysis was not worth it. One participant indicated that they
asked the manufacturer’s representative to run the energy analysis on a Federal project that
required one. It was evident from the ensuing discussion that everyone would love to take
advantage of software programs that can talk to one another. As one architect said:
5-10
“I can already calculate area and volume. I can calculate costs. If I had an energy
program that was also in the same language [CAD] then that would make my ability to
do my work very easy… The more easily one program interfaces with one another, the
more complete my services would be that I could offer… [and] the better buildings I’m
going to be able to provide for my clients.”
But one participant expressed concern that the more one adds to a program and the more
complicated it is, the greater the chance it will become impractical to use because of time and
budget constraints -- especially on small projects.
Other interoperability concerns include the fact that such programs may be 3D-dependent and
the vast majority of firms are not at the point of implementing 3D on all projects; many feel that
going from 2D- to 3D-CAD is a big step. In addition, to be effective the software would have to
be very thorough. Another major concern is layering in CAD programs and the need for layering
standardization. According to one architect there is a lot of controversy in his profession over
what constitutes a perfect layering system in CAD programs. Mention was made of the lack of
flexibility in object-oriented CAD programs.
5.2.8 Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation
There is great interest in indoor air quality (IAQ) modeling capabilities, especially because
architects are designing tighter buildings. Currently the tools for ventilation system decisions are
limited to catalogs, performance, and judgment calls. There is nothing (other than ASHRAE 62)
that comes close to a health code. In some cases the owner will want more than the minimum
standards, although it seems that IAQ considerations are often given very low priority.
“With pressures to build and get the building up and get the square footage in use, and
hurry up and spend the capital before the interest rates go up and everything else, people
don’t want to take the timeline to get into those kinds of decisions. It’s almost out of the
menu of choices and that’s kind of painful.”
5.3 Research Priorities from Focus Groups
During the course of conducting the focus groups, several major themes for research priorities
emerged, including:
Capability to model unusual sources of moisture generation. Existing loads and energy
analysis software is not good at modeling space-generated humidity sources and moisture
absorption or transpiration through building materials. Engineers want tools that can give them
the ability to model such loads.
Financial analysis, with links to cost estimating databases. The importance of coupling
financial modeling with system selection choices was strongly emphasized. The ability to show
owners they can afford upgrades, as well as the ability to demonstrate savings in operation and
maintenance costs, would be useful. Cost estimating is an onerous task that is a barrier to
5-11
exploring design alternatives. Energy simulation programs with links to cost estimating
databases could make this job easier.
Ability to examine design alternatives on prototypical buildings. Often, key design decisions
influencing building energy consumption are made early in the design process before many
design details are finalized. These decisions are hard to reverse as the project moves forward.
Computerized methods, especially load calculations, are usually done near the end of the design
process, after the details required by the loads programs are finalized. The ability to perform
“what-ifs” on prototypical buildings would be useful to give direction during early design
phases. The Energy-10 and eQUEST programs are good examples of software that provides this
capability. These programs are described in the greater detail in the next chapter.
Software that is easier to use. A common theme stated throughout the focus groups is that
software currently used in the design process is hard to use. Improvements in user interface and
software interoperability should be undertaken to provide tools that integrate better with existing
design practices, including CAD, loads analysis, equipment selection, and cost estimation.
As one attendee expressed:
“It would be wonderful if we could get a program that could design daylight systems and
high-performance windows and reflective roofing, and all the rest of the architectural
things. I don’t know if you could do that much.”
5-12
6 WHOLE BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS TOOLS
Whole building energy analysis tools have been separated out from the more general category of
practitioner design tools because of their importance. A few innovative engineering firms and
consultants specializing in energy-efficient, whole building design are currently using these
tools. The following programs were selected for more detailed study, because they represent a
good sampling of the current state-of-the-art in whole building energy analysis tools:
1. Energy-10 - simplified energy analysis program from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL).
2. HAP - hourly energy analysis program from Carrier.
3. TRACE - hourly energy analysis program from Trane.
4. DOE-2 - hourly simulation program from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
5. EnergyPlus - next generation simulation program from the U.S. Department of Energy
(USDOE).
6. TRNSYS – a general purpose component-based simulation program from the University of
Wisconsin.
6.1 General Features of the Selected Whole Building Energy Simulation Programs
Each of these programs covered in this chapter are classified as hourly7 simulation programs.
Hourly simulation programs use mathematical representations of important energy and control
processes in an attempt to realistically model the thermal and energy systems in a building. The
important characteristic of these programs, as opposed to simplified energy analysis models such
as seasonal calculations and bin-methods, is their realistic simulation of building energy
performance which is dependent on the recent thermal time history. This capability is crucial for
accurate analysis of buildings with significant amounts of thermal mass, solar gains, thermostat
setbacks or setups, explicit energy storage, or predictive control strategies. It is also important
for obtaining a reasonable estimate of short-term electrical demand levels.
Hourly simulation tools are made up of a collection of mathematical models of building

components, such as windows, wall sections, HVAC equipment, and so on. The individual
component models are linked together to form a complete building simulation. Each program
has limitations with respect to flexibility in describing the building. For example, the maximum
number of zones, walls and windows, and the shape of the model surfaces may be limited. Most
of the whole building design tools described in this chapter are limited to the simulation of
common HVAC system types with a pre-determined system configuration. Considerable latitude
is given to the user with respect to describing system performance parameters, but the basic
arrangement of the system component is fixed and defined by common practice in the building
design and HVAC industries. Examples of these structured hourly simulation models are
Energy-10, DOE-2.1E, HAP, and TRACE. Important exceptions to this rule are the modular
simulation tools TRNSYS, DOE-2.2, and EnergyPlus.
7
The programs are classified as hourly simulation programs, even though some programs operate on a time step smaller
than one hour.
6-1
Calculation modules in most whole building analysis tools are generally organized in "Loads,"
"Systems," "Plants," and "Economics” (LSPE) programs which are further linked to make up the
complete building model. The general features of each of these programs are described as
follows:
6.1.1 The Loads Module
The Loads module simulates the performance of the building shell and contents, and their
interactions with the outside environment and internally generated loads. The loads module is
directly affected by the weather, thermostat set points, internal gains, and a variety of other
factors. Although the calculation procedures used in the loads module can vary greatly from one
program to another, they all contain mathematical algorithms which, when driven by data
corresponding to appropriate weather conditions, operating schedules, thermostat set points, and
so on, mimic the behavior of real building components. Within the loads module, several
techniques are used to calculate heat transfer through opaque surfaces and determine the hourly
room load. These techniques are briefly described below.
Wall heat transfer. Some form of response factor is generally used to calculate transient heat
conduction through opaque surfaces. Response factor models relate the current heat transfer to
the space to current and past values of heat gains on the wall exterior surface. Conduction
transfer functions (CTF) are a special class of response factor, using a mathematical approach
that is computationally more efficient and accurate.
Room heat transfer. Several methods are used to convert heat gains from opaque surfaces,
window, and internal loads into cooling loads. These include the transfer function method, the
heat balance method, and the thermal network method. The transfer function method (TFM) is
used to calculate zone thermal response by relating the current cooling load to current and past
values of heat gains and past values of cooling load. The coefficients used in the transfer
function method are called weighting factors. Transfer functions (and response factors) are
approximate solutions, based on series solutions to the transient heat transfer problem.
Fundamental assumptions in the TFM include constant room air temperature, constant interior
film coefficients, and non-time-varying distribution of solar heat gains throughout the space.
The heat balance method solves heat balance equations for zone air and each of the exterior and
interior surfaces. The heat balance method is an exact solution to the zone response problem,
which relaxes some of the restrictions on the transfer function method, allowing time varying
convection coefficients, and time varying solar gain distributions. With the heat balance method,
transient conduction through opaque surfaces is also calculated using a CTF, but the CTF is
evaluated based on interior surface temperature, rather than room air temperature. Knowledge of
the room surface temperatures allows a calculation of the room thermal radiant environment and
thermal comfort.
The thermal network method discretizes the building into a network of nodes with
interconnecting energy flow paths. It is in essence a refinement of the zone heat balance method,
allowing multiple nodes to represent zone air temperatures at several locations in the room, and
multiple surface temperatures, rather than a single node each for room air, interior, and exterior
6-2
surface. Each surface can be represented as a single “lumped capacitance” layer, or as a series of
lumped capacitance layers. The connections between nodes -- which can be due to conduction,
convection, and radiation – are often “linearized” so that matrix-based solution methods can be
applied.
6.1.2 The Systems Module
The outputs from the Loads module are transferred to the Systems module. This module
simulates a building's HVAC equipment, including the air distribution equipment, fans, heat
transfer coils, and control apparatus. The Systems module is directly affected by the zone loads
and ventilation requirements, the weather, and HVAC control strategies and capacities.
The HVAC operations simulated in the Systems module include the movement of air through the
building and ductwork and the addition or removal of energy and humidity to the air flow. These
actions are governed by the control strategies used in the simulations; are affected by the loads,
ventilation rates, and ambient weather conditions imposed on the system; and are limited by the
capacities of the modeled equipment.
In a real building, the capacity of the HVAC system is influenced by the zone temperature and
humidity. If the capacity is insufficient to meet the imposed loads, the zone conditions will
move beyond their thermostat set points. The accurate determination of zone temperatures
requires that the Systems module provide real-time capacity information back to the Loads
module, and often requires iteration between the two modules until the zone temperatures and
HVAC loads are accurately determined. In order to save computation time, this "feedback"
between Loads and Systems is not provided by some of the simulation programs, resulting in
inaccurate estimates of both the zone conditions and the HVAC loads in building where the
HVAC systems are undersized. Other programs solve the problem by performing a simultaneous
Loads, Systems, and Plant simulation at each time step.
Also, HVAC equipment operation in a real building can change rapidly, causing short-term
variations in air flow rates, temperatures, and other factors. Typical Systems modules simulate
HVAC equipment in a "quasi steady-state" manner, where the calculations are done on a 15-
minute to 60-minute time step. The faster dynamics of an HVAC system can only be
approximated in this manner8. The simulation is usually accomplished by determining the
fraction of the hour that the system must operate at full capacity to meet the desired loads, and
then applying "part-load efficiency" and other correction factors to determine the energy inputs
required to meet these loads. These correction factors may be derived from detailed performance
data supplied by equipment manufacturers, or from default values that are typically available in
the programs. This approach leads to some inaccuracies, as the detailed behavior of the HVAC
components is approximated by curve fit equations, which may deviate significantly from the
actual equipment over the range of simulated conditions. The form of the curve-fit equations
range from piecewise linear interpolations of tabular data to higher order multivariate regression
equations. The form of the equations are selected to include inputs that are most influential on
the performance of the equipment. For example, most catalog data for DX units list cooling
capacity and full-load input power at several outdoor dry bulb, entering dry bulb, and entering
8
EnergyPlus solves this problem by dynamically decreasing the time step for the HVAC calculations as required.
6-3
wet bulb temperature combinations. A simulation program might express DX system cooling
capacity with a regression equation containing terms for the outdoor dry bulb temperature and
the entering dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures. Efficiency equations used to model DX system
performance may also include the unit part-load ratio, defined as the ratio of the load imposed on
the unit divided by the unit maximum capacity. The system performance equations are evaluated
at each time step using hourly loads and temperature data, so the performance of the unit at each
hour of the simulation is captured.
In order to reduce computation time, the systems simulation may accept the results of the quasi-
steady state calculations without iteration, causing small hourly errors in the system energy
balance that generally are not significant on an annual basis, but can introduce errors in
simulation of any individual hour.
6.1.3 The Plants Module
This module simulates the equipment which transforms basic energy sources, such as electricity
or fuel, into the thermal energy needed to satisfy the loads imposed by the Systems module. The
equipment simulated in the Plants module generally includes chillers, boilers, cooling towers,
thermal energy storage (TES) units, electric generators, and a variety of pumps and other similar
equipment. The operation of this equipment is governed by the control strategies used in the
simulations, and is influenced by the loads imposed by the system and the constraints imposed
by the ambient weather conditions. Energy consumption is limited by the capacities of the
modeled equipment. Curve fit models to performance data similar to those used in the systems
program are generally used to model plant equipment performance.
6.1.4 The Economics Module
The purpose of the Economics module is to calculate the costs of supplying the energy required
to meet the building loads, and calculating various financial parameters important to decision
makers. This is performed by taking the hourly energy consumption from the Plants module and
applying appropriate energy and demand charges. The results are summed over a variety of time
periods, including monthly and annually. More sophisticated Economics modules may contain
the ability to perform life-cycle cost analyses of equipment or other options. Some tools
determine energy use and operating costs for both an alternate and a base case building. This
allows energy and cost savings, and financial parameters such as life-cycle cost and return on
investment, to be directly provided as outputs.
The next subchapters describe the general features of each program. Subchapter 6.8 provides a
comparison of the features across each of the programs.
6.2 Energy-10
Energy-10 is a simplified hour-by-hour program designed for the analysis of residential and light
commercial buildings. The name Energy-10 implies its applicability to buildings 10,000 square
foot or less; or buildings which can be modeled effectively using one or two zones. The HVAC
system simulation is limited to packaged single zone heating and air conditioning systems,
6-4
limiting the applicability of the program to smaller buildings. The program is easy to use, and
requires a minimum of input data. It is intended to be used during the conceptual design phase
of a project to identify and rank the most effective energy-efficiency strategies. For each
simulation run, both a base case and an alternative design are evaluated by default. An
AutoBuild feature creates a prototypical “shoe-box” model of the building, and creates default
values for building operation parameters based on the building type. The details of the model
can be updated as the design is further developed. A series of energy-efficiency strategies are
automatically evaluated: daylighting, improved glazing, shading, insulation, HVAC controls,
thermal mass, efficient lighting, passive solar heating, high efficiency HVAC, economizer cycle,
air leakage control, and reduced duct leakage. Future plans for Energy-10 include the simulation
of photovoltaic systems, natural ventilation, evaporative cooling, exhaust air heat recovery, solar
air preheating, and solar water heating.
6.2.1 Energy-10 Loads Simulation
The Energy10 program uses the California Non-Residential Simulation Engine (CNE),
developed by the Berkeley Solar Group. CNE employs a multi-zone thermal network solution.
The CNE model runs on a 15-minute time step, and iterates until an energy balance is achieved
at each time step. Multi-layer exterior wall constructions are used to simulate the impact of
thermal mass on the transient heat conduction through the wall. Energy-10 is limited to a two-
zone model, thus the computation times for this approach are quite reasonable.
The program contains a series of pre-defined wall, roof, and window assemblies. Custom
components can be defined and added to the program library. Walls and windows are defined by
orientation, but a full geometric description of the building is not supported. Solar heat gains
through windows can be directed at the room air (for light-weight buildings) or to a lumped
thermal mass (for heavy buildings). External shading elements such as overhangs and side fins
are included.
Infiltration can be modeled using a constant air change per hour, or by entering an equivalent
leakage area and using the Sherman-Grimsrud method. Latent loads are calculated from a quasi-
steady state moisture balance on the space, neglecting absorption and desorption of moisture by
building materials.
6.2.2 Energy-10 Systems Simulation
Energy-10 does a simultaneous loads and systems simulation. The HVAC systems can be self-
sized, or the size can be entered by the user. Energy-10 simulates most HVAC system types
encountered in small buildings, including DX cooling systems with gas and electric heat, heat
pumps, baseboard heating systems, unit heaters, and unit ventilators. Equipment efficiency at
standard conditions is entered; performance characteristics at off-design conditions are calculated
from curve fit equations for typical units. Cooling equipment is modeled as a function of unit
entering wet bulb temperature, outdoor dry bulb temperature, and part load. Heat pumps (in
heating mode) are modeled as a function of unit entering dry bulb and outdoor dry bulb
temperature. Combustion heating equipment (boilers, furnaces, and unit heaters) efficiency is
calculated as a function of the part-load ratio. All curve fit equations are internal to the program
6-5
and cannot be modified by the user. Since the program covers small commercial buildings only,
all fans and pumps are constant speed. HVAC control options such as temperature and enthalpy
economizers, thermostat setback, supply temperature reset, and optimum fan start are covered.
6.2.3 Energy-10 Economics
Energy-10 accepts simplified energy cost data, in terms of annual average electricity
consumption (kWh), annual average demand (kW) and annual average gas consumption (therm)
charges. Complex utility rate structures utilizing charges that vary by season and/or time of day
are not addressed. First year energy savings reports are generated, but life-cycle economic
analysis is not done.
6.2.4 Energy-10 User Interface
The program uses simplified geometry based on simple “shoe-box” models, and is very easy to
use. An example of the Energy-10 autobuild menu is shown in Figure 6-1 below:
Figure 6-1. Energy-10 Autobuild Screen.
Default values are applied to building based on the zone occupancy. These defaults can be
modified or accepted by the user, as shown in Figure 6-2 below.
6-6
Figure 6-2. Energy-10 Zone Description Screen
A series of energy-efficiency measures are automatically evaluated in a companion energy-

efficient building. These measures can be specified by the user, and are shown in Figure 6-3
below:
Figure 6-3. Energy-10 Energy-Efficient Strategies Selection
6-7
A series of pre-defined text and graphics output reports are available. For example, a ranking of
each energy-efficiency strategy by energy cost savings is shown in Figure 6-4 below:
Figure 6-4. Energy-10 Sample Output Screen
6.3 Carrier HAP
HAP 4.0 (hourly analysis program) is part of the E-20 II software suite from Carrier Corporation.
E-20 II is a collection of software tools created specifically for the HVAC system designer.
Included in the suite are programs to assist in heating and cooling load estimating, duct system
design and layout, water and refrigerant piping design, annual building operating cost estimation,
and life-cycle economics (many of these tools are listed in the practitioner tools chapter).
6-8
HAP is Windows-based software that provides load estimation and system sizing, linked to a
DOS-based program that provides hour-by-hour energy and operating cost analysis. A Windows
version of the hourly energy analysis program is expected sometime in 2001. The HAP energy
analysis program is an hour-by-hour simulation program designed for simulating the
performance of commercial buildings. The main focus of HAP is HVAC design, thus the
software is oriented around the HVAC system. The Windows version of HAP currently only
does design day sizing. Building envelope and internal loads are described in sufficient detail to
inform the HVAC sizing, but whole building design issues such as lighting design, daylighting
analysis, and so on are not specifically addressed. The program performs the annual simulation
in three basic steps: Loads, Systems, and Plant. Each of these programs function independently,
without feedback between each module on an hourly basis.
6.3.1 HAP Loads Simulation
HAP uses the ASHRAE transfer function method to calculate hourly zone loads in both the
loads-only and energy analysis versions. Annual energy simulations are done on an 8,760 hourly
basis. Transfer functions are used to calculate the transient heat conduction through massive
surfaces such as walls, ceilings and floors. Weighting factors are used to calculate the response
of the room temperature to surface heat conduction, solar heat gains, and internal gains. Up to
50 zones can be defined per HVAC system.
The program contains a series of pre-defined wall, roof and window assemblies. Custom
components can be defined and added to the program library. Walls and windows are defined by
orientation, but a full geometric description of the building is not supported. External shading
elements such as overhangs, reveals, and side fins are included.
Infiltration is modeled using a constant air change per hour, which can be scheduled according to
the operation of the HVAC system. Latent loads are calculated by doing a quasi-steady state
moisture balance on the space, neglecting absorption and desorption of moisture by building
materials.
6.3.2 HAP Systems Simulation
HVAC system response is calculated using a quasi-steady-state approach, where the system
dynamics are assumed to be steady state on the time scale of the simulation (one-hour). The
systems simulation iterates at each time step until an energy balance is obtained. The HVAC
system types covered include both packaged and built-up systems types such as packaged DX
cooling with gas and electric heat, packaged DX heat pumps, VVT systems, built-up constant
volume and variable volume air handlers, multi-zone and dual duct systems, fan coil and
induction units, and water source heat pumps. Pre-defined HVAC system configurations based
on common system design practices are used. Equipment efficiency is entered at standard
conditions; performance characteristics at off-design conditions are internal to the program and
cannot be modified by the user.
6-9
Chilled water coils are modeled using a fixed bypass factor apparatus dew point approach, where
the coil exiting temperature and humidity are calculated assuming a portion of the entering air is
cooled to saturation at the coil surface temperature, and the remaining air is “bypassed” and
mixed downstream of the coil. In HAP, the bypass factor is constant over all hours of the
simulation (which is a good assumption if the air flow remains constant). Cooling equipment is
modeled as a function of outdoor dry bulb temperature and part load ratio. Variations in
performance as function of unit entering conditions are not considered. Heat pumps (in heating
mode) are modeled as a function of unit entering dry bulb and outdoor dry bulb temperature.
Combustion heating equipment (furnaces and unit heaters) efficiency is calculated as a function
of the part-load ratio. VAV fan energy as a function of air flow rate is modeled using linear
interpolation of user-entered data for up to 10 flow and fan power combinations. HVAC control
options such as temperature and enthalpy economizers, thermostat setback, supply temperature
reset, and fan scheduling are covered.
6.3.3 HAP Plant Simulation
The plant equipment covered include steam and hot water boilers, absorption, centrifugal,
reciprocating, heat recovery, and gas-engine chillers, and cooling towers. Thermal energy
storage systems, utilizing ice and chilled water storage, are considered. Equipment efficiency at
standard conditions is entered; performance characteristics at off-design conditions are internal
to the program and cannot be modified by the user. Air-cooled chiller capacity and efficiency is
modeled as a function of outdoor dry bulb temperature and part-load ratio. Performance as a
function of chilled water temperature is not considered. Water-cooled chiller performance is
modeled as a function of entering condenser water temperature and part-load ratio. Performance
of absorption chillers as a function of hot water entering temperature is not considered. Boiler
efficiency and auxiliary power from boiler draft fans etc. is modeled using a lookup table of
efficiency as a function of part-load ratio. Several options are offered for cooling towers,
including a detailed counterflow cooling tower model that calculates tower performance as a
function of heat rejection rate, condenser water temperature, ambient wet bulb temperature, and
simplified models that maintain a constant wet bulb approach temperature or fixed condenser
water temperature.
6.3.4 HAP Economics
HAP has the ability to define complex utility rate structures utilizing charges that vary by season
and/or time of day. First year energy savings reports are generated, but life-cycle economic
analysis is not done. The separate E-20 Engineering Economics program can be used for more
detailed economic analysis.
6.3.5 HAP User Interface (Loads Program)
The HAP loads program user interface utilizes a tree structure to organize the building
component parts and relationships (the Windows-version of the energy analysis program is
expected to be similar). The data tree lists all the major categories of input data, including
weather, spaces, systems, plants, building schedules, walls, roofs, windows, doors, shades and
rates. An example of the HAP Main screen with the tree structure is shown in Figure 6-5.
6-10
Figure 6-5. HAP Main Screen

Clicking on a category name in the tree structure opens a form displaying the list of items
entered thus far. To edit data, clicking on the item opens a data input form. An example of a data
entry and editing form for space properties is shown in Figure 6-6.
Figure 6-6. HAP Space Screen
6-11
An example of a data input form for HVAC system properties is shown in Figure 6-7.
Figure 6-7. HAP System Screen
Output is available from HAP includes text-based and graphic reports of zone loads, load
profiles, system sizing, plant sizing, and annual energy consumption.
6.4 Trane TRACE
TRACE 700 (Trane Air Conditioning Economics) is part of the C.D.S. software suite from the
Trane Corporation. C.D.S. is a collection of software tools created specifically for the HVAC
system designer. Included in the suite are programs to assist in heating and cooling load
estimating, duct system design and layout, piping design, annual building operating cost
estimation, ASHRAE Standard 62 compliance analysis, and an “Engineering Toolbox.” Many
of these tools are listed in the practitioner tools chapter.
TRACE 700 is Windows-based software that provides heating and cooling load estimation and
HVAC system sizing. Annual energy analysis, which was previously available in the TRACE
600 for DOS, was incorporated into the 700 series software in March of 2001. TRACE has two
options for energy analysis. In the first option, TRACE does calculations for an average day of
each month. Hourly weather data are converted into a “typical day” of each month, and the
calculations are performed for the 24 hours of each typical day. The program uses three
daytypes per month: workday, weekend, and holiday. The results for each daytype are
multiplied by the number days of each type in the month, and the results are summed to obtain
the monthly result. In the second option, calculations are carried out for a full 8,760 hours,
consistent with the general approach taken with other hourly simulation programs covered in this
chapter. The first option is compatible with TRACE 600; the second option requires additional
weather data files, so users may be slow to adopt the more rigorous approach.
6-12
6.4.1 TRACE Loads Simulation
Conduction transfer functions are used to calculate the transient heat conduction through massive
surfaces such as walls, ceilings, and floors. Weighting factors are used to calculate the response
of the room load to surface heat conduction, solar heat gains, and internal gains. The program
has no limit on number of walls, windows, and zones in each simulation.
The program contains a series of pre-defined wall, roof and window assemblies. Custom
components can be defined and added to the program library. A separate Library/Template
editor program is provided to construct and modify building component libraries and create
templates that offer a convenient shortcut to describe rooms sharing similar thermostat settings,
construction, internal loads, and occupancy schedules. Walls and windows are defined by
orientation, but a full geometric description of the building is not supported. Window shading
from exterior overhangs and interior shading elements are included.
Infiltration is modeled using a constant air change per hour, which can be scheduled according to
the operation of the HVAC system. Latent loads are calculated by doing a quasi-steady state
moisture balance on the space, neglecting absorption and desorption of moisture by building
materials.
6.4.2 TRACE Systems Simulation
TRACE has the capability to model the performance of HVAC systems commonly found in
commercial buildings, including packaged DX cooling with gas and electric heat, packaged DX
heat pumps, computer room units, built-up constant volume and variable volume air handlers,
multi-zone and dual duct systems, fan coil and induction units, and water source heat pumps.
Pre-defined HVAC system and plant programs based on common system characteristics are
used. Equipment efficiency at standard conditions is entered; performance characteristics at off-
design conditions are entered into the TRACE equipment library using a standalone library /
template editor program.
DX cooling equipment efficiency is modeled using polynomial curve fits to outdoor dry bulb
temperature and part load ratio. DX cooling capacity variations with indoor wet bulb
temperature are not considered. Heat pumps (in heating mode) are modeled as a function of
outdoor dry bulb temperature and part-load ratio. Combustion heating equipment (furnaces and
unit heaters) efficiency is calculated as a function of the part-load ratio. VAV fan energy as a
function of fan flow rate is modeled using a 4th order polynomial curve fit to fan flow rate and
power data. HVAC control actions such as temperature and enthalpy economizers, thermostat
setback, supply temperature reset, and fan scheduling are covered.
HVAC control actions such as temperature and enthalpy economizers, thermostat setback,
supply temperature reset, fan scheduling optimum fan start/stop, night purge and duty cycling are
covered. HVAC equipment performance is simulated using a quasi-steady-state approach, where
the equipment dynamics are assumed to be steady state on the time scale of the simulation (one-
6-13
hour). A non-iterative approach is used, thus an energy balance may not be achieved at each
time step.
6.4.3 TRACE Plant Simulation
The plant types covered include boilers , chillers, cooling towers, thermal energy storage, and
cogeneration systems. Heat recovery (double bundle) chillers and water side economizers are
simulated. Fixed plant equipment configurations are used. Equipment efficiency at standard
conditions is entered; performance characteristics at off-design conditions for each equipment
type are contained in the equipment library. Air-cooled chiller capacity and efficiency is
modeled as a function of outdoor dry bulb temperature and part-load ratio. Performance as a
function of chilled water temperature is not considered. Water-cooled chiller performance is
modeled as a function of entering condenser water temperature and part-load ratio. The model
requires the difference between the chiller entering condenser temperature and chilled water
leaving temperature to be greater than 20°F, limiting the ability to simulate systems with very
low condenser water temperatures. Boiler efficiency and auxiliary energy is modeled as a
function of part-load ratio. Trace uses the same cooling tower model as DOE-2. Plant control
strategies such as chilled water reset and condenser water reset are covered.
6.4.4 TRACE Economics
TRACE has the ability to define complex utility rate structures utilizing charges that vary by
season and/or time of day. TRACE calculates financial measures such as net present value of
annual cash flow, internal rate of return, simple payback period, and savings-to-investment ratio.
Initial and maintenance costs, utility rates, study life, and inflation rates are entered. Up to four
alternative HVAC designs or utility rates can be compared within each TRACE project.
6.4.5 TRACE User Interface
The TRACE user interface consists of three views: a project navigator, a project tree, and a
component tree. The project navigator lists basic topic areas, such as Project Information,
Weather, Templates, Rooms, Airside Systems, Room Assignment, Plants, Plant Assignment,
Economics. The Project tree is a tree view that organizes the project by system zone and room.
Clicking on an item in the tree opens a data input form. The component tree is used to review
data at the conclusion of the data entry process. The component tree facilitates data editing
across multiple building elements. Templates can be defined to speed data entry of multiple
similar elements, such as rooms with similar thermostat settings, construction, internal loading,
and schedules. The library editor can be used to view library component data and create custom
library entries. Drag and drop editing is used to group rooms into thermal zones, assign zones to
systems, and assign systems to plants. Examples of TRACE input screens follow:
6-14
Figure 6-8. TRACE Sample Screen: Create Rooms
Figure 6-9. TRACE Sample Screen: Assign Rooms to Zones
6-15
Figure 6-10. TRACE Sample Screen: Editing HVAC System Description
Output from TRACE includes zone loads and air flow rates under design conditions, system
peak heating and cooling loads, and a breakdown of peak heating and cooling loads resulting
from the building envelope, internal loads, and outdoor air.
6.5 DOE-2
The DOE-2 program was developed by the Simulation Research Group at Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, with substantial funding from the U.S. Department of Energy. The origins of the
DOE-2 program go back to 1976, with the development of the Cal-ERDA program. The first
version of DOE-2 was released in 1979. The program has been modified and developed through
1999, when development was stopped in favor of the DOE-2.2 and EnergyPlus programs. The
current version is DOE-2.1E. Within the DOE-2.1E version, there are 133 versions or
“releases.” A new release of the program may be stimulated by a series of “bug fixes,” or may
include major new features. For example, DOE-2.1E release 110 contained a long list of new
features for modeling variable flow and primary-secondary pumping loops not available in
earlier versions of the program. DOE-2 is a detailed hour-by-hour simulation program designed
for simulating the performance of a wide range of commercial buildings. It is the most popular
public-domain whole building energy analysis tool currently in use.
6-16
6.5.1 DOE-2 Loads Simulation
DOE-2 uses transfer function models of the various building components to calculate the time-
varying response of the building to hourly sequences of weather data, and internal load
schedules. Hourly heating and cooling loads consider transient heat conduction through external
surfaces using a response-factor approach. The impact of internal mass on the response of the
building to instantaneous loads such as solar heat gains and internal loads is calculated using a
weighting factor approach.
The program contains a series of pre-defined wall, roof, and window assemblies. Custom
components can be defined and added to the program library. All building surfaces including
walls, windows, door, roofs, and so on can be defined according to their geometric location, but
the surfaces must be rectilinear. Building shading due to adjacent buildings, self-shading of one
surface of the building by another, and window shading elements such as overhangs, reveals, and
side fins are included. Interior shading by blinds, drapes, and so on can be simulated, including
occupant response to solar heat gains and excessive glare.
Infiltration is modeled using a number of different approaches, including constant air change per
hour, which can be scheduled according to the operation of the HVAC system, and the Sherman-
Grimsrud infiltration model that takes wind and stack driven infiltration into account. Latent
loads are calculated by doing a quasi-steady state moisture balance on the space, neglecting
absorption and desorption of moisture by building materials as well as the moisture capacitance
of the space.
The program performs the annual simulation in four basic steps: Loads, Systems, Plant, and
Economics. Each of these programs function independently, without feedback between each
module on an hourly basis. Room temperature weighting factors are used to calculate hourly
space temperatures in the systems program as a function of system design and operation.
6.5.2 DOE-2 Systems Simulation
HVAC system response is calculated using a quasi-steady-state approach, where the system
dynamics are assumed to be steady state on the time scale of the simulation (one-hour). A non-
iterative approach is used; thus the energy balance may not close at each time step. The HVAC
system types covered include both packaged and built-up systems types such as packaged DX
cooling with gas and electric heat, packaged DX heat pumps, VVT systems, built-up constant
volume and variable volume air handlers, multi-zone and dual duct systems, fan coil and
induction units, water source heat pumps, and ground-source heat pumps. Pre-defined HVAC
system configurations based on common system design practices are used. Equipment efficiency
at standard conditions is entered; performance characteristics at off-design conditions are
calculated from a series equipment performance curves that can be user-specified as needed.
DX and chilled water coils are modeled using a variable bypass factor approach. The coil
capacity and bypass factors are expressed as a function of the air flow rate and the entering wet
6-17
bulb and dry bulb temperatures9. DX system cooling capacity and efficiency is calculated as a
function of outdoor dry bulb temperature, unit entering dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures, and
the part-load ratio. Heat pump capacity and efficiency are modeled as a function of unit entering
temperature, outdoor temperature, and part load ratio.
HVAC control options such as single point and differential temperature and enthalpy
economizers, thermostat setback, supply temperature reset, fan scheduling optimum fan start /
stop, and night purge are covered.
6.5.3 DOE-2 Plant Simulation
The plant equipment types covered in DOE-2 include hot water and steam boilers, reciprocating,
centrifugal, heat recovery (double bundle) and absorption chillers, cooling towers, thermal
energy storage, and cogeneration systems. Equipment efficiency at standard conditions is
entered; performance characteristics at off-design conditions are calculated from a series of
equipment performance curves that can be user-specified as needed. Chiller capacity and
efficiency is modeled as a function of entering condenser temperature, leaving chilled water
temperature, and part-load ratio. Absorption chiller models include capacity variation with
entering hot water temperature. Cooling towers are modeled as a function of ambient wet bulb
temperature, entering condenser water temperature, tower range (defined as the difference
between the condenser water entering and leaving temperature) and air flow rate. Both natural
and forced draft towers can be simulated. Control strategies such as chilled water reset,
condenser water reset, and load management are covered.
6.5.4 DOE-2 Economics
DOE-2 has the ability to define complex utility rate structures utilizing charges that vary by
season and/or time of day. The program can perform a full life-cycle cost analysis, including
return on investment, cash flow, and profit / loss statements.
6.5.5 DOE-2.2
DOE-2.2, developed by J. J. Hirsch and LBNL, is built on the DOE-2.1 program. DOE-2.2
includes a number of upgrades and changes from the DOE-2.1E program. A summary of a few
of the key features of DOE-2.2 is shown below:
Program calculation flow. The systems and plant program have been combined into a single
program called HVAC. The concept of “circulation loops” is used to simulate water and air
temperatures as it passes through various components. Loads and HVAC programs are
calculated together during a single time step. An iterative approach is used, forcing closure on
the energy balance at each time step.
9
DOE-2’s approach to modeling the Bypass Factor (BF) as function of entering conditions is physically incorrect (since
BF, like heat exchanger effectiveness, is only a function of air flow). A recent paper (Henderson, Parker, and Huang
2000) suggests an improved way to model a DX coil.
6-18
Windows. Windows can be defined as individual layers, including blinds, rather than relying on
a fixed set of predetermined window types.
Lighting. Lighting systems can be described in terms of number of luminaires, luminaire type,
lamp, and ballast type. A library of luminaires is provided. Lighting power density and average
illumination levels are calculated.
Circulation loops. The program utilizes a new system and plant concept, where circulation
loops and connections between primary equipment, secondary air handlers, and spaces are
defined. An arbitrary number of loops can be utilized.
Heat recovery. An improved heat recovery capability, including heat recovery from DX air
conditioners, generators, and chillers to service hot water can be modeled.
Duct losses. Capability to model return side duct leakage from the ceiling plenum, and an
improved duct loss model is included.
The newest version of DOE-2 – identified as DOE-2.3 – is now in beta testing. This version has
been developed with funding from two electric utilities in California. DOE-2.3 includes the
ability to model “refrigeration loops” that are made up of compressors, condensers, evaporators,
and other components. This new functionality allows grocery store refrigeration and refrigerated
warehouses to be simulated in detail.
6.5.6 DOE-2 User Interface
DOE-2 utilizes its own text-based input language, call Building Description Language (BDL).
BDL input files are English Language based, such that it is possible to get some understanding of
the program inputs from reading an input file. The input file structure and complexity of the
options offered by the program demand an experienced user. The widespread use of DOE-2 as a
design tool has been hampered by the level of effort and expertise required to use the program
effectively. The interface to DOE-2 was developed in the early 1980s, and uses a text-based
input file structure resembling punch cards. Improvements in user interfaces created by third
party software developers for DOE-2 have reduced the level of effort needed to use it, providing
a graphical user interface with menu-based input screens, rather than text-style inputs. Two
examples of improved user interfaces for the DOE-2 program are discussed in the following
paragraphs:
6-19
VisualDOE is a Windows interface to the DOE-2.1E energy simulation program. Through the
graphical interface, users construct a model of the building's geometry using standard block
shapes or using a built-in drawing tool. The program also imports CAD data to help define
building geometry and thermal zones. An example of a 3D geometric representation of a
building in VisualDOE is shown in Figure 6-11:
Figure 6-11. VisualDOE 3D Representation of a Building
6-20
A library of constructions, systems, and operating schedules is included, and the user can add
custom elements as well. If desired, the program assigns default values for parameters based on
the vintage and size of the building. Building systems are defined through a point-and-click
interface. An example of an HVAC system input screen is shown in Figure 6-12:
Figure 6-12. VisualDOE HVAC System Input Screen
6-21
VisualDOE is especially useful for studies of envelope and HVAC design alternatives. Up to 20
alternatives can be defined for a single project, as shown in Figure 6-13:
Figure 6-13. VisualDOE Design Alternative Input Screen
6-22
Summary reports and graphs may be printed directly from the program. Hourly reports of
building parameters may also be viewed. An example of a graphical output report is shown in
Figure 6-14:
Figure 6-14. VisualDOE Graphical Output Report
6-23
eQUEST. eQUEST is a simplified DOE-2.2 simulation environment. This freeware tool is

designed to allow detailed analysis without requiring extensive experience in DOE-2 modeling.
This is accomplished by combining a building creation wizard, an energy efficiency measure
(EEM) wizard, and a graphical results display module with the DOE-2.2 program. eQUEST has
two input modes – wizard mode and a detailed input mode, allowing the user access to the full
set of DOE-2.2 commands if desired. The eQUEST wizard requires a greatly reduced set of
input data to describe a building. The remaining building inputs are developed from the
experience of simulation experts coded into the tool. At a minimum, building type, location,
floor area, number of floors, cooling system type, and heating system type are defined.
Additional detail, addressing building footprint, general construction type, windows, internal
load densities, schedules, and HVAC system information can be supplied if desired. eQUEST
can be of great use during initial design phases, when the level of detail about the building is not
well known. It can provide design direction with minimum effort and reasonable cost, while
retaining the analytical rigor of a detailed simulation. An example of the “wizard” input screen
is shown in Figure 6-15:
Figure 6-15. eQUEST Wizard Input Screen
6-24
An example of the energy efficiency measure (EEM) wizard input screen is shown in Figure 6-
16.
Figure 6-16. eQUEST EEM Wizard Input Screen
6-25
In detailed input mode, complete access to the DOE-2.2 input capabilities is provided. A tree
data structure is used to organize the building components. A 3D view of a building using
eQUEST is shown in Figure 6-17.
Figure 6-17. eQUEST Detail Mode 3D Building View
6-26
An example of HVAC systems data entry in the detailed mode is shown in Figure 6-18. Data
entry screens for describing the performance characteristics of each system component are
accessed by clicking on the component icon in the graphics window, or by clicking on the tree
element in the tree view.
Figure 6-18. eQUEST Detailed Mode HVAC System Input Form
The examples presented above are only two of the many user interfaces developed for DOE-2.
Additional third party front end programs for DOE-2 are shown in Tables 6-1 and 6-2.
6-27
Table 6-1. User Interfaces Written for DOE-2.1E

Program Name Purpose/Use
CBIP Web-based Compliance tool developed for Canada’s
Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP). Developed
by Gabel-Dodd/EnergySoft
DesiCalc Simplified front end with user-defined desiccant equipment,
aimed at desiccant analysis. Developed for GRI.
DOE-Plus General purpose, full-function interface from Item Systems.
EDR Charette Web-based interface developed by Geopraxis. Available at
www.energydesignresources.com
EE4 Detailed hourly tool developed for Canada’s Commercial
Building Incentive Program (CBIP). By Gabel-
Dodd/EnergySoft.
EMCOR Energy-Edge Web-based audit, screening, and benchmarking tool for
EMCOR field staff, building managers, and others.
Developed by GeoPraxis.
Energy Gauge allows the simple calculation and rating of residential building
energy use in the US.
EnergyPro Title 24 code compliance tool from Gabel-Dodd/EnergySoft
EZ-DOE General purpose, full-function interface from Elite Software.
Interfaces with CHVAC HVAC system sizing program
FTI/DOE-2 General purpose, full-function DOE-2 program with Java-
Based interface from Finite Technologies
Home Energy Saver Calculates residential annual energy use and is featured on
many prominent web sites including DOE/EREN, EPA
Energy Star, and numerous utilities.
IHAT Improved humidity analysis tool developed for EPA Tools for
School Program. Improved humidity predictions and coil
models, from the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) and
CDH Energy.
Perform-98 Title 24 code compliance tool created for the California
Energy Commission.
Perform 2001 an interface shell to DOE-2.1 E for California Title 24
compliance. From the California Energy Commission
RESFEN A PC-based computer program (using DOE-2 as the
simulation engine) for calculating the heating and cooling
energy performance and cost of residential fenestration
systems. Free from LBNL.
VisualDOE General purpose, full-function interface from Eley
Associates.
6-28
Table 6-2. User Interfaces Written for DOE-2.2

Program Name Purpose/Use
eQuest Simplified Interface with various wizards to define building
and evaluate energy-efficient measures. Freeware developed
by JJ Hirsch and Associates, available from Southern
California Edison. www.energydesignresources.com
HERS Server Web-based Home Energy Rating (HERS) software for home
inspectors. Developed by GeoPraxis. Uses IDEA Server.
PowerDOE General purpose, full-function interface. Developed for EPRI
by JJ Hirsch and Associates. www.doe2.com
Your California Home Free web-based energy audit and decision tool for
homeowners. Developed by GeoPraxis. Uses IDEA Server.
Santa Monica, CA Green Code compliance tool that demonstrates compliance with the
Buildings Tool City of Santa Monica energy standards
6.6 EnergyPlus
EnergyPlus is a new-generation building energy simulation program based on DOE-2 and

BLAST, with numerous added capabilities. Released in April 2001, the program was developed
jointly by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the University of Illinois, the U.S. Army
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Oklahoma State University and others, with
support from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and
Community Programs.
EnergyPlus builds on the most popular features and capabilities of BLAST and DOE-2 and
includes additional simulation capabilities including time steps of less than an hour and modular
systems simulation modules that are integrated with a heat balance-based zone simulation. Other
planned simulation capabilities include solar thermal systems analysis, multi-zone air flow, and
and fuel cell analysis.
6.6.1 EnergyPlus Loads Simulation
EnergyPlus employs a simultaneous load / system / plant simulation, utilizing a user-selectable

time step for the loads calculation. Normal time steps are in the range of 10 to 15 minutes.
Shorter time steps for the HVAC system are automatically made when required for better
convergence. The program uses a conduction transfer function (CTF) wall model and a heat-
balance room model. Convection, radiation, and moisture exchange are calculated from interior
surfaces and furnishings at each time step. The program calculates the temperature of the
internal surfaces, allowing the simulation of radiant heating and cooling systems, and the
assessment of thermal comfort. Simple interzonal air flow can be modeled by specifying the
flow rate and schedule between the affected zones. A link to the COMIS network air flow model
provides more detailed treatment of interzonal air and contaminant movement driven by wind,
stack, and fan pressure forces.
Window heat Transfer and solar gain through multi-layer glazing are calculated using algorithms
from WINDOW 5. Shading devices, such as blinds, can be controlled by user-selected triggers,
such as outside temperature or incident solar. A daylighting simulation determines dimming of
6-29
electric lights based on interior daylight illuminance. The daylighting simulation model from
DOE-2 is enhanced to include an anisotropic sky model that better predicts the diffuse sky
illuminance on tilted surfaces.
6.6.2 EnergyPlus Systems Simulation
EnergyPlus employs a modular systems simulation approach with a variable time step, allowing
short-interval simulations during fast-changing transient events, and progressively longer time
steps as dictated by the system dynamics. The HVAC system model is made up of a group of
components that can be configured by the user to represent a large number of system types.
Components include fans, coils (hot water, chilled water, and DX), humidifiers, desiccant
dehumidifiers, evaporative coolers, terminal units (PIU, fan powered VAV), and fan coil units.
The component models range from simpler capacity based models to more complex theoretical
models with the input complexity matching the model. Each component is assigned to an air or
water loop that mimics the network of pipes and ducts found in real buildings. In order to
specify equipment connections to a loop, nodes are defined at key locations around the loop to
store loop state variables and set-point information for that location in the loop. An iterative
solution technique is used to solve for unknown state variables along with control equation
representations. These user linked components can be connected to the zones with multiple loops
as well, which would allow for dual path HVAC systems. Components can be configured to
simulate most common control options, such as thermostat setback, temperature and enthalpy
economizers, fan scheduling, and supply temperature reset control. Humidity control is also
available--humidifiers for low humidity, DX coil/reheat and desiccant dehumidifiers for high
humidity.
A set of pre-configured templates for common HVAC system types and configurations is also
provided, including dual duct CAV and VAV systems, single duct CAV, VAV systems,
packaged DX systems and heat pumps, radiant heating and cooling systems, water loop heat
pumps and ground source heat pumps. The current templates require user input of rated capacity
and efficiency, and specification of off-design performance characteristics. It is also possible to
simulate dual path or 100% makeup air systems, although a template has not been provided for
this system. The modular nature of the code facilitates the addition of additional components in
the future.
6.6.3 EnergyPlus Plant Simulation
The plant types covered include absorption chillers, electric chillers, engine-driven chillers, gas
turbine chillers, boilers, cooling towers, and reciprocating and gas turbine electric generators.
Separate water loops are defined for supply equipment such as boilers, chillers, thermal storage,
and heat pumps; and for heat rejection equipment such as cooling towers and condensers.
Equipment efficiency at standard conditions is entered; performance characteristics at off-design
conditions are calculated from a series of equipment performance curves that are user-specified.
Onsite generation using photovoltaics is also included. Components can be connected to the
zones with multiple loops as well, which would allow for dual path HVAC systems.
6-30
6.6.4 EnergyPlus User Interface
EnergyPlus input data structures are text-based files which are fairly cryptic and not intended to
be the main interface for typical end-users. The long range goal is to leave the development of
full-functioned graphical user interfaces to the private sector. For the initial release of
EnergyPlus, a simple “launch” program is provided to handle file management, input file editing
and results viewing using a combination of simplified tools and existing third-party applications.
An example of the launch program screen is shown in Figure 6-19.
Figure 6-19 EnergyPlus Launch Program
The input file options provide links to a third-party text editor (generally Microsoft Notepad) and
a more sophisticated EnergyPlus input data file (IDF) editor program. An example of the IDF
editor is shown in Figure 6-20
6-31
Figure 6-20 EnergyPlus IDF Editor
The IDF editor program provides a more structured approach to editing the input files than a
simple text editor. The IDF editor lists the appropriate EnergyPlus input data objects, displays
comments and keyword explanations, and provides a grid for data entry. Text input files in the
correct format are created by the program.
In the View Results area, formatted text output files are viewed using a third party text editor
program, generally Microsoft Notepad. Hourly outputs generated by EnergyPlus are provided in
a standard comma separated variable (CSV) text format. The Launch program provides a link to
a general purpose spreadsheet program such as Microsoft Excel for viewing and plotting the
hourly data. EnergyPlus also exports building geometry data in a standard drawing exchange
format (dxf) file. The Launch program provides a link to a 3D CAD package such as AutoCAD
2000 for viewing. An example of a 3-D rendering of the building geometry by a 3-D CAD
program is shown in Figure 6-21.
6-32
Figure 6-21 3D CAD Rendering of EnergyPlus Geometry
Translator programs are also provided to convert existing DOE-2.1 and BLAST input files to
EnergyPlus format files. These programs are intended to convert most, but not all of the
information. Additional editing of the input files will be necessary to complete the conversion.
CAD Interface
Several popular CAD tools now have implementations of IFC-compliant import/export

capabilities that allow the geometry created in these tools to be written to, and read from, IFC
data files. EnergyPlus contains an IFC-IDF translator utility that automatically acquires the
geometry of spaces, walls, windows, doors, floors, and roofs from an IFC data file, and generates
an EnergyPlus input data file containing this building geometry. Once the geometric information
is converted, the IDF editor can be used to assign material properties to the surfaces, and
complete the rest of the model development.
6.7 TRNSYS
TRNSYS (Transient Systems Simulation) is developed and maintained by the Solar Energy
Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. TRNSYS has been commercially available
since 1975, and is designed to simulate the transient performance of thermal energy systems.
6-33
Several other organizations in Europe and The United States have developed user interfaces for
TRNSYS and act as “resellers.” TRNSYS was originally developed to simulate the performance
of solar water heating systems, but over the years has been expanded to include small
commercial buildings. TRNSYS has a modular structure, where the user specifies the building
components and the manner in which they are connected. The connections between components
can represent either physical flow (an air stream) or information flow (a control signal). The
TRNSYS library includes components commonly found in buildings and thermal energy
systems, as well as component routines to handle the input of weather data or other time-
dependent forcing functions and output of simulation results. The modular nature of TRNSYS
gives the program tremendous flexibility, and facilitates the addition of user-supplied
mathematical models to the program.
TRNSYS solves large systems of equations described by Fortran subroutines. Each building or
system component model is called a “TYPE,” and is in essence a Fortran subroutine containing a
model of a system component. By creating an input file, the user directs TRNSYS to connect the
various subroutines to form a complete simulation. The TRNSYS simulation engine calls the
system components based on the input file and iterates at each timestep until the system of
equations is solved. TRNSYS allows users to describe and monitor the interactions between
system components. The modularity of the program allows the user to have as many zones,
pumps, chillers, cooling coils, and so on as necessary, in any desired configuration.
6.7.1 TRNSYS Loads Simulation
TRNSYS provides several components for calculating building loads. However, unlike the other
building simulation tools, TRNSYS requires the user to assemble a building model from a
sometimes non-intuitive set of TRNSYS components (i.e., building zone, wing wall, window,
solar radiation processor, thermostat, cooling coil, etc).
A simple conductance model that ignores thermal mass effects is available to model lightweight
residential buildings. A finite element thermal storage wall (Trombe wall) model is provided as
a component (TYPE 35) to the simple conductance model. For more rigorous load calculations,
single zone (TYPE 19) and multi-zone (TYPE 56) component models are available that use a
conduction transfer function wall model and an energy balance room model approach. Thermal
radiation between each building surface can be modeled by specifying a matrix of radiation
shape factors calculated outside of the program. The TYPE 56 multi-zone model is limited to a
total of 25 zones, 250 walls, and 100 windows per simulation. The TYPE 19 and TYPE 56
detailed load components calculate interior room surface temperatures at each time step. Solar
heat gains can be directed to specific room surfaces on a time-varying basis; the projection and
timing of solar heat gains are defined from a user-supplied schedule or calculated from a
TRNSYS routine. A library of building materials and standard constructions and links to the
LBNL Window library are provided. Walls and windows are defined by orientation, but a full
geometric description of the building is not supported. External shading elements such as
overhangs, reveals, and side fins are included. Infiltration can be scheduled or calculated as a
function of outdoor temperature and wind speed. A link to the COMIS program provides
detailed interzonal air flow modeling based on wind, stack, and fan pressure forces.
6-34
6.7.2 TRNSYS Systems Simulation
All TRNSYS components are solved together during each time step, providing complete
feedback to all related components. Standard systems component models include cooling coils,
fans, pumps, and simple heating and cooling systems. A dual source heat pump utilizing solar
heat or ambient air is also provided. Additional component models are available from
commercial sources, including radiant floor heating systems and geothermal heat pumps.
Freeware components include the ASHRAE secondary toolkit and desiccant models. User-
supplied components can model almost anything, making TRNSYS especially useful for
simulating the performance of an innovative HVAC system design.
6.7.3 TRNSYS Plant Simulation
The standard TRNSYS component library contains models for absorption chillers and cooling
towers. Additional component models are available from commercial sources including seasonal
heat storage, ice storage, gas engine heat pumps, and condensing boilers. Freeware modules
include the ASHRAE Primary toolkit models, and reciprocating and gas turbine generators.
User-supplied components can be used to simulate the performance of new technology in a
transient simulation environment.
6.7.4 TRNSYS User Interface
The TRNSYS calculation engine uses an ASCII text input file that provides the building input
description, characteristics of system components, and manner in which components are
interconnected. Several auxiliary programs exist to manage the simulation environment and
create input files by graphically connecting components.
TRNSHELL brings together in one program all of the activities associated with building,
running, and analyzing a TRNSYS simulation. It is essentially a set of utilities to manage the
details of using TRNSYS in its most basic form. TRNSHELL contains a text editor for writing
and viewing TRNSYS input files, Fortran subroutines, and output files. Compiling and linking of
Fortran subroutines can be executed without leaving the program. TRNSHELL can perform
parametric TRNSYS simulations, varying the values of one or more system variables between
runs, and storing the results. TRNSHELL also plots data from the TRNSYS simulation output.
An example of a TRNSYS text input file developed in the TRNSHELL environment is shown in
Figure 6-22.
6-35
Figure 6-22. Sample TRNSYS text input file
TRNSED is a TRNSYS utility program that allows a simplified graphical user interface to be
created so that non-experts can run the TRNSYS by selecting from a subset of input variables.
With the addition of a few commands to the TRNSYS input file, TRNSED generates a
customized display with list boxes, edit boxes, and pull-down menus for selected parameters and
inputs; providing an interface from which selected inputs may be viewed and/or changed and
simulations run. Like TRNSHELL, TRNSED offers a parametric simulation capability as well
as post-simulation plotting. Detailed help, unit conversion and input checking are also included
at the discretion of the TRNSED programmer.
PRESIM is a TRNSYS simulation environment created by the Solar Energy Research Center
(SERC) in Borlange, Sweden to simplify the creation of TRNSYS input files. The user works
with the mouse and manipulates a drawing of the system model much in the same way as with a
CAD program. When the graphical specification of the thermal energy system is complete,
PRESIM generates a complete TRNSYS input file based on this information. PRESIM checks
for formal errors, such as unconnected inputs, and problem areas are highlighted on the screen.
The generated TRNSYS text input file contains a full set of comments. An example of a
PRESIM input screen is shown in Figure 6-23.
6-36
Figure 6-23. Sample PRESIM Screen
IISiBat was created by the Center for Scientific Research in Buildings (CSTB) in Sophia
Antipolis, France. IISiBat, which can be roughly translated from French as "Intelligent Interface
for the Simulation of Buildings," is a general simulation environment program that has been
adapted to house the TRNSYS simulation software. It is probably the most widely used interface
for TRNSYS. The IISiBat package is designed to handle all the necessary activities associated
with TRNSYS, combining the role of TRNSHELL and PRESIM. These functions include
graphic connections between TRNSYS components, editing Fortran and input files, displaying
listing and output files, plotting results, offering online help, running parametric simulations, and
providing shortcuts for several repetitive tasks such as Fortran compiling and linking. Similar, in
theory, to PRESIM, IISiBat has an integrated pre-processing utility that allows the TRNSYS user
to graphically create TRNSYS input files by connecting inputs and outputs of icons that
represent TRNSYS components. An example of an IISiBat input screen is shown in Figure 6-24.
6-37
Figure 6-24. Sample IISiBat Screen
SimCad for TRNSYS is an object-oriented CAD tool designed specifically for generating
building envelope description data for TRNSYS/IISiBat simulation. SimCad, while not a full-
featured CAD tool, offers the necessary tools to draw, visualize, print, and export floor plans in
2D, 3D, or an interactive “walk-through" mode. It can pull in .dxf files generated in AutoCAD.
Quantity tables are available and can be exported to Excel for cost estimating purposes. The user
defines the walls, doors, and windows of the building, and SimCAD automatically generates an
internal, object-oriented data model. This data model can then be exported to produce the
building description files needed by the TRNSYS simulation environment to perform a dynamic
multi-zone building simulation using the TYPE 56 detailed multi-zone building model. Building
operating data (i.e., schedules and internal loads) must be added manually or with the PreBid tool
described below. An example of the SimCad input screen is shown in Figure 6-25.
6-38
Figure 6-25. SimCAD Input Screen
PreBid is a utility program from TRNSSOLAR in Germany that has been developed to assemble
the information necessary for the TYPE 56 detailed multi-zone building model. The program
allows the user to define material layers, internal loads, and other building envelope details.
Data are written to input files that are used by TYPE 56 in subsequent TRNSYS runs. The
PreBid interface is shown in Figure 6-26 below.
6-39
Figure 6-26. PreBid Interface for Defining Multi-Zone Buildings (TYPE 56)
6.8 Comparison of Simulation Programs
The following series of tables contains a side-by-side comparison of the features and calculation
techniques used in each of the six whole building energy simulation programs discussed in this
chapter. Comparisons are provided for general program features; and loads, systems, plants, and
economics calculations.
6-40
Table 6-3. Side-by-Side Comparisons of Simulation Features

Energy-10 HAP TRACE 700 DOE-2 EnergyPlus TRNSYS
FEAT
URES
Manuals User's manual and User's manual and Engineer's manual, DOE-2 basics, user's Getting started User’s manual
help system; technical reference guide, online help manual, reference manual, Input / output
documentation is online help manual, engineer's reference manual,
lacking manual engineering
documentation,
weather data
information, module
developer guide,
interface developer
guide, programming
standard
Ease of Use Autobuild feature Requires training or Requires training or Requires training or Requires training or Expert tool only
makes program easy extensive use to extensive use to extensive use to extensive use to
to use become proficient become proficient become proficient. become proficient
Third-party user
interfaces make
program easier to use
Technical Thermal network Hour-by-hour, Hour-by-hour for Hour-by-hour, Conduction transfer Modular general
Approach simulation, 15-minute ASHRAE-endorsed typical day by response factors for function (CTF) wall purpose thermal
time step transfer function daytype. Select from walls, weighting and room models, simulation. Simple
methodology several load factors for zone simultaneous load / UA building load
methodologies, system / plant models, finite element
including transfer simulation, user- thermal storage wall
function. 8760 hour selectable time step models, transfer
calculations now for loads (15-minute function single zone
available. default), variable time model and multi-zone
step for systems models
User Interface Menu-driven input Windows-based Windows based Text input file, third Text input file, DOE- Text based in put file;
system. interface interface party interfaces 2/BLAST translator. several graphical user
available Third party interfaces interfaces available
under development.
IFC to IDF translator
available
6-41
Table 6-3. Side-by-Side Comparisons of Simulation Features (continued)

FEATURES Energy-10 HAP TRACE 700 DOE-2 EnergyPlus TRNSYS
CAD Interface No No No No Yes, IFC-2.0 Yes – SimCAD
compliant. IFC to IDF environment
translator available to developed for use
import surface with TRNSYS
geometry information.
Input Pre-programmed 100 plants, 250 Unlimited rooms, Generous limits on No limits on number Multi-zone model
Flexibility building types and systems, 1200 spaces, walls, systems. Fixed number of building of building elements; limited to 25 zones,
geometry available. unlimited walls, roofs, system configurations elements; full full geometric 250 walls, 100
Detailed inputs allows windows, doors, and geometric description. description. Some windows per building
geometric schedules. Up to 50 Fixed system limits on system
specification of up to zones per system; 50 configurations configuration
10 surfaces per zone spaces per zone.
Fixed system
configurations
Output Comparison of 48 design and Comparison of Input verification Standard reports, user No preformatted
Capability various EEMs to analysis reports various alternatives reports defined reports with reports, ASCII text
reference or base case available to view or Performance graphics output files, real-time
building, annual print. Design reports summaries plotting of up to 100
energy costs, hourly provide system sizing Design day output variables
heat flow diagrams, information, check summaries
cost-effectiveness figures, component Hourly output
ranking of EEMs loads, and building
temperatures.
Simulation reports
provide hourly, daily,
monthly, and annual
performance data.
Users control the
content and format of
all graphical reports.
Energy Code No No No Yes No No

Compliance
Analysis
6-42

User Support Commercially Carrier factory Trane factory support LBNL help line, Available from Available from
available from SBIC support and training and training available commercial sources EnergyPlus University of
available development team Wisconsin and several
commercial sources
Computer PC 486 DX Pentium 65 MHz or Win95/98/NE/NT/200 DOS, Windows Win95/98/2000/NT
Requirements minimum, Pentium higher, Win95/98/NT, 0 Win95/98/ME/2000/ 95/98/ME/NT/2000
recommended, 16 MB CD ROM, 640x480 NT, 32 MB of RAM and Linux
RAM, 13 MB hard Resolution, 256 color, and 200 MB of hard
drive space, 32 MB RAM, 20 MB disk space is required
Win3.1/95/98/NT hard drive space
Skill Level Novice General knowledge of Industry knowledge Expert program. Expert Expert
Required HVAC engineering of HVAC equipment, Formal training in
principles systems and terms basic and advanced
DOE-2 use is
recommended.
Default Values Generally provided Generally provided Generally provided Generally provided Generally provided Not provided
Input Error Checks ranges Checks ranges Checks ranges Checks ranges Checks ranges No
Checking
Level of Subjected to HAP has not been TRACE has not been Subjected to Subjected to Subjected to
Validation BESTEST validation included in any of the included in any of the BESTEST validation ANSI/ASHRAE Std. BESTEST validation
procedure international international procedure 140-2001 procedure
validation exercises. validation exercises. (BESTEST), HVAC
Comparison studies Comparison studies BESTEST, and
with DOE-2.1 have with DOE-2.1 have ASHRAE 1052RP
yielded good yielded good (Analytical Building
correlation. (Lee correlation. (Lee Fabric Tests)
1999) 1999)
Usage 1300+ users, 40 Widespread Widespread Widespread New software – Research tool only –
university site throughout the throughout the throughout utility and 7000+ registered significant use as
licenses mechanical design mechanical design consulting community users in more than 90 design tool in Europe
community. community countries since April
2001 release.
6-43

Applicability See Tables See Tables See Tables See Tables See Tables With custom
to Specific components,
Studies TRNSYS can
simulate anything
Weather Data TMY format, weather TMY, TRY Typical days TMY, TRY, CTZ, Weather processor Weather data reader
Formats processor available calculated from WYEC, CD144, available to process can accept ASCII
USDCCC or NOAA 1440, 9685 formats; TMY2, IWEC, files of arbitrary
8760 datasets weather processor WYEC2, CSV, and format.
available DATSAV3 (NOAA)
formats. Also
converts text versions
of DOE-2, BLAST,
and ESP-r processed
weather.
Source Code No No No No. " Functions" Depends on license. Yes
Available allow limited
modification of
source code for
special studies.
6-44
Table 6-4. Side-by-Side Comparisons of Loads Simulation Capabilities

CAPABILITIES Energy-10 HAP TRACE DOE-2 EnergyPlus TRNSYS
Material Materials library, Basic materials part Basic materials part Materials library; Materials library; Materials library;
definition user additions of pre-defined of pre-defined user-defined materials user-defined materials user-defined materials
allowed assemblies. assemblies. accepted accepted accepted
Wall, Roof Pre-defined wall, Pre-defined wall, Library of standard Construction library, Construction library, Construction library,
Construction roof, and window roof, and window wall types, user- user-defined user-defined user-defined
assemblies; user assemblies, unlimited defined templates constructions constructions constructions
defined walls, walls, roofs and doors accepted accepted accepted
roofs, and windows
can be added.
Limit of six layers
per section; six
window types per
wall.
Libraries Extensive material Pre-defined wall, Construction type, Extensive material Extensive materials Material and
and construction roof, and window schedules, equipment and construction and construction data construction library
library, assemblies data. Templates used library, including all sets based on available to single
to create custom listings in ASHRAE ASHRAE Handbook zone model. LBNL
libraries Handbook of and other references. Window library
Fundamentals, large Glazing library with available to multi-
window library; user over 200 zone model.
additions commercially
available glazing
materials. Window 5
library
External Wall, window, and Wall, window, and Wall, window, and Full geometric Full geometric Wall, window, and
Geometry roof surface area by roof surface area by roof surface area by representation representation roof surface area by
orientation. Not orientation. Not orientation. Not possible, limited to possible. Surfaces orientation. Not
geometric geometric geometric rectilinear surfaces limited to four geometric
(trapezoidal surfaces vertices; 5+ vertex
available in DOE-2.2) surfaces allowed in
future
Internal Zoning Two-zone model Up to 50 zones per Unlimited rooms and Up to 200 zones, 512 Unlimited zones Multi-zone model
system zones interior walls limited to 25 zones
6-45
Table 6-4. Side-by-Side Comparisons of Loads Simulation Capabilities (continued)

Ground Coupling Steady-state Steady state Steady state Steady-state Transient conduction No ground model
conduction to conduction using conduction to conduction to deep to specified ground supplied
ambient using radial heat flow path specified temperature ground temperature temperature
ASHRAE f-factors to ambient. Ignored
in cooling design
calculations
Internal Gains Lights Lights Lights Lights Lights Internal gains for
Schedules People (sensible People (sensible and People (sensible and People (sensible and No. of People convection, radiation,
and latent) latent) latent) latent) Activity level and moisture can be
Plug loads Plug loads Plug loads Plug loads Air velocity defined and
Other process Work efficiency scheduled.
Clothing insulation
Electric equipment
Gas equipment
Other process loads
Solar Gains External by External by surface External by surface, External by surface; External by surface; External by surface,
surface. CNE Internal distribution is internal distribution building self-shading Option for time- time-varying internal
allows for time- calculated by transfer calculated by transfer and external shading varying internal solar distribution defined
varying distribution function function surfaces evaluated. distribution and by user
of solar gains Internal distribution is tracking of where
among zone area weighted beam radiation falls.
surfaces and air. (default) or user Building self-shading
Energy-10 directs specified. Not time- and external shading
solar gains to air or varying surfaces evaluated.
internal mass (if
defined).
Shading Fixed overhangs Overhangs, side fins, External shading by Overhangs, side fins, Optional movable Interior and exterior
and side fins reveals overhangs and drapes, building self- interior or exterior shading, overhangs
internal shading shading, other shading layer on and side fins.
options provided buildings windows; overhangs,
side fins described as
attached shading
surfaces; building
self-shading and
detached shading
surfaces evaluated
6-46

Glazing Select from library Select from library of Select from library of Select from LBNL Windows defined by Several glazing
of glazing types or glazing types or glazing types or Window library of layers. LBNL models available,
enter shading enter shading enter shading over 200 glazing Window glazing including link to
coefficient and U- coefficient and U- coefficient and U- types or enter shading library with over 200 LBNL Window
value value value coefficient and U- commercially database
value. Glazing frame available glazing
and spacer type can systems. Switchable
be specified. Custom glazings. No
glazing systems can simplified inputs
be developed using available
Window and added to
the library.
Switchable glazings.
Infiltration Constant value or Constant value, Constant value, can Weather dependent or Weather dependent or Weather dependent or
Sherman-Grimsrud defined in terms of air be scheduled constant Sherman- constant. constant.
method. changes or cfm/sf of Grimsrud method also COMIS link COMIS link
Equivalent leakage wall surface. Can be used. Can be
area (ELA) entered. scheduled scheduled
Daylighting Rectilinear surface No Rectilinear surface Rectilinear surface Rectilinear surface None provided.
model, same as model, same as DOE- model, daylight model similar to
DOE-2 2 factors evaluated for DOE-2. Anisotropic
two sky types and 20 sky model. Daylight
sky positions. factors evaluated for
four sky types and
hourly sun positions
at several days per
year
Latent Loads Moisture balance Quasi steady-state Moisture balance Moisture balance Moisture absorption / Moisture absorption /
done, no moisture moisture balance done, no moisture done, no moisture desorption from desorption from
absorption / done, no moisture absorption / absorption / building materials, building materials,
desorption modeled absorption / desorption modeled desorption modeled zone moisture balance zone moisture
desorption modeled using combined balance.
transfer function
approach, HVAC
impacts simulated
6-47

Internal Mass Internal walls and Transfer function Several options Fixed room mass Convection, radiation, Radiation, and
furniture can be room model accounts provided, including assumptions using and moisture moisture exchange
added to exterior for fixed amount of transfer function and standard weighting exchange calculated calculated at each
walls, floor, and thermal mass. time averaging Effect factors, or custom from interior massive time step.
roof. of floor mass and input of internal mass surfaces and
carpeting included characteristics. furnishings on a sub-
hourly basis. Internal
mass elements can be
separately described.
Interzone Heat Interzonal heat No No Conduction through Conduction and Conduction and
Transfer transfer through interzonal walls only. simple interzone air interzone air flow can
partitions to user Limited interzonal air flow modeled using be specified. COMIS
specified flow capability in mixing and provides more
temperature. Zones “sunspace” model. crossmixing inputs. detailed treatment of
are not interactive. COMIS provides interzonal air
more detailed movement.
treatment of
interzonal air
movement.
Comfort No No No No Yes, models include Not provided, but can
Analysis MRT, Fanger, Pierce, be calculated with
and KSU. user-supplied
component model
Indoor Air No – temperature No No No No COMIS provides
Quality and humidity only, contaminant tracking
no pollutant and migration
concentration calculations
calculations
6-48

Natural Future release No No Natural ventilation COMIS calculates User-supplied
Ventilation simulated for wind and stack driven component model can
residential systems air flow and be used to implement
only interzonal air flow various natural
ventilation
procedures. COMIS
calculates wind and
stack driven air flow
and interzonal air
flow
Displacement No No Not directly, but a No No Not provided, but
Ventilation portion of the solar user-supplied module
loads can be directed can be developed.
to return air
Capacity No. All systems No No No Yes Yes
Feedback from auto-sized by
Systems Module program.
Special Features Passive solar, Atria/sunspace Sub-hour ly time
daylighting, Passive solar features steps, simultaneous
shading, glazing, Switchable glazing loads/HVAC
energy-efficient calculation, combined
lighting, insulation, heat and mass flow,
air leakage control, movable window
thermal mass shading devices,
daylighting,
atria/sunspace,
passive solar features,
and switchable
glazing
6-49
Table 6-5. Side-by-Side Comparisons of Systems Simulation Capabilities

System Types Air source heat Packaged rooftop DX, Computer room unit Terminal reheat Components include: Component models
pump with electric packaged vertical DX, Fan coil Single zone Fans available for solar
resistance backup Split DX, PTAC Constant volume Coils (hot water, energy systems,
Baseboard electric CV single zone, Single zone unit (CV) chilled water, and cooling coils, fans,
heat CV reheat, Terminal reheat Variable volume DX) pumps, and simple
DX cooling with Multi-zone, Water source heat (VAV) Humidifiers heating and cooling
electric furnace Bypass Multi-zone, pump Multi-zone, dual duct, Desiccant systems. Dual source
DX cooling with Dual Duct CAV, Unit ventilator dual duct VAV dehumidifier heat pump.
gas furnace Tempering Radiant heating Two pipe induction Evaporative coolers Additional
Gas-fired unit ventilation, Bypass multi-zone Four pipe induction Terminal units: VAV components available
heater 4 pipe induction units, Double duct Packaged terminal air reheat, parallel and from commercial
Heating/ventilating VAV reheat, series Multi-zone conditioners series fan powered sources, including
unit with electric fan powered mixing Rooftop multi-zone Ceiling bypass mixing boxes, dual floor panel heating,
furnace boxes, parallel fan Terminal air blender systems duct constant and seasonal storage,
Heating/ventilating powered mixing box, Bypass VAV Subzone reheat VAV terminal boxes swimming pools,
unit with gas boiler One-fan and two-fan Double duct VAV DX packaged single Fan coil units geothermal heat
Heating/ventilating dual duct VAV, Fan powered VAV zone, multi-zone, Full system templates pumps. Freeware
unit with gas VVT systems, Terminal air blender VAV, VVT provided for: models include
furnace packaged DX fan VAV Two pipe fan coil Dual duct CAV and ASHRAE secondary
PTAC with electric coils, Two fan double duct Four pipe fan coil VAV systems toolkit, desiccants.
resistance heat Split DX fan coils, VAV Unit heater, unit Single duct CAV,
PTAC with electric Water source heat VAV reheat ventilator, heat and VAV systems
resistance pumps, 4 pipe induction vent. system Furnace; heat only or
baseboard heat 2 pipe fan coil 4 pipe 2 pipe induction Hydronic heat pump heat/cool, Unitary
PTAC with gas fan coil Residential, system; heat only or
boiler and heating residential multi-zone heat/cool, including
coil Packaged gas heat pump
PTHP with regenerated desiccant High temperature
resistance backup radiant heating/
cooling
Unit heater and unit
ventilator
Low temp radiant
heating/ cooling
Window AC
Ground source heat
pump
Water loop heat pump
6-50
Table 6-5. Side-by-Side Comparisons of Systems Simulation Capabilities (continued)

Component Performance Capacity and Capacity and Capacity and Detailed component Simple component
Definitions characteristics efficiency at rated efficiency at rated efficiency at rated models require models require
internal to program conditions input Off conditions input Off conditions input detailed data. Simple capacity, efficiency
design operating design operating Default operating models require and part-load
characteristics characteristics characteristics for off- definition of rated performance data.
modeled after Carrier modeled after Trane design performance capacity and Detailed models
equipment. equipment. Custom provided. Custom efficiency, and require detailed data.
performance data performance data specification of off- User-supplied
accepted. accepted design performance components can
characteristics. model most anything
Economizer Outside air Outside air Outside air Outside air Outside air None provided, but
Cycle temperature temperature temperature temperature temperature can be configured
Outside air Outside air enthalpy Outside air enthalpy Outside air enthalpy Outside air enthalpy using system objects
enthalpy (fan, damper,
controller)
Control Actions Thermostat Thermostat setback, Thermostat setback, Thermostat setback, Components can be User-supplied
setback, fan fan scheduling, fan scheduling, fan scheduling, configured to provide component models
scheduling, supply temperature optimum fan start / optimum fan start, most common control can be used to
optimum fan start, reset control. stop, supply supply temperature actions, such as simulate almost
supply temperature temperature reset reset control. thermostat setback, anything.
reset control. control, night purge, fan scheduling, and
duty cycling supply temperature
reset control.
Automatic Sizing Available Available Available Available Available No
Capacity No. Equipment is No No No, but equipment Yes Yes
Feedback to all autosized. capacity effects on
Loads Module space temperature
calculated in Systems
Capacity No. Plants not No No No Yes Yes
Feedback from simulated.
Plants Module
6-51
Table 6-5. Side-by-Side Comparisons of Systems Simulation Capabilities (continued)

Special Features High efficiency Ventilation air heat Heat recovery Heat recovery Flat plate exhaust air
HVAC reclaim Evaporative cooling Evaporative cooling heat recovery
HVAC controls Active humidification Optimum fan start Optimum fan start Active humidification
Duct leakage and dehumidification Active humidification Gas heat pumps and dehumidification,
Preheat and precool and dehumidification Refrigeration systems Variable flow
coils Duct losses Variable flow primary/secondary
Duct leakage primary/secondary pumping loops
pumping loops
Active humidification
and dehumidification
Duct losses
6-52
Table 6-6. Side-by-Side Comparisons of Plant Simulation Capabilities

Plant Types Boilers Boilers Boilers: Fuel or Absorption chiller Absorption chiller,
Chillers Chillers electric; water or Electric chiller cooling tower models
Cooling tower steam Engine-driven chiller provided. User-
Thermal Storage: Hot Chillers: Many Gas turbine chiller supplied components
or cold (including ice available, including Boiler can simulate most
storage) absorption and engine Cooling tower anything. Additional
Cogeneration driven Electric generators: models available from
Cooling tower reciprocating and gas commercial sources
Thermal storage: hot turbine include ice storage,
or cold (including ice Water heaters gas engine heat pump,
storage) and condensing
Cogeneration boiler. Freeware
Water heaters modules include
ASHRAE Primary
toolkit models,
turbines and
generators.
Component Modeled after Carrier Modeled after Trane Measured Detailed component Detailed input data
Definitions equipment, basic equipment, capacity performance data models require required
capacity and and efficiency data accepted detailed data. Simple
efficiency data input input models require
definition of rated
capacity and
efficiency, and
specification of off-
design performance
characteristics.
Automatic Sizing Available Available Available No No
Capacity No No No Yes Yes
Feedback to
Systems Module
Special Features Chilled water reset Ice storage
Evap pre cooled Cogeneration
condenser Load management
Free cooling (water
side economizer)
Cool storage
CW reset control
Double bundle chiller
Cogeneration
6-53
Table 6-7. Side-by-Side Comparisons of Economics Simulation Capabilities

General Annual average kW Costs can be Full comparative LCC 10 blocks, seasonal No economic No economics
and kWh charge; computed using analysis, including and time-of-use kWh calculations modeled
annual average fuel complex utility rates. return on investment, and kW charge, performed
charge. Avoided cash flow, and demand ratchet.
pollution benefits profit/loss impacts Block fuel rates.
Comparative LCC LCC analysis, non-
comparative.
6-54
7 TOOL CAPABILITIES
The capabilities of selected design tools relative to the needs of designers are described in this
chapter. The discussion focuses on capabilities provided by the six whole building simulation
tools studied in the previous chapter, with references to other tools as appropriate. The
capability categories were selected from the desired features and research priorities identified
during the market research phase of the study.
The following table provides a quick comparison of the relative capability of each of the six
whole-building simulation tools to address specific building design and analysis topics:
Table 7-1. Comparison of Simulation Program Capabilities

Energy- HAP Trace DOE-2 Energy TRNSYS
10 Plus
Simplified Inputs ● ❍
CAD Interface ❍ ● ●
Interoperability ●
Lighting Design ❍ ❍
Daylighting ● ● ● ●
High Performance Glass ❍ ❍ ❍ ● ● ❍
Ventilated Façade
Exterior Shading ❍ ❍ ❍ ● ● ❍
“Cool” Roofs ❍ ❍ ❍ ● ● ●
Ground Coupling ❍ ● ❍ ❍ ● ❍
Natural Ventilation ● ●
Moisture Adsorption ● ❍
Passive Solar Heat ❍ ❍ ❍ ● ● ●
Transpired Solar Walls
Photovoltaics ● ●
Thermal Comfort ❍ ● ●
Radiant Cool / Heat ● ❍
Displacement Ventilation
IAQ ❍ ●
Desiccant Dehumidification ● ● ●
Duct Leakage ● ❍ ❍ ● ●
Heat Recovery Systems ❍ ❍ ● ●
Economizers/Advanced Control ❍ ❍ ❍ ● ● ❍
Improved Unitary Equipment ❍ ❍ ● ● ●
VVT Systems ● ❍
VS Pumping ❍ ❍ ● ●
Cooling Towers / Fluid Coolers ❍ ❍ ● ● ❍
100% OA / Dual Path Systems ● ❍
Combined Systems ❍ ❍ ●
Refrigeration ●
System Sizing ❍ ● ● ● ●
Code Compliance ●
Note: ● indicates robust capability
❍ indicates partial capability
blank indicates issue not addressed by program
7-1
7.1 Simplified Tools For Use During Concept Design
Many key design decisions are made during the conceptual design stage of a project, when little
is know about the precise geometric form of the building. Simplified modeling tools that can
easily evaluate a series of popular energy conservation measures. can be very useful to guide
decision-making during conceptual design.
• Energy-10 has an autobuild feature, which creates a prototypical shoe-box model of the
building, and creates default values for building operation parameters based on the building
type. A series of energy-efficiency strategies are automatically evaluated: daylighting,
improved glazing, shading, insulation, HVAC controls, thermal mass, efficient lighting,
passive solar heating, high efficiency HVAC, economizer cycle, air leakage control, and
reduced duct leakage. The measures are ranked according to energy savings or cost savings.
• eQUEST is a simplified user interface for the DOE-2.2 simulation engine. This tool is
designed to allow detailed analysis without requiring extensive experience in DOE-2
modeling. This is accomplished by combining a building creation wizard, an energy
efficiency measure (EEM) wizard, and a graphical results display module front end to the full
DOE-2.2 program. The eQUEST wizard requires a greatly reduced set of input data from the
user to describe a building. The remaining building inputs are developed from the
experience of simulation experts and included as default data in the tool. At a minimum,
building type, location, floor area, number of floors, cooling system type, and heating system
type are defined. Additional detail, addressing building footprint, general construction type,
windows, internal load densities, schedules, and HVAC system information can be supplied
if desired. The EEM wizard automatically evaluates wall and roof insulation, high
performance glass, exterior shading, daylighting, skylighting, energy-efficient electric
lighting and office equipment, cooling system efficiency and controls, distribution system
efficiency and controls and energy-efficient water heating.
• The EDR Charette is web-based software intended for use by architectural designers that
combines a simplified input scheme to the DOE-2.1E program. The user logs onto a web site
(www.energydesignresources.com), and fills out a few simple inputs into a web-based front-
end program. The program takes these data, and starts a DOE-2 simulation of the building.
Once the simulation is complete, the results are sent to the user and displayed on the web
browser. The EDR Charette can be used to investigate the impacts of building shape,
window type and area, overhangs, roof color, trees, skylights, building mass, wall insulation
levels, interior shading, roof insulation, lighting efficiency, lighting controls, and HVAC
system type (packaged gas / electric, packaged heat pump,and central plant)
• VisualDOE provides templates to speed entry of a prototypical building. The program also
allows the user to define a series of alternatives and do a comparative analysis. The process
is not as automated as Energy-10 or eQUEST, but offers more flexibility.
7-2
7.2 CAD Interface
Interfaces with existing computer aided design (CAD) programs can speed data input into
simulation programs, since much of the data needed to define the simulation is already imbedded
in the CAD files. The following programs offer some level of CAD integration:
• EnergyPlus has a translator program that converts building geometry from CAD files
compatible with industry foundation class (IFC) data structures. At this point, the translator
addresses building geometry only, and does not address HVAC equipment, lighting, and
electrical equipment.
• eQUEST has a facility to import .dwg files into the program to use as a “background” for
geometric input. The CAD files are “traced” using a drawing tool, and the geometric
information is translated into the DOE-2.2 input language.
• SimCAD is a European CAD program available that automatically creates TRNSYS input
files for the TYPE 56 multi-zone building component. An input file can be created in the
SimCAD environment, or .dxf files can be imported into the program to use as the basis for
defining building geometry.
• CADLink Energy is a simple energy analysis tool from the UK that is closely coupled to
ArchiCAD, one of the most object-oriented CAD environments. While the energy
calculations are rather simple, it provides a good indication of how closely energy analysis
tools can be coupled into CAD environments. Other European software companies such as
Integrated Environmental Solutions (www.ies4.com) closely couple their energy analysis
tools with their own proprietary CAD and data base management tools as well as other
common CAD environments such as AutoCAD.
• VisualDOE can import CAD files in a .dxf format to represent the floor plan and zoning of
the model. In this process, the CAD program is used as an extension of the user interface.
The rules for importing the CAD drawings, in terms of layers and space geometry, are fairly
specific to energy modeling; thus production CAD drawings are generally not appropriate for
direct import into VisualDOE.
7.3 Electric Lighting Design
Lighting design calculations are generally not done within the context of whole building
simulation programs. For lighting energy calculations, most programs accept a lighting power
density (W/sf) value calculated elsewhere. However, EnergyPlus and eQUEST have lighting
fixture libraries that can be used to calculate lighting power based on fixture type and count.
Both programs plan to add simple illuminance calculations in the future. These calculations are
a natural extension of the illuminance calculations done for daylighting analysis.
Lighting design is an area with many excellent software tools. Connecting these tools to an
energy simulation program via interoperability may be more effective than adding the capability
to an existing energy simulation program.
7-3
7.4 Daylighting
The daylighting calculation procedure developed by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory for the
DOE-2.1 program is also used by DOE-2.2, Energy-10, TRACE, and EnergyPlus. This
procedure is limited to simple geometries without internal partitions where the room depth is less
than three times the ceiling height. The procedure is suitable for evaluating simple sidelighting
and skylighting designs; light shelves, ceiling baffles, and optical (specular) daylighting systems
are not covered. Daylight factors for each window are calculated for 20 sun positions and two
sky conditions (clear and overcast), creating a matrix of daylight factors covering the range of
sun and sky conditions throughout the year. Hourly interior illuminance is calculated from the
hourly exterior illuminance and an interpolation of the daylight factor matrix according to the
hourly sun position and cloud cover. The EnergyPlus program features an improved sky model
with daylight resource calculations for four sky types, and calculation of daylight factors at
hourly sun positions on several sun paths throughout the year for the location in question. In all
programs, electric lighting savings are calculated by simulating the action of electric lighting
controls (stepped control or continuous dimming) in response to the simulated daylight
illuminance levels.
7.5 High-Performance Glass
All of the programs examined in this chapter accept basic glazing performance data, such as
shading coefficient and conductance (U-value). These parameters can be obtained from glazing
system manufacturers, or calculated by the LBNL Window program under a set of standard
conditions. Several programs provide direct links to the Window database, allowing direct
specification of high-performance glass features and hourly window performance calculations.
DOE-2.1 incorporates the Window glazing system library, providing direct access to hundreds of
commercial glazing systems through the input of a simple glazing type code. DOE-2.2 includes
specification of glazing systems by layer, allowing the simulation of embedded window blind
systems. EnergyPlus also accepts glazing specification by layer, allowing the simulation of
high-performance glazing systems of arbitrary design. EnergyPlus accepts a window properties
data file for window systems (glazing, frame and divider) analyzed in WINDOW 5.
7.6 Ventilated Façade
Ventilated facades refer to ventilated glazing systems that can be used to reduce summer cooling
loads or provide supplemental heat during winter. Certain configurations of ventilated glazing
systems can be simulated as sunspaces in the DOE-2 and EnergyPlus programs, though the
HVAC interface and related control options available are limited. There are plans to incorporate
specific models for these systems in EnergyPlus. TRNSYS has the capability to simulate these
systems through user-developed custom routines.
7-4
7.7 Exterior Shading
All of the programs examined in this chapter have the ability to simulate the effect of simple
architectural features designed to provide window shading, such as overhangs and side fins.
Only DOE-2 and EnergyPlus allow full geometric specification of the building surfaces,
allowing the evaluation of building self-shading and shading from detached exterior surfaces,
such as adjacent buildings or landforms. Both DOE-2 and EnergyPlus automatically calculate
shading of diffuse solar from anisotropic skies as well as shading of beam solar radiation.
7.8 “Cool” Roofs
Cool roofs are high reflectivity, high emissivity roofing materials designed to reduce cooling
loads resulting from absorbed solar radiation on roof surfaces. Cool roofs function by reflecting
solar gains and improving radiation heat transfer from the roof surface to the sky. Simulation of
the impacts of cool roofs requires the specification of the roof absorptivity and emissivity, a
reasonable sky thermal radiation model, and modeling of the impacts of roof heat gains on space
and HVAC loads. Roof plenums need to have the insulation levels and locations specified, and
model plenum heat gains to HVAC supply and return systems properly.
Energy-10, HAP, and TRACE allow the specification of roof absorptivity, but not emissivity.
No duct interactions are modeled. DOE-2, EnergyPlus, and TRNSYS allow specification of roof
absorptivity and emissivity. The simulations can be configured to account for plenum
interactions with cool roofs. DOE-2.2 considers supply duct interactions with plenums.
TRNSYS can be configured to consider these interactions through user-supplied component
models.
7.9 Ground Coupling
Most programs implement a one-dimensional ground heat transfer model, using a steady state
heat flow to a monthly average deep ground temperature. HAP currently uses a more detailed
one-dimensional algorithm, one that updates ground temperature on an hourly basis using the
radial heat flow path method described in the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. Simplified
models can over-predict heating and under-predict cooling in small buildings, especially single
story buildings built on a slab. EnergyPlus has a three-dimensional finite difference calculation
of ground heat flow for slab and basement configurations.
7.10 Thermal Comfort
TRNSYS and EnergyPlus have the ability to calculate the “predicted mean vote” using Fanger
and two-node Pierce comfort model. EnergyPlus also had the KSU two-node model for
estimating thermal comfort. The comfort calculations require room air temperature and relative
humidity, along with an explicit calculation of room surface temperatures so that radiative
asymmetry and effective operating temperature can be evaluated. Programs using the transfer
function room model do not calculate interior surface temperatures and are therefore limited in
their ability to perform comfort analysis that considers more than just air temperature and
relative humidity.
7-5
7.11 Radiant Cooling and Heating
EnergyPlus and TRNSYS are designed to model radiant heating and cooling systems.
EnergyPlus and TYPE 56 multi-zone building component in TRNSYS has the capability to
model an “active” building surface layer, through which hot or cold fluids can be circulated to
simulate radiant heating and/or cooling systems. Since the evaluation of radiant heating and
cooling systems requires the evaluation of space surface temperatures, only TRNSYS and
EnergyPlus have the ability to simulate this system.
7.12 Improved Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
Improved unitary equipment includes equipment with higher-efficiency, improved

dehumidification characteristics, reduced fan power, and better part-load efficiency. Customized
system performance maps must be developed for these products and integrated into the systems
programs of whole building design tools to properly evaluate their benefits. DOE-2, and
TRACE allow the incorporation of equipment-specific performance curves. The form of the
performance curves used in each program should be compared to the important variables for
modeling improved equipment performance to ensure the performance is adequately represented.
For example, DX system efficiency in TRACE is modeled as a function of outdoor temperature
only, while the DOE-2 equipment performance curves consider outdoor temperature and entering
dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures. Improved equipment performance that is strongly
dependent on these driving forces should be modeled in a program that provides this
functionality.
Detail component level modules available in EnergyPlus may be capable of analyzing the
impacts of some of improved equipment directly. New systems modules representing improved
equipment performance can be integrated into the TRNSYS structure. Energy-10 does not
accept user-defined equipment performance curves, and will require customization to evaluate
new, high-performance equipment.
7.13 Desiccant Dehumidification
The key to simulating desiccant technologies is to have flexibility in the air path and control
configurations, accurate cooling coil models that predict the variation of latent capacity with
entering conditions, accurate moisture building models to predict the impact of moisture
“capacitance” on hourly space humidity variations, and good desiccant component models.
Desiccant dehumidification system models are provided in DOE-2.1, though they are generally
out of date and not flexible enough to accurately represent current technologies. GRI developed
DesiCalc, which includes updated desiccant system models added to DOE-2 as both user-defined
functions and updated performance curves. Some desiccant equipment models from DesiCalc
have also been included in the first release of EnergyPlus. In addition, the control and air path
flexibility of EnergyPlus and its use of moisture transfer functions in the room model make it a
good choice for properly predicting space humidity and the loads imposed on these systems.
Desiccant system component models for TRNSYS are available as freeware from the University
7-6
of Wisconsin Solar Energy Lab (though these models are dated as well). Users often develop
TRNSYS component models of their own desiccant systems.
7.14 Duct Leakage and Losses
Duct leakage calculations are done by all six programs at some level. In Energy-10, supply duct
leakage can be directed to outdoors or the return plenum; conduction losses are all to the
outdoors. Return duct leakage and conduction are all to the outdoors. Leakage is expressed as a
percent of design air flow; conduction is expressed as a percent of the temperature difference
between duct air temperature and ambient temperature. In HAP, duct losses are expresses as a
percent of total flow rate, and assumed to leak back into the return air stream. Return conduction
losses to ambient are only possible for non-ducted return plenums. In TRACE, a supply duct
temperature rise can be specified, but the losses are assumed to go to the outdoors, and are lost
from the model.
DOE-2.1 calculates distribution losses as a function of the total system capacity. This value is
held constant throughout the simulation. The energy gain or loss from the duct system is not
added or subtracted from any zone, and is therefore “lost.” Supply side losses only are
considered. DOE-2.2 allows the specification of a duct air loss and a duct conductance. Duct
losses / gains are added to a plenum or zone containing the ducts, affecting the duct zone
temperature and magnitude of the duct losses. Duct losses to the plenum affect the return air
temperature in plenum return systems. The duct loss calculations are applied to the supply duct
only.
EnergyGauge, a residential building simulation tool from the Florida Solar Energy Center
(FSEC) based on DOE-2.1E, has incorporated supply and return duct leakage models (as user-
defined functions). This tool accurately accounts for the hourly interactions between return and
supply ducts and unconditioned spaces such as attics. Cyclic unit operation as well as return and
supply leaks are considered.
Duct losses are not currently modeled in EnergyPlus or TRNSYS, though the modular nature of
these tools is amenable to the consideration of duct losses. User-supplied component models can
be easily used to add this capability to TRNSYS. The air-loop concept in EnergyPlus and the
integration of COMIS can also accommodate future duct leakage models. Both of these tools
have the potential to model pressure-induced return air leaks that pull in ambient or plenum air
when a fan system operates.
7.15 Heat Recovery Systems
HAP and TRACE simulate sensible and latent heat recovery using a constant effectiveness
model with a single effectiveness value for sensible and latent heat recovery. DOE-2.1 simulates
sensible heating and cooling recovery, and accounts for the energy consumption of the heat
recovery systems. FSEC and CDH Energy have also recently developed user-defined functions
for DOE-2.1E to accurately model enthalpy-based heat recovery in schools and their impact on
space humidity levels for the U. S. Environment Protection Agency’s Improved Humidity
Analysis Tool (IHAT) screening tool. DOE-2.2 also simulates sensible heating and cooling
7-7
recovery, and accounts for the energy consumption of the heat recovery systems. An enthalpy
wheel model is under development.
EnergyPlus contains a flat-plate airside heat recovery model (UA based) where the flow
arrangement (counter flow, cross flow), electric input power, and primary / secondary heat
transfer coefficient ratio are input. The air loops concept in EnergyPlus makes it easier to model
complex systems of heat exchangers and other components. Control modules are available to
simulate a variety of related control options. TRNSYS has an assortment of heat exchanger
models that can be combined to simulate heat recovery schemes of arbitrary configuration.
EnergyPlus also has provisions for water-side heat recovery that are very similar to TRNSYS.
For example, a water-side heat recovery loop can take waste heat from a source (e.g., an engine
jacket) and use the heat for water or space heating. DOE-2 electric generation equipment in the
Plant program can simulate heat recovery from the engine jacket and exhaust stack to a single
heating loop. Future versions of DOE-2.2 will simulate heat recovery between various water
loop configurations.
7.16 Economizer Controls
All the tools can simulate a variety of air-side economizer types, including control based on
ambient temperature or enthalpy. In most tools “integrated” operation is a possible option
(where the economizer operates a first stage of cooling in conjunction with the compressor).
Differential control is the default option for all packages except Energy-10. Most software
programs include options to lockout economizers based on outdoor temperatures.
7.17 VVT Systems
Variable Volume and Temperature (VVT) systems allow some level of zoning by combining a
packaged unit with individual dampers and controls for each zone. The concept has been
promoted by packaged rooftop manufacturers, such as Carrier, as a lower cost option to VAV
systems. The concept uses a constant volume rooftop with multiple zone dampers. If a zone
requires cooling, the damper opens and the rooftop compressors are staged on. A bypass damper
allows supply air to bypass to the return side of the unit when loads are low.
HAP and DOE-2 include VVT systems as a standard system type. TRNSYS and EnergyPlus can
be configured to simulate VVT systems. Energy-10, which mainly handles simpler packaged
systems, does not consider this option. TRACE only includes a variable temperature, constant
volume option, which does not simulate variable zone air flow.
7.18 Variable Speed Pumping
Variable speed pumping systems for chilled water, water loop heat pump, and condenser loop
systems can offer tremendous energy savings. Most of the tools can consider variable speed
pumping systems in some form. DOE-2.1, HAP, and TRACE use simple empirical part load
correlations that predict how pumping power varies with flow. DOE-2.2 allows for more
rigorous treatment of water loops both in terms of pressure-controlled pumping systems and the
7-8
impact that lower flow rates have on thermal performance. DOE-2.2 can consider a mixture of
two- and three-way valves on coils and other system loads. Differential pressure reset systems
can also be considered.
EnergyPlus currently includes empirical correlations for pump energy use as a function of flow,
similar to the other programs. Simple actuator models modulate the amount of flow through
individual coils or other loads. Distinctions between two-way and three-way valves, and their
impact on flow rates, are not included in Version 1. In future versions of EnergyPlus, pressure
will also be tracked as a loop variable, allowing for more rigorous treatment of pressure-
controlled variable speed systems.
TRNSYS has the potential to fully consider detailed pump, system, and control effects through
the development of user-defined components. Energy-10 does not consider either chilled water
or condenser water loop systems.
7.19 Cooling Towers / Fluid Coolers
All tools except Energy-10 include models for cooling towers, fluid coolers, and other types of
heat rejection equipment for water-cooled chillers. Nearly all can consider variable or two-speed
operation of the tower fans. TRACE, HAP, and DOE-2 all include cooling tower models based
on empirical correlations. EnergyPlus and TRNSYS both include detailed cooling tower models
using Merkel’s theory from the ASHRAE Primary toolkit. EnergyPlus and TRNSYS also
include fluid cooler models based on NTU-effectiveness calculations that are more physically
realistic than purely empirical models used in the other programs.
7.20 100% Makeup Air / Dual Path Systems
Makeup air units and dual path systems offer the ability to remove more moisture from
ventilation air by pre-treating the fresh air stream before mixing it with the main cooling system.
Pretreatment offers the psychrometric advantage of removing more moisture from humid
outdoor air by overcooling it. In dual path systems, the ventilation pretreatment coil and main
cooling system are combined into a single packaged unit with a single fan. The dual path
concept allows the ventilation air stream to be substantially over-cooled (to 40-45° F) and then
diluted with “warmer” return air to provide an acceptable supply air temperatures.
Ventilation pretreatment can be modeled in DOE-2, though air path configuration and control
options – which are key to the concept – cannot be precisely considered. The psychrometrically-
weak empirical coil models available in DOE-2 also limit the ability to consider this concept.
HAP and TRACE can both consider a ventilation pre-cooling DX or chilled water coil (placed
before the air mixing point) to pre-treat ventilation air. However, both these tools have similar
problems with empirical models that would have difficulty predicting off-design coil
performance (though, the bypass factor-based model of the chilled water coil in HAP would be
expected to be more accurate). There is also limited ability to control the components.
7-9
The flexibility in air path configuration, physically accurate cooling coil models, and control
flexibility of both EnergyPlus and TRNSYS allow this concept to be properly considered. SST,
a supermarket-specific building simulation tool from EPRI, is the only other tool to accurately
model this concept.
7.21 Air Balance / Transfer Air
Often ventilation air is introduced in one zone of a building and exhausted in another. The air
moving between the zones is called transfer air. Example applications include restaurants,
supermarkets, and laboratory facilities. Most building simulation tools can not consider this
type of configuration. DOE-2.1 can only consider zone-to-zone air flows when one of the zones
is modeled as a sunspace, and is often too limited for many applications. Historically, BLAST
was the only building simulation tool to generally consider air movement between zones. HAP,
TRACE, and Energy-10 cannot consider interzonal air flows.
EnergyPlus now includes provisions for interzonal air flows through either a simple flow model
or using the pressure-induced network flow model of COMIS. For the simple flow model, the
zone-to-zone air flow rates are specified as constant values that can be scheduled to correspond
to fan operation. The COMIS approach allows for wind, thermal, and mechanical interactions to
be fully considered. Version 1 of EnergyPlus does not fully implement pressure-induced flows
from mechanical equipment.
7.22 System Sizing
Most programs provide some level of automatic system sizing capability. DOE-2, TRACE, and
Energy-10 use the single point design conditions from ASHRAE to size HVAC equipment.
HAP and EnergyPlus use a 24-hour design day weather data sequence to size systems. These
tools essentially use the same calculation procedures for energy analysis and design day sizing.
TRNSYS is strictly a simulation tool and does not do automatic equipment sizing calculations.
7.23 Indoor Air Quality and Pollutant Tracking
Both TRNSYS and EnergyPlus currently have a link to the COMIS multi-zone infiltration
program, which models air flow in buildings. The developers of COMIS have future plans for an
improved version, which will include enhanced pollutant transport calculations similar to
CONTAM-W, the contaminant and multi-zone air flow model from the National Institute for
Standards and Technology (NIST). TRNSYS is currently being linked to CONTAM-W.
Another IAQ-related issue is applying the multi-space calculations of ASHRAE Standard 62 in

large buildings. TRACE currently has “critical zone” ventilation calculations from Standard 62.
The developers of HAP plan to add the same capability in the future.
7-10
7.24 Moisture Absorption / Desorption and Mold Formation
Most simulation models do not consider moisture transport and storage in building materials and
its impact on the timing of hourly space humidity levels. For instance DOE-2 simply calculates
a steady-state moisture balance for each hour (with no information from previous hours) to find
the instantaneous space humidity. Other programs such as TRNSYS include a moisture
capacitance term to account for effects of moisture storage in the zone air (and building
furnishings). The Florida Solar Energy Center developed a specialized research tool (FSEC
3.0) that considers the coupled solution of moisture absorption / desorption and heat transfer
(Kerestecioglu et al 1989). They also developed a computationally simpler Effective Mean
Penetration Depth (EMPD) model that is implemented in TRNSYS and EnergyPlus. More
recently, Liesen and Pedersen (1999) developed the simpler and a more accurate Moisture
Transfer Function (MTF) that reformulates the coupled heat and mass transfer equations into a
single transfer function solution.
EnergyPlus addresses moisture absorption / desorption in building materials by either

implementing the user selecting the MTF or the EMPD approach as the moisture solution
technique for the simulation. EnergyPlus has included moisture transfer algorithms along with
default moisture transfer properties for several common materials. The MTF approach in
EnergyPlus is able to predict when condensation occurs on wall/roof/floor surfaces, which is a
primary risk factor for mold formation. The MTF approach will not allow condensing conditions
inside the wall/roof/floor assembly to be tracked at each material layer.
7.25 Displacement Ventilation
Displacement ventilation relies on temperature and pollutant stratification in large spaces to

maintain desirable conditions in the “breathing zone” located near the floor level. A low flow
system typically introduces conditioned ventilation air near the floor and exhausts air up high in
the space. This system is widely applied in Europe and works best in applications with moderate
cooling loads.
Future plans to incorporate displacement ventilation systems were reported by the developers of
eQUEST / DOE-2.2, EnergyPlus, and HAP. Each of these programs uses a fully mixed zone
model, but will incorporate adjustments to account for stratification inherent in displacement
ventilation systems. TRNSYS plans to add a multi-node zone model capable of modeling room
stratification in the future (building on the stratified water tank models they have developed for
solar heating systems).
7.26 Demand-Controlled Ventilation
Few tools can accurately model this important system, even though all that is required is a simple
zone mass balance to track CO2 (similar to the simple steady-state moisture model used in most
programs without any storage in building materials) and controls to modulate the fresh air
volume to maintain that setpoint. Simple contaminant source models are required for each
7-11
occupant (just as for moisture) and outdoor conditions must be assumed constant (e.g., 350 ppm)
or optionally taken from a “weather” file.
HAP offers the ability to model CO2 sensors without a mass balance by assuming that ventilation
is maintained at a specified rate (cfm/person) multiplied by the hourly occupancy rate. SST, the
supermarket specific building model, also has this capability.
The embedded COMIS features in EnergyPlus can in theory control ventilation rates based on
“pollutants” such as occupant generated CO2. However, these features have not been enabled in
version 1 of the program. When these pollutant tracking features of COMIS are enabled,
simulation of demand-controlled ventilation should be possible with EnergyPlus.
7.27 Refrigeration System Design
Supermarkets, convenience stores, and refrigerated warehouses are examples of buildings where
refrigeration loads represent a significant portion of total energy use. Most of the mainstream
building simulation models cannot consider these systems. DOE-2 includes rudimentary models
of refrigeration systems that account for the cooling impact that the display cases have on the
sales area. The models also account for the variation of compressor energy use with ambient
temperature via simple empirical curves. A special version of DOE-2 (version 2.3) is being
developed that extends the circulation loop concept of DOE-2.2 to consider refrigeration
systems. In a refrigeration loop, the temperature, pressure, and other properties are tracked
around the loop. New components such as compressors, expansion devices, evaporators,
condensers, sub-coolers, display cases, and other components have also been added. This tool
can consider the full details of refrigeration system and display case operation as well as its
interactions with the building and HVAC systems on an hour-by-hour basis.
SST from EPRI is another whole building energy analysis tool that integrates detailed
refrigeration system models with building and HVAC models. This Windows-based hourly
building simulation model is aimed at supermarket applications. The building load calculations
are based on the simplified ASHRAE total equivalent temperature difference with time
averaging (TETD/TA) method and can only handle the simple “big box” geometry typical of
supermarkets. However, SST does properly consider the humidity-dependent interactions
between the display cases and HVAC equipment. It considers the performance of enhanced
dehumidification technologies used in supermarkets such as dual path systems. It also considers
supermarket technologies such as integrated refrigeration / HVAC water loop systems and
refrigeration heat reclaim for space heating.
7.28 Passive Solar Heat
All programs handle the effect of solar heat gains through windows on building heating load.
DOE-2, EnergyPlus, and TRNSYS have special capabilities to simulate Trombe walls and
sunspaces. Energy-10 has plans to incorporate Trombe walls and sunspaces in the next release
of the software. TRNSAIR is special version of TRNSYS that was developed by
TRANSSOLAR in Germany (www.transsolar.de ). It combines the TRNSYS calculation engine
with user interface to simulate passive solar energy systems in buildings. It was developed as
7-12
part of Task 19 of the IEA’s Solar Heating and Cooling Program. EnergyPlus has an option to
track where beam solar radiation falls inside the space each time step, which is important for
cases where it is important to know the amount of solar absorbed by thermal mass.
7.29 Natural and Mixed Mode Ventilation
DOE-2 uses several calculation options for natural ventilation, including the Sherman-Grimsrud
method for calculating wind and stack driven infiltration and natural ventilation. This method is
applicable to individual zones, but does not consider interzonal ventilation flow or the influence
of wind direction on natural ventilation flow rates. Energy-10 will include natural ventilation
modeling in version 2.0. The COMIS model was developed specifically to model multi-zone
infiltration and ventilation (but does not consider heat transfer through the building envelope).
This model is currently linked to the TRNSYS programas well as to EnergyPlus. HAP and
TRACE can model the effects of natural ventilation as a scheduled air flow or as a “system”
without heating or cooling. The natural ventilation air flows are taken as a constant, without any
wind or temperature dependency.
7.30 Photovoltaics
The TRNSYS program includes a number of routines for calculating the performance of
photovoltaic systems. The routines have been added to the EnergyPlus; they will be added to
Energy-10 in the future. The standard TRNSYS model assumes a “stand-alone” system, and
therefore does not address the thermal interaction between the PV cells and the building
materials (though because of TRNSYS’s modular nature, the routines could be modified). The
developer of eQUEST and DOE-2.2 plans to include photovotaics in a library of “distributed
generation” energy sources in the future.
Several PV design tools were identified in the tool survey presented in chapter 3. While these
tools accurately predict the hour-by-hour electrical performance systems of solar arrays,
batteries, and controller, they are usually not integrated with building simulation tools that
predict the building loads.
7.31 Transpired Solar Walls
Transpired solar walls are vertical unglazed solar collectors that are used to pre-heat outdoor
ventilation air. This system is applicable to buildings in sunny, cold climates that require
significant amounts of outdoor ventilation air. Besides providing heating energy to the building,
the collector also functions as the building cladding. Outside air enters through small holes in
the absorbing surface of the collector, where it is preheated before entering the building HVAC
system. At this time, none of the programs reviewed in this chapter simulate the performance of
this system.
7-13
7.32 Combined Systems
Combined system concepts include distributed on-site power / recoverable thermal energy
systems, integrated building HVAC appliances, integrated total energy packaged systems,
integrated heat and cold energy storage, and combined HVAC and hot water appliances. The
HVAC systems programs containing pre-defined HVAC system types available in HAP and
DOE-2 are generally not configured to model the performance of combined systems, especially
for small buildings. It may be possible to configure a combination of central plant equipment
with heat recovery and on-site generation to mimic the performance of combined heating,
cooling and power systems as well as heating and cooling thermal energy storage systems.
TRACE currently does not include electric generation equipment. EnergyPlus currently does not
address most of the combined heating / cooling / power systems under consideration, but this
capability is planned. TRNSYS, by nature of its flexible structure, can be configured to model
these systems using user-supplied components. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is
currently developing a Building Combined Heating and Power (BCHP) screening tool (based on
DOE-2.1E) focused on evaluating on-site generation technologies and their interactions with
building heating and cooling loads.
7.33 Code Compliance
DOE-2.1 is the calculation engine behind several code compliance packages, including Energy-
Pro (California Title 24) and ComCheck Plus (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999). Future plans for
code compliance analysis or links to code compliance software were reported by several teams.
HAP was certified for Title 24 compliance untill the early 90s, but did not keep pace with code
changes and was decertified by California for use as a compliance tool. The developers of
eQUEST plan to add California Title 24 and ASHRAE 90.1 energy code compliance analysis to
the software.
7-14
8 PATHWAYS TO IMPROVE DESIGN TOOLS
In order to improve the design process and integrate best practice cost-effective technologies,
particularly in the small building market, improved tools are needed. The tools must be
compatible with current design practices, accessible to individual design professionals, and the
benefits of using these tools must be clearly demonstrated. In the development of these tools, it
is important to consider the needs of target user and integrate the tools into current design
practices. The following issues should be considered in the development of whole building
design tools to address the small building design market.
8.1 Interoperability
Many software tools are available to help building design professionals perform their tasks. The
nearly universal use of computer aided design (CAD) programs for drafting and building design
means that for most new buildings, building geometrical data already exist in a data file of some
type. However, the vast majority of these individual software files remain incompatible with
one another and with other applications that might benefit from access to these data. This
incompatibility results in loss of data integrity, and missed opportunities in time, revenue
potential, and unrealized design intent. As a result, project team members and their clients are
forced to either manually duplicate data entry or translate files from one software format to
another, often with less than 100% accuracy. However, recent advances in the development of
software data standards make the vision of accurate interaction between programs appear more
possible than ever before.
The potential benefits that interoperability will bring to the design community are profound.
Officials from the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) estimate that achieving true
interoperability in the design and construction marketplace would save the industry
approximately $7.5 to $15 billion annually. This figure is based on estimates from McGraw-Hill
and the CMD Group, which place the annual value of the total U.S., Canadian, and Mexican
commercial construction markets at approximately US $750 billion.
If the promise of interoperability is realized, design team members will only need to enter the
project information that pertains to their area of expertise. Subsequently, other team members
will be able to reuse these data as necessary across all the other organizations involved in a given
project. Paper-based product catalogs and specifications can be replaced by fully interactive
electronic versions that allow project team members to search for product information,
specifications, pricing, and availability in real time. Of particular importance to those interested
in modeling building performance, users will be able to access performance and cost data to
determine tradeoffs between various design and/or material selection alternatives. Of particular
value to building owners, project design and construction data can be retained post-occupancy,
thus providing the foundation for an operation and maintenance ‘manual’ that can be kept current
over the life-cycle of the building.
Interoperability between leading CAD, HVAC sizing programs, and building performance
analysis tools should be the goal of any future tool development efforts. CAD is universally
used in all small commercial building projects, while computerized load calculations represent a
8-1
common thread in many building projects. Whole building energy analysis software must
integrate with CAD and HVAC sizing practices in order to meet industry needs. Vendors need
to make their product information interoperable with such programs by using the appropriate
standards (IFC or aecXML) defined by the IAI.
The base audience for HVAC load sizing tools is currently three to four times larger than the
estimated number of energy analysis tool users. Software that integrates load and energy
analysis features into a single tool could help to reduce the hurdles to integrating energy analysis
into the design process by putting these features within a designer’s reach. Such innovation
would almost certainly expose a new and larger group of engineering practitioners to whole
building energy analysis tools. While in the past market forces alone have not driven
manufacturers to keep the load and energy analysis functions fully integrated, providing targeted
support and incentives to these software developers might pave the way to transforming design
practices and the market demand for energy analysis software tools.
Lighting and daylighting are important aspects of whole building design, requiring close
coordination between architects, lighting designers, and mechanical engineers. Interoperability
between the various software programs used to analyze electric lighting and use of natural light
could lead to a functioning suite of software that encompasses lighting design tools, daylighting
design tools, HVAC sizing tools, and energy analysis tools.
8.2 Specific Needs of Target User
Architects and architectural designers have very different needs as compared with mechanical
engineers, energy code compliance specialists, and contractors. Most architects prefer tools that
enable them to explore scenarios related to daylighting and fenestration products, especially if
these tools also produce graphics and reports that help communicate the benefits of a certain
design scenario to their clients. They also require simple tools to anticipate the impacts of
various lighting decisions, (i.e., heat loads, lighting levels, etc.) not to make a decisions but to
provide advance notice of design issues for other members of the design team. Architects also
have an interest in passive solar design, but are generally unwilling to spend the time and effort
required to fully model such buildings with the currently available tools.
In lieu of requiring these design professionals to learn to use unfamiliar freestanding software
programs, mainstream CAD programs could also be used as a platform for delivering best
practice advice. Architects in particular expressed interest in having a "guideline" format for
making design decisions where they do not have time to complete an analysis (e.g., building
form, siting, and orientation decisions, etc.). At comparatively low cost, CAD tool extensions
could be offered with easy-to-use information modules and checklists that would provide order
of magnitude implications of design trade-options. An example of this approach, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory published “Tips for Daylighting with Windows,” (LBNL, 1997) a
guideline intended as a quick reference for designers. It addresses common scenarios by walking
designers through a set of easy steps and rules-of-thumb. The guideline emphasizes the
integrated design approach, where the ramifications of each individual system decision on the
whole building are identified. Another example is the Collaborative for High Performance
Schools (CHPS) “Best Practices” manual (CHPS, 2001).
8-2
By far, the most widely software tools used in the engineering community are HVAC system
sizing and load analysis tools such as HAP, TRACE, and CHVAC. The manufacturers and
software developers have focused their efforts on the load analysis tools since this software is
more important to their users. Scaled down versions of programs that offer simplified zoning
strategies appropriate for single zone equipment and omit complexities associated with built-up
systems might be useful to capture a greater percentage of the small building market.
Manufacturers can be encouraged to incorporate conceptual design wizards and efficiency

guidelines into their design and sizing tools to evaluate systems integration concepts during
conceptual design. Software that addresses conceptual design analysis includes Energy-10 and
eQUEST. Incorporating conceptual design wizards into tools like HAP and TRACE can make it
easier for architects and engineers to evaluate whole building design strategies during the
conceptual design stage, and can include templates and wizards that encourage good design.
Since all design professionals spend significant time costing materials and equipment, inclusion
of an automated process to compile cost estimates would encourage the exploration of energy-
efficient design alternatives.
8.3 Leverage Code Compliance Requirements
Energy codes are not mandated in all jurisdictions and even where mandated they are
inconsistently implemented. Nevertheless, where they are in force, they represent a major
impetus to the use of software in building design. Code compliance checking routines should be
integrated into other conventional building design software products that are used earlier in the
design process. These routines can be used to pre-qualify various design decisions and identify
those that may impact compliance later. This will help reduce the tendency to consider building
energy performance only when the final design is complete. Automated preparation of code
compliance documentation once the design is finalized is another value-added feature that will
encourage the use of energy analysis software.
8.4 Software Technical Improvements
There are important design issues and emerging technologies that demand calculation techniques
that are beyond the capabilities of most commonly used tools. Improved technical capability is
needed in the following areas:
“Cool Roof” analysis. Cool roof analysis needs improved sky radiant temperature models that
consider impacts of roof emissivity as well as absorptivity; plenum and attic spaces, including
duct interactions; and calculate roof albedo on rooftop air temperature and rooftop unit
condensing temperatures.
Indoor air quality, air balance, and moisture / humidity issues. Improvements should consider
contaminant tracking, moisture absorption / desorption, improved wet coil models, identifying
condensing conditions within wall cavities, and fan pressure-induced inter-zonal air flow
8-3
Thermal comfort calculations. Improvements should consider calculating radiant surface

temperatures and air movement due to natural ventilation, with thermal comfort calculations that
consider these issues.
Duct leakage and thermal losses. Improvements should consider return side losses, fan induced
infiltration, and heat loss / gains to plenum spaces.
Ground coupling. Improvements should consider 2D models for estimating foundation wall
losses and slab perimeter losses. Floor loss models should consider the thermal mass and long-
term heat storage effects of the soil adjacent to the floor.
Natural and/or mixed mode ventilation. Improvements should consider wind direction and
speed, stack effects, inter-zonal air flow, and mechanical system interface.
Displacement ventilation. Improvements needed include multi-node thermal zones or methods

for partitioning heat gains between the lower occupied zone and the upper unoccupied zone.
Ventilated façade. Improvements needed include consideration of the ventilated facades impacts
on zone solar gains and thermal losses, and include both natural and forced ventilation options.
Logic to model the interface of ventilated facades with HVAC systems should be developed.
Transpired solar walls. Models that include collection efficiency as a function of temperature,
wind speed, and wind direction. Logic to interface the system with the HVAC system should be
included.
Photovoltaics. Needed improvements to building integrated photovoltaic system models include

in-situ module temperatures, temperature effects on efficiency, partial array shading, interface
with building electrical systems, and the impacts of utility buy-back options on total energy
costs.
Dual path HVAC systems. New systems routines are needed to model separate parallel
ventilation and space conditioning systems serving the same zones.
Integrated heating / cooling / hot water appliances. New systems routines are needed to model
integration of heating and cooling units with hot water appliances.
On-site electric generation and combined heating / cooling / power systems. New systems or
plants routines are needed to model the new generation of on-site electric generation and
combined heating / cooling / power systems.
Rather than spend resources upgrading inadequate calculation engines, manufacturers should
consider adopting the best available calculation engine, and apply resources to develop data
exchange capabilities and user interfaces. Given the current trend toward using multi-day design
sequences for system sizing rather than peak hour calculations, this might be an opportune time
to for the transition to a simulation-based sizing method using a common calculation engine.
8-4
8.5 Equipment and System Performance Data Development
Many building simulation programs now have pre-defined libraries of components such as
windows and wall constructions that can be selected by the user. Similar efforts such as
COOLTOOLS (now part of VisualPlant from Eley Associates) have been made to assemble
manufacturer-specific models of chillers. This manufacturer-specific library concept could be
extended to equipment common in small buildings, such as unitary and split air conditioners,
heat pumps, and water loop heat pumps. Credible consensus organizations within the industry
could help in this process by developing generic default libraries and other default input
information for energy analysis tools. For instance, libraries of air conditioning equipment
performance data are important because the vast majority of software users often rely on these
defaults. The focus should be on documenting the component models independent of specific
simulation tools, using the interoperability standards as a guideline. The database and models
would include examples and explanations as to how the data should be used (e.g., how do SEER
and EER relate; how to separately specify the fan, and so on). If the system becomes widely
accepted, then database updates for new equipment could be provided by the manufacturers –
just as product-specific CAD templates are now provided by them. DOE-sponsored workshops
with energy simulation tool developers and users also identified extendable libraries as high
priority (Crawley et al. 1997).
Another useful approach might be to assemble models of HVAC systems that include both
component and controls. These systems models could be assembled using generic
representations such as IFC and XML or tool-specific ones such as Energy Plus IDF or DOE-2
BDL. The focus should be on describing the system, the options for controlling it, and the
default data that apply in a given situation.
A symbiotic relationship exists between new technology R&D and whole building energy
analysis tools. Whole building energy analysis tools can be used to develop a set of realistic
operating conditions to help optimize the design of new products and systems. Once these
systems are developed, adding the capability to simulate system performance to popular design
tools can help increase the rate of market adoption. Providing the capability to competently
apply and calculate the benefits of new technology can reduce the risk and uncertainty associated
with unfamiliar products and systems.
8.6 Case Studies
A series of case studies could be developed to focus on various issues and audiences. Some case
studies have been developed to show the benefits of energy analysis in whole building design,
frequently targeted to show architects the benefits of specific technologies such as daylighting.
A case study aimed at engineers could provide an overview of whole building energy analysis
benefits and describe how it differs from current practice. An overview could be provided on
part load issues such as humidity control, demand-controlled ventilation, economizers, heat
recovery, controls, etc.) and provide references for further reading.
8-5
8.7 Develop Regional Guidelines
Systematic research into regional differences in conventional/ prevailing construction practices is

needed. Such data could be used to develop more regionally informed and statistically robust
default assumptions (frequently specified equipment types, construction materials and
assemblies, installation practices, etc.). Improved database default values for these and other
model inputs will make wizard-based conceptual design energy analysis tools more accurate,
easier to use, and more useful to the design community.
Many standard building models have been developed in a given environment (such as DOE-2)
and used widely within the building simulation community. Examples include the prototypical
buildings developed by LBNL for GRI (Huang et al. 1991). These prototypical buildings were
originally developed to provide a rational set of buildings to evaluate the potential of gas cooling
technologies. Since then, they have become widely used as reference buildings, at least in part
because they have been well documented. The data used to develop these prototypes is now over
ten years old, and many new data resources are available to refine the prototype descriptions.
Also, simulation approaches are rapidly changing, so more detailed building descriptions are
needed to take advantage of the new-generation simulation program capabilities.
8-6
State-of-the-Art Review of Whole Building and Building Envelope Simulation and Design Tools
9 REFERENCES
ASHRAE, 1997. “Design/Data Manual for Closed-Loop Ground-Coupled Heat Pump

Systems.” American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers,
Atlanta, GA. www.ashrae.org
Augenbroe, G. 1994. “The COMBINE Project, An Overview,” Proceedings of the First

ECPPM Conference, Dresden. http://erg.ucd.ie/combine.html
Augenbroe, G. 1994. “The COMBINE Project, A Followup,” Proceedings of the First

ECPPM Conference, Dresden. http://erg.ucd.ie/combine.html
CHPS, 2001. “The Collaborative for High Performance Schools, Volume II, Best
Practices Manual,” Eley Associates, San Francisco, CA. www.chps.net
Clarke, J.A., J. Hand, D.F. Mac Randal. 1995. “The Development of an Intelligent
Integrated Building Design System within the European COMBINE Project,”
Proceedings of Building Simulation '95. International Building Peformance Simulation
Association. www.ibpsa.org.
Conlon T. 1998a, “Pacific Gas & Electric Commercial New Construction Qualitative
Data Report,” RLW Analytics, Sonoma CA.
Conlon, T. 1998b, “Process Evaluation of the 1996 Southern California Edison Non-
Residential New Construction Program,” RLW Analytics, Sonoma CA.
Conlon, T. 1999, “Summary of Key Informant Interviews and Secondary Source

Review,” CEC PIER II Project 500-98-023, Deliverable 2.1.1, California Energy
Commission, www.energy.ca.gov.
Crawley, D., Linda K. Lawrie, Frederick C. Winkelmann, Curtis Pedersen, Richard

Liesen, and Dan Fisher. 1996. "Workshops on Next-Generation Building Energy
Simulation Tools Part 2: Contrasting Developers and Users,” pp. 1-5, ibpsaNEWS, Vol.
9, No. 1, International Building Performance Simulation Association, www.ibpsa.org.
Energy Design Resources, 1999a. “Integrated Energy Design,” Energy Design

Resources Design Brief, www.energydesignresources.com
Energy Design Resources, 1999b. “Public Agency Demonstrates Resouce Efficiency

Through Integrated Design,” Energy Design Resources Case Study,
www.energydesignresources.com
Eto, J., R. Prahl, J. Schlegel, 1996. “A Scoping Study on Energy-Efficiency Market

Transformation by California Utility DSM Programs,” California Demand-Side
Measurement Advisory Committee Project 2091T, www.calmac.org.
9-1
Fallon, K.K. 2000. “What Design Firm Principals Want in CAD Software,” AEC
Systems Conference, Washington, D.C. (also see www.cadforprincipals.org)
Gough, M. 1999. “A Review of New Techniques in Building Energy and Environmental

Modelling,” Prepared for the Building Research Establishment under Contract No.
BREA-42. Building Research Establishment, Garston, Watford UK. www.bre.co.uk/
Groll E.A., Braun J.E., LeRoy J.T. 1997. “Capacity and Power Demand of Unitary Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps Under Extreme Temperature and Humidity Conditions,”
ASHRAE Research Report, Project 859-RP, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration,
and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA. www.ashrae.org.
Hennessy, John. 1999. “Introductory Comments: Internet Commerce and Collaboration

in the A/E/C Industry,” Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University
Huang, Y.J., H. Akbari, L. Ranier, R. Ritschard. 1991. “481 Prototypical Commercial

Buildings for Twenty Urban Market Areas.” GRI/90/0326. Gas Research Institute
Chicago, IL, also LBL-29798. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
www.lbl.gov.
Janda, K. 1996. “Designing from Experience: The Effects of Research on Practice,”

Proceedings 1996 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC. www.aceee.org.
Janda, K. 1999 “Improving Efficiency: A sociotechnical approach,” Proceedings 1999

Summer Academy on Technology Studies, Inter-University Research Center for
Technology, Work, and Culture, Graz, Austria.
Kerestecioglu, A., M. Swami, L. Gu, P. Brahma, P. Fairey, and S. Chandra, 1992, “User's
Manual of FSEC 3.0 (Florida Software for Enervironmental Computation, Version 3.0),”
FSEC-GP-47-92, Florida Solar Energy Center, Cape Canaveral, Florida.
LBNL, 1997. “Tips for Daylighting with Windows,” LBNL-39945, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
Lee, S. 1999. "Empirical Validation of Building Energy Simulation Software; DOE-2,

HAP and TRACE," Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa
State University, Ames, IA.
Liesen, R., and C. Pedersen. 1999. “Modeling the Energy Effects of Combined Heat and
Mass Transfer in Building Elements Part1- Theory.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 105 Pt.
2, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta,
GA. www.ashrae.org
Lutzenheiser, L., R. Kunkle, N. Biggart, and B. Hackett. 1998. “New Commercial

Buildings – Market Transformation Research Needs: A scoping report prepared for the
9-2
California Institute for Energy Efficiency,” California Institute for Energy Efficiency,
http://ciee.ucop.edu/.
Mellotte, M., J. Flynn, P.F. Monaghan. 1995. “Integration of Building Energy Simulation
and HVAC Design Tools in the COMBINE Project,” Proceedings of Building Simulation
'95: 437-443, International Building Performance Simulation Association,
www.ibpsa.org.
Novitski, B.J. 1999. “Whole Building Design: New Architectural Trends”. A/E/C
Systems: The Magazine of Computer Solutions. Summer.
Reed, J., N. Hall, A. Oh, and J. Riggert, 1999, "Baseline Study for Assessing the Pacific
Gas and Electric Daylighting Design Tools," TecMRKT Works, www.tecmrkt.com.
Reed 1999, “Transforming Markets Through Education and Information – A Study of the
Pacific Energy Center,” Proceedings International Energy Program Evaluation
Conference. www.iepec.org.
RLW Analytics, 1999, “California State-Level Market Assessment and Evaluation Study:
Non-Residential New Construction Baseline Study,” RLW Analytics, Sonoma, CA.
Sahlin, P., 2000. “The Methods of 2020 for Building Envelope and HVAC Systems
Simulation – Will the Present Tools Survive?” Bris Data AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Scientific Computing, 1996 “HVAC System Design: Energy Simulation Software

Review,” Engineered Systems, February issue.
Shonder J.A., V.D. Baxter, P.J.Hughes, and J.W. Thornton. 2000. “A Comparison of
Vertical Ground Heat Exchanger Design Software for Commercial Applications,”
ASHRAE Trans., Vol.106, Part 1, DA-00-13-1, American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA. www.ashrae.org
Talonpoika, R., K. Karstila, K. Lassila, and J. Pallas. 1995. “COMBINE 2: HVAC

Component Database,” The Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), http://cic.vtt.fi/
Taonpoika, R. 1996. “Towards Integrated Building Design Systems: Experiences from

EU COMBINE Projects.” EU Project Summaries. The Technical Research Centre of
Finland (VTT), http://cic.vtt.fi/
Thornton, J.W., T.P. McDowell, P.J. Hughes. 1997. “Comparison of Practical Vertical
Ground Heat Exchanger Sizing Methods to a Fort Polk Data/Model Benchmark,”
ASHRAE Trans., vol.103, part 2, BN-97-8-3, American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA. www.ashrae.org
9-3
APPENDIX A
Design Practice Surveys, Books and Reports
Shelley, K. 1998-99 Occupational Outlook Handbook-Architects. Prepared for the Bureau of

Labor Statistics. February 26, 1999. http://stats/bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm.
Provides an overview of the architect’s occupation, including market statistics, job

classifications, average salaries, etc.
Chao, M., and G. Parker. "Recognition of Energy Costs and Energy Performance in Commercial
Property Valuation –Guidelines for Appraisers.” Institute for Market Transformation. February
1999.
Discussion of energy-related property valuation methods; recommended energy

performance assessment and benchmarking methods.
Compensation at U.S. Architecture Firms. 1999 AIA Report.
AIA Architects Salary Survey -- includes job classifications (Summary available online:
http://www.e-architect.com)
Dalal, P. “AIA Firm Survey 2000.”
Questionnaires were mailed on January 4, 2000 to 4,500 selected firms across the United
States. The survey collected design practice information on the following areas: clients,
billings, fees, technology, profits, and liability coverage, as well as others.
Fanney, A.H., and P.R. Svincek. “NIST Special Publication 908-Third International Green
Building Conference and Exposition – 1996.” National Institute of Standards and Technology.
November 1996.
Paper Titled: Interoperable, Life-Cycle tools for Assuring Building Performance: An

Overview of a New Commercial Building Initiative, Stephen Selkowitz, LBNL.
Information on improving the energy efficiency and reducing the environmental impact
of buildings and the cost of managing information over the life-cycle of a building.
GeoPraxis, Inc. “DesignCommunity.Com Fall 1999 Design Methods Survey Summary Report.”
(Prepared for the California Energy Commission) www.geopraxis.com.
Web-based survey of building design professionals (419 eligible participants from 32

countries) with focus on 2D- and 3D-CAD tool usage, energy analysis practices, and end
user preferences. The survey was launched on October 8, 1999 and completed on
December 7, 1999.
Godfrey, K.A. Jr. Partnering in Design and Construction. McGraw Hill, New York 1996.
A-1
Shows how to build a relationship between the general contractor, subcontractors, and designers
in construction projects, featuring case histories of real projects and chapters by construction
professionals. Topics include the origins of partnering, including lawyers as team members,
alternative dispute resolution, partnering with foreign coworkers, and safety and quality issues.
Of interest to architects, engineers, and contractors. Annotation c. by Book News, Inc., Portland,
Or.
Koomey, J. Energy Efficiency in New Office Buildings: An Investigation of Market Failures

and Corrective Policies. Submitted to the University of California, Berkeley, 1990.
Ph.D. dissertation: Examines justifications for policies to promote energy efficiency in

office buildings. Investigates technical evidence of market failures. Explores design,
construction, leasing processes to determine key leverage points for policies. Includes
discussion of simulation design tools.
Larson, G. and R. Shakespeare. “Rendering With Radiance: The Art and Science of Lighting
Visualization.” Morgan Kauffmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Describes the use of the “Radiance” software for architectural CAD rendering.
Lovins, A.B. “Energy Efficient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and Opportunities – Strategic
Issues Paper.” E Source, Boulder, 1992.
Landmark analysis of building construction process identifying barriers to energy

efficient design and operation.
Lutzenhiser, L., R. Kunkle, N.W. Biggart and B. Hackett. “New Commercial Buildings-Market
Transformation Research Needs.” September 28, 1998. Prepared for California Institute for
Energy Efficiency. http://eetd.lbl.gov/CIEE/MT.
Surveys the state of knowledge about new commercial building markets and related
market transformation research needs – based on published works and long interviews.
Identifies a series of specific market transformation issues and potentials in four key
areas: 1) knowledge and risk; 2) negotiation and regulation; 3) evaluative approaches
(commissioning and post-occupancy evaluation); and 4) trends in business, government,
and innovation. Includes excellent bibliography on human dimensions of energy
consumption in new commercial buildings.
Norris Consulting. “NEEA Energy Efficiency Focus Groups.” Prepared for the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and Cole & Weber. August 1999.
Presents results of a series of qualitative focus group sessions to understand various

energy efficiency issues among homebuyers and business professionals throughout the
Northwest. Includes results of focus groups with architects.
A-2
Pacific Consulting Services. “Baseline Evaluation Report on EZ Sim; Billing Simulation for
Small Commercial Facilities.” Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA). March 1999.
This report evaluates the use of EZ Sim software (a building analysis software tool).
Contains information on the software’s target audience, competing products, features,
costs, market potential and characteristics, potential market barriers, and
recommendations.
Papmichael, K. LBNL. “Designers and Information Overload: A New Approach.”
Offers information for designers to support their decision-making in a design project with
the introduction of the Building Design Advisor (BDA), new software that automates
performance predictions and facilitates evaluation.
Papamichael, K., H. Chauvet, J. LaPorta, and R. Dandridge. “Product Modeling for Computer-
Aided Decision-Making.” Accepted for publication in the Automation in Construction journal.
Describes product modeling techniques used for development of a computer-aided

decision-making tool for the building industry (Building Design Advisor).
Papamichael, K., LBNL. Application of Information Technologies in Building Design Decisions.

Accepted for publication in the Building Research and Information journal
May 1998.
Discusses the research and development efforts on the use of information technologies to
assist in building design decisions. Explains the design theories and modeling techniques
used for the development of the Building Design Advisor (BDA).
The Practice of Architecture in California. California Board of Architectural Examiners. 1998.

http://www.cbae.cahwnet.gov/.
Results and analysis of 1997 job analysis survey of over 1200 CA architects; includes
comparison to 1987 survey.
Research Into Action, Inc. “Architecture + Energy Program Market Progress Evaluation Report
(No. 1). Report # E99-033.” Prepared for Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. August 1999.
Contains program description (juried award program, plus training workshops) and
market assessment of new construction design professionals industry in Northwest.
Based on data collected from 41 program participants, focus groups with 29 non-
participants, staff and steering committee interviews, and program mailing list review.
RLW Analytics, Inc. “California Non-Residential New Construction Baseline Final Report (&
Appendix).” CBEE/PG&E. July 1999.
A-3
Conducted on behalf of the California Board for Energy Efficiency (CBEE). Describes
background and goals of the study, target audience, sources of information, provides
overview of non-residential new construction market, summarizes research questions,
and presents the findings from the 160 quantitative interviews conducted with architects,
mechanical and electrical engineers in order to better understand attitudes and
motivations of NRNC market actors as well as barriers to more efficient design practices.
RLW Analytics, Inc. “California Non-Residential New Construction Baseline Report (&
Appendix). California Energy Commission.” January 13, 1999.
Summarizes data based on 812 on-site audits performed through PG&E and SCE new
construction program evaluations. Report accompanied by database containing building
characteristics. Analysis in this report based only on non-participant sites.
TecMRKT Works. “Baseline Study for Assessing the Pacific Gas and Electric Daylighting
Design Tools.” A report prepared for PG&E. June 1999.
This report is a study of PG&E’s Daylighting Design Tools that provides a detailed
assessment of the operations of the commercial building design community in Northern
California and a baseline for daylighting related design practices. In addition, the study
provides an assessment of the market potential for four daylighting design tools that
PG&E is developing, Desk Top Radiance, SkyCalc, Daylighting Prospector, and
Artificial Sky. This study is based on interviews with PG&E staff, and a survey of
California design professionals. (see also Lighting Exchange Program Report)
TecMRKT Works. “Baseline Market Study Assessing the Potential for Pacific Gas and Electric’s
Lighting Exchange Program.” Prepared for PG&E. June 1999.
Complements Daylighting Design Tools Report (based on same survey); adds analysis of
questions pertaining to Internet use practices for building design professionals.
US Industry and Trade Outlook ‘99 US Dept. of Commerce/ International Trade Administration.
McGraw Hill Companies. 1999.
Contains industry by industry overview of U.S. economy, including “Construction”

(Chapter 6) and “Refrigeration and Heating Equipment” (Chapter 18).
CAD Tools in Design Practice
Various articles and presentations on how CAD tools are used in building design.
Novitski, B.J. 1999. “Whole Building Design: New Architectural Trends.” A/E/C Systems:
The Magazine of Computer Solutions. Summer.
Fallon, K.K. 2000. “What Design Firm Principals Want in CAD Software.” AEC Systems
Conference: Washington, D.C. June 5-8. (also see www.cadforprincipals.org)
A-4
Simulation in Design Practice/Whole Building Design Approach
Papers on the whole building design / integrated design process. Also papers and documents on
how hourly building simulations fit into the building design process.
Chen, Y.Z., D. Robinson, I. Frame, T.W. Maver. 1995. Some Experiments on Implementing
Collaborative Building Design Environment. Proceedings of Building Simulation '95: 620-626.
Mac Randal, D. 1995. Integrating Simulation Tools into the Design Process. Proceedings of
Building Simulation '95: 454-458.
Augenbroe, G., S. de Wit. 1997. Communicating Performance Assessments Of Intermediate

Building Design States. Proceedings of Building Simulation ’97, Volume 2: 429-436.
Hand J.W., D. B. Crawley. 1997. Forget The Tool When Training New Simulation Users.
Proceedings of Building Simulation ’97, Volume 2: 39-45.
Hand, J.W., J.A. Clarke, P.A. Strachan. 1999. Deployment Of Simulation Within Design
Practice. Proceedings of Building Simulation '99, Volume 1: 241-248.
Hand J.W., 'Removing barriers to the use of simulation in the building design professions,' PhD
Thesis, University of Strathclyde, 1998.
Energy Design Resources. 1998. Design Brief: Integrated Energy Design. Available at
www.energydesignresources.com (in the Design Briefs section). Prepared by E Source and
Architectural Energy Corp.
Pegues, J. 1997. White Paper: The Benefits of System-Based Design. May. Available at
www.carrier-commercial.com
Eley Associates. 1997. Energy Performance Contracting for New Buildings. Prepared by Eley
Associates for the Energy Foundation. Available at www.eley.com .
Krepchin, I. 2000. Integrated Building Design – Can Teamwork Lead to High Performance,
Cost-Effective Buildings. E Source Report ER-00-15. September. www.esource.com
Pegues, J. no date. White Paper: The Benefits of 8760 Hour-By-Hour Building Energy
Analysis. Available at www.carrier-commercial.com
Software Interoperability: IFC and XML
Various papers on how Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs), XML can allow software programs
to share data. Many papers focus on how it can promote and enhance the use of building
simulation in the design process.
A-5
Bazjanac, V., D. Crawley. 1999. Industry Foundation Classes And Interoperable Commercial
Software In Support Of Design Of Energy-Efficient Buildings. Proceedings of Building
Simulation '99, Volume 2: 661-667.
Bazjanac, V., D. B. Crawley. 1997. The Implementation Of Industry Foundation Classes In

Simulation Tools For The Building Industry. Proceedings of Building Simulation ’97, Volume 1:
203-210.
IAI. 2000. “IAI Reaches Important Milestone as Industry Leaders Submit aecXML Schema:
International Alliance for Interoperability Pledges Timely Delivery of Standards for the AEC
Industry” News Release, July 5. Posted on www.aecXML.org.
IAI. 1999a. “An Introduction to the International Alliance for Interoperability and Industry
Foundation Classes, Release 2.0” March 15. (available IFC R2.0 site)
IAI. 1999b. “IFC Object Model Architecture Guide.” March 15.
The COMBINE Project
Papers and web resources related to the European COMBINE project that developed the
first integrated computer aided design environment in the early 1990s.
Talonpoika, R., K. Karstila, K. Lassila, J. Pallas. 1995. COMBINE 2: HVAC COMPONENT

DATABASE, VTT, Building Technology. (available from VVT web site)
Augenbroe, G. 1994. “The COMBINE Project, An Overview”, Proceedings of the First ECPPM
Conference, Dresden (paper 1.pdf at COMBINE web site)
Augenbroe, G. 1994. “The COMBINE Project, A Followup”, Proceedings of the First ECPPM
Conference, Dresden (paper 4.pdf at COMBINE web site)
Taonpoika, R. 1996. Towards Integrated Building Design Systems: Experiences from Eus
COMBINE Projects. February. EU Project Summaries. (VTT web site)
Mellotte, M., J. Flynn, P.F. Monaghan. 1995. Integration of Building Energy Simulation and
HVAC Design Tools in the COMBINE Project. Project Proceedings of Building Simulation '95:
437-443.
Clarke, J. A., J. Hand, D. F. Mac Randal. 1995. The Development of an Intelligent Integrated
Building Design System within the European COMBINE Project. Proceedings of Building
Simulation '95
A-6
Design Practice Periodicals
Architectural Record. McGraw Hill.
Major print magazine of the architectural community.
Architecture Week. www.architectureweek.com.
New online e-zine ArchitectureWeek is published by Artifice, Inc. creators of Great

Buildings Online, the most frequently visited architecture site on the Web. Distribution
of ArchitectureWeek is electronic only, via Internet, to a combined audience approaching
500,000 monthly.
Building Energy Simulation User News. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Simulation
Research Group.
The Building Energy Simulation User News is a quarterly newsletter for users of the
EnergyPlus, DOE-2, BLAST, SPARK and GenOpt programs. Sent without charge, the
newsletter prints documentation updates, bug fixes, inside tips on using the programs
more effectively, and articles of special interest to program users. The winter issue
features a cumulative index of all articles ever printed.
CADALYST Magazine. http://www.cadonline.com.
Online magazine for CAD users.
Cadence Magazine. http://www.cadence-mag.com.
Online magazine for CAD users.
California Architects. California Board of Architectural Examiners. Summer 1999.
Articles Featured: Building Code Tools Available to Architects by John Canestro.

Clarification-Essential Services Buildings (questions from an article on the requirements
for architects under the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act of 1986). IDP
and Education Summit Tops Professional Qualifications Committee Agenda. Website
Updates.
Design-Build Magazine. McGraw Hill. http://www.designbuildmag.com/.
Design-Build is the Official Magazine of DBIA.
Engineering News Record. McGraw Hill.
Major print magazine of the engineering and construction management industry.
A-7
UpFront.Ezine. http://users.uniserve.com/~ralphg/
Free weekly online magazine detailing CAD industry news and gossip, especially
focused on architectural CAD applications.
XML Magazine. Volume 1, Number 2, Spring 2000. eXcelon Corporation.
Article Featured: ArchitectureX: Designing for XML, An explosion of industry schemas and the
rise of XSL give the “HTML killer” a boost.
Design Practice Web Resource Sites
http://www.aecinfo.com/arch/newsgrps.html
A gateway to a number of architecture newsgroups.
http://www.afsonl.com/
Architects First Source for Products Online.
http://www.aiaonline.com
American Institute of Architects site.
http://www.archindex.com
The Architectural Index – Online architecture periodicals indexed between 1/82 and 12/98.
http://www.architecturalcadd.com/weblinkslogo.html
Links to all major architectural CADD vendors.
http://www.ashrae.org/ ASHRAE Trans. 1990, vol.96, Part 2, Paper number SL-90-2-4, 501-507,
7 figs., refs. Appendix.
Integrating design tools for building design. Examines methods being devised to provide
an intelligent knowledge-based interface to expert systems, simulation packages, and
CAD systems for architectural design. A large amount of information is duplicated in
describing a building for different design tools. To enable designers to use different
design tools to evaluate a building design, without having to duplicate so much effort, we
propose a system that uses a common building model to represent their knowledge of a
building. On top of this building model, we provide an interfacing mechanism to move
information between the different design tools and the common building model.
A-8
http://www.ashrae.org/ ASHRAE Conference, Building design, technology, and occupant well-

being in temperate climates conference, Brussels, February 17-19, 1993, E. Sterling et al. Eds.,
7-11, 1 fig., refs. ISBN 1-883413-05-2
Integrated software for building design. Reports on the development of integrated

software in the field of building design. The system gathers several design tools working
in the building field - CAD, database expert systems, and simulation models. The tools
are organized around a central data exchange structure developed using an object-
oriented language. Other features include specific drivers for each tool, intelligent user
interface, and a conflict-solver mechanism. A first version of the program is available for
simple buildings.
http://www.ashrae.org/ ASHRAE Trans. 1990, vol.96, Part 2, paper number SL-90-2-1, 473-480,
8 figs, refs. and in the use of artificial intelligence in building systems, 1995, 37-47, ISBN 1-
883413-24-9.
ICADS - an intelligent computer-aided design environment. Describes the design and

implementation of a prototype-working model of an intelligent computer-aided design system
(ICADS). States it is the objective of the ICADS project to demonstrate the feasibility of a
computer aided design partnership in which the user orchestrates the evolution of a design
solution with the intelligent assistance of the computer. The vehicle for this demonstration is a
prototype CAD system shell serving as an intelligent interface between the building designer and
a variable assortment of project-related databases and knowledge bases.
http://www.ashrae.org/ ASHRAE Trans. 1990, vol.96, Part 2, Paper number SL-90-3-2, 542-549,
6 figs., refs. appendix. AND in the use of artificial intelligence in building systems, 1995, 87-97,
ISBN 1-883413-24-9.
Incorporating building regulations into design systems - An object-oriented approach. The

knowledge of regulations governing the construction of buildings needs to be included in CAD
systems if building designers are to use computers in the design process. At present, building
regulations only implicitly contain models of buildings. These models need to be made more
explicit for incorporation within intelligent design systems. Outlines one way to explicitly
incorporate these building reference models using an object-oriented paradigm. The goal is to
develop systems that incorporate both geometric and nongeometric (technical and
administrative) information about the design process in order to aid the designer in his task. In
order to provide a flexible system, it is proposed that the building reference model (objects in the
design and the relationships between the objects) be separated from the technical requirements or
constraints prescribed by the regulation.
http://www.ashrae.org/ ASHRAE Journal, October 1987, vol.29, no.10, 24-29, 2 figs, 3 tabs, 3
refs. ISSN-0001-2491
Calculation of energy targets. Presents a method for calculating reasonable energy targets for the
design and operation of various types of buildings in different locations. States the method can
be applied to existing buildings to assess their performances compared with energy targets. The
A-9
procedure can be carried out manually or on a computer spreadsheet. Notes the computerized
procedure is useful for energy survey research and energy management of complex design
alternatives.
http://bec.state.fl.us:/fdi/bec/rel-site/fdi-lnk1.htm
Florida Built Environment Center Links.
http://www.thebluebook.com/
The Blue Book of Building and Construction is the industry's leading source of regional,
categorized construction information and is available in print and online. The printed
directories are distributed free to qualified industry decision makers throughout the
United States. Search The Electronic Blue Book online to find more than 600,000 listings
and 40,000 display ads and company profiles.
http://builder.hw.net/monthly
Builder Magazine Online (Hanley-Wood, Inc) Internet magazine for construction industry
professionals.
http://www.cmdg.com/products/
Construction Market Data Group Products and Services. (Market data)
http://www.e-architect.com
American Institute of Architects news and information site for professional architects.
http://www.ebuild.com/
Information on materials that have a low impact on the environment and on indoor air
quality includes product information, tests, and links to other sites, including The REDI
Guide, one of the earliest databases of low environmental impact materials.
http://eetd.lbl.gov/btp/iai/index.html.
IFC object data model is now available for public review. The latest fully documented
version (IFC 2.0) and the current "platform" under development (IFC 2.x) are both
exposed.
http://www.energydesignresources.com/
SCE Energy Design Resources site: Utility programs, tools and services.
A-10
http://www.energytoolsdirectory.gov/
DOE Building Energy Tools Directory. Most comprehensive list of more than 220
energy-related software tools for buildings, with an emphasis on using renewable energy
and achieving energy efficiency and sustainability in buildings. (Categories: Whole
Building Analysis; Materials, Components, Equipment, and Systems; Other Applications;
Codes and Standards).
http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/energy_tools/workshop.htm
Workshops on Next Generation Energy Tools. Discusses and presents results from two
workshops that were held by the U.S. Department of Energy in August 1995 and June
1996.
http://www.extranets.cc
Joel Orr’s EXTRANET WORLD, portal into the new world of collaborative online
construction project management software. Includes list of over 100 products / services
now available in this market space, and interviews with executives of leading firms.
http://www.liszt.com/cgi-bin/liszt.cgi?word=architecture&junk=s
Liszt Search: architecture. Directory of specialized mailing lists, online discussion

groups, journals, a thesaurus, etc.
http://www.pge.com/customer_services/other/pec/archives/ar2.html
Pacific Energy Center Website: Utility programs, tools and services Internet Applied:
Architectural Resources Links.
http://sustainable.state.fl.us/fdi/edesign/index.html
E Design Resources (State of Florida).
CAD Industry Rating Guides
DARATECH, Inc. CAD/CAM, CAE Survey, Review & Buyers' Guide Index
The most comprehensive source of CAD/CAM, CAE industry, vendor and product data
available today. Organized in three ring-bound volumes and updated monthly, this
highly respected reference provides in-depth profiles of more than 500 CAD/CAM, CAE
solutions and vendors, plus over 200 pages of market statistics including revenues,
installed base, growth forecasts, market share, market segments, market share within
segment, market penetration and saturation. http://www.daratech.com/srbg/1000b02.htm
A-11
Holtz, B.W. The CAD Rating Guide (5th Edition). WBH Associates, 1997.
Contains 650 pages of background information, vendor and product data, and user
comments on 120+ programs for mechanical design and drafting, mapping, three-
dimensional modeling, structural analysis, NC tooling, and animation. Includes
comments from individual users of the CAD systems and statements from the CAD
vendors. More than 680 words in an illustrated glossary. 144 pages of tables, plus 33
pages of categorical listings. Extensive 2,900+ entry index. Includes 3-1/2" DOS diskette
with the Microsoft Excel 97 files used to create the chapters in the tables section. [6th
Edition pending] http://www.wbh.com/crgdescription.html
Moore, G. Architectural CADD - A Resource Guide to Design and Production Software

Appropriate for Architects. Architectural CADD Press, January 1999.
Features: CADD Office Scenarios - Inside information you can never get from
salespeople. This section features 15 different scenarios such as The DataCAD Office
and The AutoCAD AutoArchitect Office, that tell you what you really need.
Recommended Architectural CADD Software - Separate ranking lists of what is
appropriate for Small, Large, and Sole Practitioner Architectural Firms, and Interior
Design Firms. New Reviews of AllPlan, ArchT, AutoArchitect, AutoCAD r13c4a, and
DataCAD on Windows95. http://www.architecturalcadd.com/ACRGbook.html
Miscellaneous Sources
ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.
http://www.ashrae.org/
Standard for minimum energy-efficient requirements for the design and construction of
new non-residential buildings and their systems, new portions of buildings and their
systems, and new systems and equipment in existing buildings. Includes criteria for
determining compliance with these requirements.
Extranet and CAD Vendor Literature. Collected @ A/E/C Systems 2000 (June 5-8) in
Washington DC.
Features: Buzzsaw, Bricsnet, Meridien, Primavera and other extranet mfr. products as
well as traditional stand alone products such as AutoCAD2000,, AutoCAD Architectural
Desktop, 3D Studio VIZ R2, Active Project Builder, Active Project Server,
DesignWorkshop, Form Z, ArchiCAD, MicroStation TriForma, Art Lantis, Lightscape,
BSD Speclink, and CADBlocks.
Hitchcock, R., M.A. Piette, and S. Khalsa, LBNL. Building Performance Metric Tracking and
Early Case Study Results. ACEEE 2000 Draft Review Paper #133.
A-12
Discusses the information from a case study that applied Metracker, a prototype tool for
tracking performance across the building’s life-cycle, concepts within the context of an
energy performance project.
International Alliance for Interoperability North America. “Linking the Building Industry
Through a Universal Language by the International Alliance For Interoperability.” May 1999.
Simulation Books and Reports
Building Integrated Photovoltaics
Hollick, J. “Solar Cogeneration Panels”. Renewable Energy, vol. 15, pp. 195-200 (1998).
The performance of a hybrid photovoltaic and solar thermal collector is described.

Photovoltaic panels are attached to a transpired vertical solar air heater. Photovoltaic
efficiency of 11% and solar thermal efficiency of 48% was obtained in laboratory tests.
Kroposki, B. and R. Hansen. Performance and Modeling of Amorphous Silicon Photovoltaics for
Building-Integrated Applications. Proc. 1999 ASES Annual Meeting, American Solar Energy
Society, Boulder, CO.
A 1.2 kW grid connected PV system was installed and instrumented. The aSi PV cells
were integrated into conventional roofing shingles. Data acquisition included array
output power, cell temperature, power supplied to the grid, and AC power quality. A
simplified hourly model of system performance was developed and compared to
measured performance. The simple model of the array and inverter matched system
performance within ± 20% under most conditions.
Posbic, J. and W. Rever. Economic Optimization of Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems.

Proc. 1998 ASES Annual Meeting, American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, CO.
Principal components and costs for grid connected building integrated photovoltaic
systems are described. Installed system costs for typical commercial building
installations are provided, including ballasted pan and. horizontal roof mounted systems;
and vertical stand off and curtain wall integrated wall mounted applications. Balance of
system options including central inverter with and without battery backup, and panel-
mounted micro inverters are discussed.
Sick, F. and T. Erge. Photovoltaics in Buildings. International Energy Agency. 1996.
A comprehensive guide to building integrated PV, including component description,

architectural integration, system design, and O&M.
A-13
Climate Data
Crawley, D., J. Hand, and L. Lawrie. “Improving the Weather Information Available to
Simulation Programs”. Proc. Building Simulation 99, International Building Performance
Simulation Association, c/o Department of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX. 1999.
A new standardized weather data format for use with the EnergyPlus (US) and ESP-r
(UK) building energy simulation programs is proposed. The new format provides
additional information required to take full advantage of the modeling capabilities of
these simulation programs. The data format is designed to improve the readability of raw
text files. Additional climate data provided beyond those used in DOE-2 include design
day and extreme period data, data uncertainty flags, infrared sky temperature,
illuminance, snow cover, and sky conditions.
See also: www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/energy_tools/energyplus/energyplus_weatherdata.html
Schmitt, Klein, and Reindl. “Automated Generation of Hourly Design Sequences”. ASHRAE
Transactions Vol. 106 Pt. 1, 2000.
An automated procedure to develop hourly data for simulation of building performance

under extreme conditions is presented. A one week hourly data set is developed, suitable
for use with hourly simulation models such as TRNSYS, DOE-2, and BLAST. The data
set includes temperature, humidity, and solar radiation sequences for calculating HVAC
system peak loads.
Comfort Analysis
Chapman, Rutler, and Watson. “Impact of Heating Systems and Wall Surface Temperatures on
Room Operative Temperature Fields”. ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 106 Pt. 1, 2000.
An application of the BCAP program, which calculates radiant heat transfer within an
enclosure is described. A prototypical room model with a convective and radiant heating
system is developed. The mean radiant and operative temperatures are calculated for
various positions n the room, and the overall heat loss through the exterior wall is
calculated. The performance of the radiant and convective heating systems are
compared, in terms of thermal comfort, wall surface temperature, and overall heat loss.
Displacement Ventilation
Srebric, Chen, and Glicksman. “A Coupled Airflow and Energy Simulation Program for Indoor
Thermal Environmental Studies.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 106 Pt. 1, 2000.
A theoretical presentation of a model that accounts for non-uniform temperature and air
flow distribution in a room resulting from radiant heating and cooling systems and
displacement ventilation. Thermal comfort throughout the space is predicted using the
A-14
ASHRAE comfort model applied to the local prediction of air temperature, velocity, and
enclosure surface temperatures.
Yuan, X., Q. Chen, and L. Glicksman. “Models for Prediction of Temperature Difference and
Ventilation Effectiveness with Displacement Ventilation.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 105 Pt.
1, 1999.
An analytical approach is developed for predicting room temperature stratification and

ventilation effectiveness of displacement ventilation systems. This technique can be
useful for estimating average space temperatures in single node zone models, and
estimating zone cooling and air flow requirements.
Yuan, X., Q. Chen, L. Glicksman. “Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for
Displacement Ventilation.” ASHRAE Transactions, 1999 Vol. 105 Pt 1.
Provides performance evaluation and design guidelines for displacement ventilation

systems for small offices, large offices, classrooms and industrial workshops. Analysis is
based on CFD modeling. Performance is evaluated in terms of thermal and draft comfort
criteria, ventilation effectiveness, and mean age of air.
Zweifel, G., M. Koschenz. “Simulation of Displacement Ventilation and Radiant Cooling with
DOE-2.” ASHRAE Transactions, June 1993.
Procedures and limitations of using DOE-2 to simulate spaces with radiant ceilings and
displacement ventilation are presented. The limitations of DOE-2 as a single temperature
node zone model are discussed. A technique that creates a two-zone model for the lower
“occupied” zone, and the upper “unoccupied zone, coupled by an “air” wall is presented.
Methods to apportion room heat gains to the lower and upper zone are presented.
Ground Coupling
Adjali, M., J. Littler, M. Davies and S. Rees. The Testing of a Numerical Model’s Ability to
Simulate Heat Transfer from Slab-on-Grade Floors, and the Implications for Low-Energy
Design. Proc. 1999 ASES Annual Meeting, American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, CO.
A numerical model of a concrete floor slab and the surrounding soil has been developed and
added to the APACHE building energy simulation program. The results of the model are
compared to measured temperature data for two buildings in the UK, one with a heated and
cooled slab, and the other with an unheated or cooled slab. Solutions based on a 2D and 3D
finite volume technique are compared to measured data. The 2D model provides good
agreement for the bulk of the slab area. The performance of the slab corner is better matched by
the 3D model. Solution techniques using response factors to improve calculation speed is
discussed.
A-15
Krarti, M., D. Claridge and J. Kreider. “ITPE Technique Applications to Time-Varying Two-
Dimensional Ground-Coupling Problems.” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 31 No. 9 pp. 1899-
1911. Pergamon Press, U.K. 1988.
The ITPE (interzone temperature profile estimation) procedure for solving the time
varying heat transfer between a slab on grade floor and/or below grade wall is described.
Solutions are presented that consider insulation and the presence of a fixed temperature
water table. Most detailed ground coupling models utilize a finite element numerical
technique, which is difficult to solve on the time scale used in building energy simulation.
The ITPE technique is an analytical solution to the ground conduction problem,
facilitating an hourly calculation of ground heat transfer. This technique is planned for
use in the EnergyPlus simulation program to calculate ground heat transfer.
Glazing
An, Y., J. Zhang, and C. Shaw. “Measurements of VOC Adsorption/Desorption Characteristics

of Typical Interior Building Materials.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 106 Pt. 1, 2000.
A model is presented for a source / sink representation of the absorption / desorption of

VOCs in building materials such as carpet, floor tile, drywall, and ceiling tile. This
model can be used to predict indoor air quality in a dynamic simulation program
incorporating ventilation, infiltration, and pollutant source modeling capabilities.
Arasteh, D., E. Finlayson, J. Huang, C. Huizenga, R. Mitchell, M. Rubin. State of the Art
Software for Window Energy Efficiency Rating and Labeling. Proc. 1998 Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Buildings, ACEEE, Washington, DC, 1998.
Software developed by LBNL for rating the thermal performance of window systems is
described. The software packages include Window 4.1 which calculates the principal
thermal and optical performance indices including U-factors, SHGC, visible
transmittance; and THERM, which uses 2-D heat transfer analysis to calculate the
thermal conductance of window frame systems. These programs can be used to provide
detailed window performance data to simulation programs such as DOE-2.
Feustel, H. COMIS – An International Multizone Air-Flow and Contaminant Transport Model.

LBNL-42182, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. August 1998.
The technical basis behind the COMIS model is described. COMIS is a network-based
multi-zone air flow model, which calculates zone to zone air flow due to infiltration,
mechanical ventilation, and natural ventilation processes. The program provides a
detailed model of building wind pressure distribution, stack effect, flow through large
openings, duct and fan systems, passive ventilation stacks, and kitchen ventilation hoods.
Contaminant transport via air flow and contaminant absorption / desorption is also
modeled.
A-16
Huang, J., F. Winkelmann, F. Buhl, C. Pederson, D. Fisher, R. Liesen, R. Taylor, R. Strand, D.

Crawley, L. Lawrie. Linking the COMIS Mutizone Airflow Model with the EnergyPlus Building
Energy Simulation Program. Proc. Building Simulation 99, International Building Performance
Simulation Association, c/o Department of Architecture, Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX. 1999.
The COMIS network-based multizone air flow model will be linked with the EnergyPlus
building energy simulation program. The COMIS model will be used to calculate
infiltration and interzonal air flow; the EnergyPlus program will simulate the
performance of the HVAC system. Since the energy and moisture transport associated
with infiltration and interzonal air flow affect the HVAC loads and HVAC system
performance, the solution of the zone air flow and zone energy balance problems are
tightly coupled. The paper describes the solution technique used to solve the coupled air
flow and energy balance equations, and describes the interfaces used to activate the
COMIS model within the EnergyPlus framework.
Laouadi, A., M. Atif. “Predicting Optical & Thermal Characteristics of Transparent Single-
glazed Domed Skylight.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 105 Pt. 2, 1999.
Analysis of the SHGC, solar transmittance, diffuse transmittance, and U-value for domed
skylights as a function of dome geometry and incidence angle is presented. The analysis
allows the representation of a dome skylight as an equivalent planar surface, facilitating
the simulation of dome skylights within commonly-available computer simulation tools.
Simko, T., A. Elmahdy, R. Collins. “Determination of the Overall Heat Transmission

Coefficient (U-value) of Vacuum Glazing.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 105 Pt. 2, 1999.
Thermal calculations for vacuum glazing heat conduction are presented. The results of
the calculations are compared to experimental measurements of a small test section in a
guarded hot box.
Zhao, Y., D. Curcija, W. Goss. “Convective Heat Transfer Correlations for Fenestration Glazing
Cavities.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 105 Pt. 2, 1999.
Convective heat transfer within the sealed unit represents the dominant heat transfer
mechanism in high-performance insulated glazing units. Correlations used to predict
convective heat transfer are reviewed, and results for various correlations are compared
to experimental measurements.
Intelligent Facades
Haddad K., and A. Elmahdy. “Comparison of the Monthly Thermal Performance of a

Conventional Window and a Supply Air Window.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 104 Pt. 1, 1998.
The performance of a triple pane window system, which is used to preheat outdoor
ventilation air by flowing air through the two outer panes of the window, is compared to
A-17
a conventional triple pane window in Ottawa, Canada. The window system simulation
code VISION is modified to account for the heat transfer in a supply air ventilated
window. Hourly performance predictions are summed to a monthly level. The supply air
window provides better winter performance, with a slight cooling penalty in the cold
climate studied.
Sai, D., L. Azar, M. Fraser, C. Montross. “Architectural Conservation Technologies.” Proc.

1998 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, ACEEE, Washington, DC, 1998.
A survey of architectural energy conservation strategies popular in Europe was

conducted, and the impacts of the technologies in Canadian buildings were modeled
using DOE-2. The strategies include exterior shading, daylighting, high-performance
glazing, atria, double envelope systems, earth sheltering, and heavy mass construction.
Kitchen Equipment Heat Gains
Fisher, D. “New Recommended Heat Gains for Commercial Cooking Equipment.” ASHRAE
New heat gain factors for radiant, convective, and latent gains are presented for several
types of commercial kitchen cooking equipment. The heat gain factors are based on
experiments conducted in several test kitchens, and replace the theoretical data presented
in earlier versions of the ASHRAE handbook.
Mass Coupling
Braham, G. “Comparative Performance of U.K. Fabric Energy Storage Systems.” ASHRAE

Cooling strategies used in three low-energy office buildings in the U.K. are described.
The buildings feature a mix of natural ventilation, mixed mode ventilation, and
mechanical ventilation, with energy storage in the building mass. Comfort and energy
consumption data are compared.
Braun, J. “Reducing Energy Cost and Peak Electrical Demand through Optimal Control of
Building Thermal Storage.” ASHRAE Transactions, Volume 96 Part 2, 1990.
Two dynamic building control algorithms are developed to 1) reduce energy consumption
and 2) building peak demand. The TRNSYS simulation program and dynamic
optimization techniques were applied to develop the control strategy.
Holmes, M., A Wilson. “Assessment of the Performance of Ventilated Floor Thermal Storage
Systems.” ASHRAE Transactions Atlanta 1996.
Heat removal rates and design guidelines for ventilated core slabs were developed using
CFD modeling.
A-18
Keeney and Braun. “Application of Building Precooling to Reduce Peak Cooling Loads.”
ASHRAE Transactions, Phoenix, 1997.
Application of a night cooling strategy was developed using a simulation model and
tested in a real building.
Morris, F., J. Braun, S. Treado. “Experimental and Simulated Performance of Optimal Control
of Building Thermal Storage.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 100 Part 1, 1994.
Dynamic control strategies developed to reduce peak load and energy consumption were
tested and validated in a test chamber.
Stetiu, C., and H. Feustel. “Phase Change Wallboard and Mechanical Night Ventilation in
Commercial Buildings: Potential for HVAC System Downsizing.” Proc. 1998 Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Buildings, ACEEE, Washington, DC, 1998.
Phase change wallboard is an alternative building product consisting of phase change

material (20% paraffin by weight) embedded in conventional wallboard. This product is
not currently available in the US. The RADCOOL finite difference building simulation
model written in the SPARK environment was used to evaluate the performance of the
product in a prototypical office space. Results were obtained for Sunnyvale (CTZ 4) and
Red Bluff (CTZ 11), California. Night ventilation alone was effective only in the cooler
(Sunnyvale) location. Indoor temperature swings and peak cooling loads were reduced
relative to a conventional building.
Moisture Absorption / Desorption
Bailey, D., F. Bauer, C. Slama, C. Barringer, and J. Flack. “Investigation of Dynamic Latent
Heat Storage Effects of Building Construction and Furnishings.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol.
102 Part 2, 1996.
A set of common building materials was laboratory tested for moisture absorption /
desorption properties. Impacts of these phenomena on predictions of cooling load
reduction from nighttime cooling were developed using the ENERPASS simulation
model.
Hosni, M., J. Sipes, and M. Wallis. “Experimental Results for Diffusion and Infiltration of
Moisture in Concrete Mansory Wall Exposed to Hot & Humid Climate.” ASHRAE Transactions
Vol. 105 Pt. 2, 1999.
An experimental study of moisture migration into concrete masonry units was conducted
to study the potential for mold formation and investigate potential mitigation strategies.
The study considered constructions with and without an exterior vapor barrier, and
various interior wall treatments such as vapor permeable wallpaper, paint, and
impermeable vinyl wallpaper.
A-19
Liesen, R., and C. Pedersen. “Modeling the Energy Effects of Combined Heat and Mass Transfer
in Building Elements Part 1- Theory.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 105 Pt. 2, 1999.
A transfer function methodology for calculating combined heat and mass transfer in
porous building surfaces is presented. A moisture transfer function (MTF) is developed,
which accounts for moisture diffusion and absorption / desorption phenomena. The MTF
technique is analogous to the conduction transfer function methods used in many building
energy simulation programs, and can be implemented in such programs to include the
modeling of moisture-related issues in buildings.
Liesen, R., and C. Pedersen. “Modeling the Energy Effects of Combined Heat & Mass Transfer
in Building Elements Part 2: Application to a Building Energy Analysis Program and Examples.”
ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 105 Pt. 2, 1999.
Applications of the MTF method in a building simulation model are described. The
impacts of accounting for moisture effects on cooling loads for various building
constructions are presented.
Daylighting
Hitchcock, R.J. “Advancing Lighting and Daylighting Simulation: The Transition from Analysis
to Design Aid Tools.” LBL-37285, also published in the Proc. 4th International Conference of the
International Building Performance Simulation Association, 1995.
The attributes required for the application of design-oriented daylighting simulation tools
to annual energy simulation models is discussed. The paper compares the design tool
Superlite, the DOE-2 daylighting model, and DELIGHT daylighting engine used in the
Energy-10 program.
Ubbelohde, S., and C. Humann. “Comparative Evaluation of Four Daylighting Software

Programs.” Proc. 1998 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, ACEEE, Washington,
DC, 1998.
A comparative study of four popular standalone daylighting programs available for PCs:
LumenMicro, Superlite, Radiance and Lightscape. The programs were evaluated for user
interface and experience requirements, ease of use, CAD interface, modeling capability,
run time, and the accuracy of illuminance predictions and renderings relative to an actual
building.
Winkelman, F., and S. Selkowitz. Daylighting Simulation in the DOE-2 Building Energy
Analysis Program. LBL-18508, also published in Energy and Buildings, Vol. 8, pp. 271-286,
1985.
The daylighting algorithms used in the DOE 2.1 program are described, along with the
applications and limitations of the algorithms.
A-20
Natural Ventilation
Chalfoun, N. “Implementation of Natural Downdraft Evaporative Cooling Devices in

Commercial Buildings: The International Experience.” Proc. 1998 Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings, ACEEE, Washington, DC, 1998.
Application of natural draft evaporative coolers or “Cool Towers” in two buildings is

described. These towers are similar to forced draft “swamp coolers,” but use natural
convection instead of a fan for air flow and city water pressure instead of a pump for
wetting the pads. CoolT software for design and sizing of Cool Towers is described, and
the application of the software to the design of two buildings using Cool Towers (one in
Saudi Arabia, the other in Botswana) is described.
Levermore, G., A. Jones, and A. Wright. “Simulation of a Naturally Ventilated Building at

Different Locations.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 106 Pt. 2, 2000.
Design practices for naturally ventilated buildings in the U.K. are reviewed, and the
simulated performance of a small office building a northern and southern U.K. climate is
described. Performance criteria for naturally ventilated building are proposed, and the
simulated performance of the building in the two locations is compared to the proposed
criteria. Comparisons to North American climate are made.
Roulet, C., J. Van der Maas, and F. Flourentzos. “A Planning Tool for Passive Cooling of
Buildings.” EPFL - LESO-PB, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Lausanne, Switzerland.
The technical basis of the LESOCOOL program is described. LESOCOOL was

developed to predict cooling effect and room temperature during nighttime ventilative
cooling of a building. The impact of the size and location of the natural ventilation
openings, outdoor temperature, and wind velocity are considered. The model simulates
single sided, cross ventilation, and mechanical ventilation systems with a single (non-
branching) flow pattern. The room model utilizes a single node, lumped capacitance
wall. The program is designed for preliminary design analysis, and requires minimal
input data.
Transpired Solar Collectors
Federal Technology Alert: Transpired Collectors (Solar Preheaters for Outdoor Ventilation Air).
DOE/GO-10098-528, April, 1998.
A description of the unglazed, transpired solar collector is provided, along with case
studies and a simplified performance prediction worksheet.
A-21
Radiant Heating and Cooling
Bohle and Klan. “Design of Panel Heating and Cooling Systems.” ASHRAE Transactions, Vol.
106 Pt. 1, 2000.
A simplified method for calculating the performance of radiant heating and cooling
panels derived from a tube matrix embedded in a plaster overlay is developed using a
power law correlation to results from detailed finite element method (FEM) calculations.
The method provides heating or cooling output as a function of tube spacing, tube wall
conductivity, bedding material conductivity, tube diameter, plaster thickness, insulation
properties, and fluid / room temperature difference.
Hauser, G., C. Kempkes, and B. Olesen. “Computer Simulation of Hydronic Heating / Cooling
System with Embedded Pipes.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 106 Pt. 1, 2000.
Fundamental concepts of hydronic radiant heating and cooling in commercial buildings

are discussed as an introduction. The performance of a prototypical office space with
hydronic heating and cooling system imbedded in the concrete slab is simulated using the
HAUSer dynamic simulation program. Comfort predictions are compared to a heating
only structure in the same climate.
Olesen, B., E. Michel, F. Bonnefoi, and M. De Carli. “Heat Exchange Coefficient Between
Floor Surface and Space by Floor Cooling – Theory or a Question of Definition.” ASHRAE
Radiant floor systems commonly used for heating can also be used for cooling. Accurate
prediction of the cooling effect of a radiant floor must account for the convective and
radiant heat transfer mechanisms from the floor to the room air and enclosing surfaces.
Traditional definitions of heat exchange coefficients use a combined convective and
radiative coefficient, expressed as a function of the floor and space temperatures. The
paper develops a relationship based on operative temperature, which varies as a function
of position in the space. Experimental data from a test chamber are compared to
theoretical calculations of heat exchange coefficient.
Simmonds, P. and S. Holst. “Using Radiant Cooled Floors to Condition Large Spaces and
Maintain Comfort Conditions.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 106 Pt. 1, 2000.
The application of a radiant cooled floor combined with a displacement ventilation

system in a large airport expansion in Thailand is described. The combination of radiant
cooling and displacement ventilation decreases energy consumption and improves
thermal comfort in a very hot and humid climate.
A-22
Simulation Programs
Crawley, D., L. Lawrie, C. Pedersen, R. Liesen, D. Fisher, R. Strand, R. Taylor, F. Winkelman,

W. Buhl, Y. Yuang, and A. Erdem. “EnergyPlus, a New-Generation Building Energy
Simulation Program.” Proc. Renewable and Advanced Energy Systems for the 21st Century,
American Society of Mechanical Engineer, New York, April, 1999.
The creation of a new-generation building energy simulation program, EnergyPlus is

described. EnergyPlus represents a combination of the BLAST, IBLAST, and DOE-2
simulation programs. Simultaneous solution of the zone heat balance and HVAC system
performance from IBLAST is used. Techniques for simulating HVAC system and plant
performance from the DOE-2 program are used. The new code utilizes a modular
programming approach to improve maintainability and allow for future enhancements.
Interfaces with Window 4.1, COMIS, TRNSYS, and SPARK programs to solve specific
simulation problems are planned. The program will utilize a simple text-based user
interface. Third party developers are expected to provide front end and results processing
software.
Fisher, D., R. Taylor, F. Buhl, R. Liesen, and R. Strand. “A Modular, Loop-Based Approach to
HVAC Energy Simulation and its Implementation in EnergyPlus.” Proc. Building Simulation 99,
International Building Performance Simulation Association, c/o Department of Architecture,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 1999.
The HVAC system simulation technique used in EnergyPlus is described. Unlike the
procedures used in DOE-2 and BLAST, the HVAC solution is carried out simultaneously
with the zone heat balance, providing meaningful feedback between the zone conditions
and the HVAC system performance. A loop based structure for the HVAC system
description is presented, where loops represent air or water flow networks. Flow,
temperature and other fluid properties are calculated at nodes defined within each loop.
Loads are defined by “demand-side” components such as coils and heat exchangers,
energy is supplied to the loop via “supply-side” components such as boilers and chillers.
The arrangement of components within a loop is arbitrary, allowing significant flexibility
in the specification of the system simulation.
Gough, M. “A Review of New Techniques in Building Energy and Environmental Modeling.”

The Building Research Establishment, U.K. April 1999.
The state of the art in building energy simulation program development is provided from
a European perspective. The report reviews traditional whole-building (a.k.a.
deterministic) simulation models (such as DOE-2, BLAST, and EnergyPlus). Emerging
methods are described, including equation-based methods (such as SPARK and IDA),
modal simulation, stochastic simulation, neural network models, and general purpose
chemical process models. The strengths and weaknesses of each approach are presented.
A-23
Sahlin, P. “The Methods of 2020 for Building Envelope and HVAC Systems Simulation – Will
the Present Tools Survive?” Bris Data AB, Stockholm, Sweden. 2000.
A comparison between whole- building and equation-based simulation models is

presented. The strengths and weaknesses of each approach are presented. Several issues
inhibiting the adoption of equation based methods are explored, including run-time, user
interface, and the propensity to “crash.” Advantages including flexibility and reuse of
legacy code are presented. The economic feasibility of commercial investment in code
development is also explored.
Sowell, E. and D. Hittle. “Evolution of Building Energy Simulation Methodology.” ASHRAE

A comparison between the weighting-factor based simulations (such as DOE-2) and

energy balance simulations (such as BLAST) is presented. References to component
based simulations (such as TRNSYS) for systems simulation are also provided.
Strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of each approach are presented.
Strand, R., F. Winkelmann, F. Buel, J. Huang, R. Liesen, C. Pedersen, D. Fisher, R. Taylor, D.

Crawley, and L. Lawrie. “Enhancing and Extending the Capabilities of the Building Heat
Balance Simulation Technique for Use in EnergyPlus.” Proc. Building Simulation 99,
International Building Performance Simulation Association, c/o Department of Architecture,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 1999.
The heat balance technique is a well-known method for calculating thermal loads in
buildings. The heat balance technique is the most fundamental technique used for load
calculations, and is therefore fairly transparent and more easily understood (conceptually)
than other techniques. The solution of the energy balance equations can be quite
complex and slow, giving rise to more obscure but computationally efficient methods of
load calculation. The EnergyPlus program makes use of the heat balance technique for
zone thermal load calculations. The modeling strategies employed by EnergyPlus are
described, including zone thermal loads, moisture absorption / desorption, window
performance, daylighting, and interzonal air flow are described. Interaction with the
HVAC simulation is also described.
(author unknown). EnergyPlus Betat2 Engineering Document.

http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/energy_tools/pdfs/EngineeringDoc.pdf
The engineering documentation for the beta2 release of EnergyPlus is provided at this
website. This “living” document provides the technical basis for the features included in
the beta2 release of EnergyPlus (current as of this writing).
A-24
Wall and Roof Performance
Akbari, H. “Cool Roofs Save Energy.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 104 Pt. 2, 1998.
Field data supporting energy savings from high albedo roof treatments are presented for
several sites in California and Florida. Simulated savings for high albedo roof treatments
are presented for several metropolitan areas.
Akbari, H., L. Gartland, and S. Konopacki. “Measured Energy Savings of Light-Colored Roofs:
Results from Three California Demonstration Sites.” Proc. 1998 Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings, ACEEE, Washington, DC, 1998.
A reflective roof coating was applied to three commercial buildings in California. The
installations were pre/post monitored for energy consumption, roof temperature, space
temperature, roof reflectance. A regression model of cooling energy as a function of
outdoor temperature was used to estimate annual energy savings. The savings were
shown to be a strong function of roof insulation levels.
Beausoleil-Morrison, I., and P. Strachan. “On The Significance of Modeling Internal Surface
Convection in Dynamic Whole-Building Simulation Programs.” ASHRAE Transactions Vol.
105 Pt. 2, 1999.
Much emphasis has been placed on modeling transient heat conduction through solid
surfaces and radiant heat exchange within an enclosure, but relatively little attention has
been paid to modeling convective heat transfer from building surfaces to the room air.
This paper reviews the existing correlations for convective heat transfer and presents the
results of a sensitivity study on the influence of convective heat transfer on overall room
energy consumption. Comparisons with monitored data for IEA test rooms are provided.
Davies, M. “Current Methods to Handle Wall Conduction and Room Internal Heat Transfer.”
ASHRAE Transactions Vol. 105 Pt. 2, 1999.
A comparison of the various methods used in the US and Europe to calculate transient
heat conduction through external and internal walls is provided, including transfer
methods and finite difference methods. Variations on the transfer methods implemented
by ASHRAE, CIBSE, and CEN are discussed. Strengths and weaknesses of each method
are presented. These methods are also used in various forms in building energy
simulation programs.
Geothermal Heat Pump Design Tools
Thornton J.W, T.P. McDowell, and P.J. Hughes. 1997. “Comparison of practical vertical
ground heat exchanger sizing methods to a Fort Polk data/model benchmark” ASHRAE Trans.,
vol.103, part 2, BN-97-8-3.
A-25
Shonder J.A., V.D. Baxter, P.J. Hughes, and J.W. Thornton. 2000. “A comparison of vertical
ground heat exchanger design software for commercial applications” ASHRAE Trans., Vol.106,
Part 1, DA-00-13-1
General HVAC Modeling References
ASHRAE, 1986. A Bibliography of Available Computer Programs in the Area of Heating,

Ventilating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration.
ASHRAE, 1990. An Annotated Guide to Models and Algorithms for Energy Calculations
Relating to HVAC Equipment.
ASHRAE, 1996. HVAC 1 Toolkit and Manual
ASHRAE, 1993. HVAC 2 Toolkit Algorithms and Subroutines for Secondary HVAC Systems
Energy Calculations.
Detailed Boiler / Furnace Models
Several models have been developed over the years to help in the understanding, design, and
refinement of combustion appliances. NIST developed simulation tool of fossil fuel-fired boilers
for residential heating systems (DEPAB). Another model (DEPAB2) was a boiler transient
analysis simulation tool for the design and analysis of commercial boilers that included a detailed
treatment of boiler controllers and modes of heat transfer. NIST also developed (DEPAF) that is
an analytical model which accounts for cyclic operation of the furnace and blower. HFAME is a
dynamic simulation tool developed at NIST based on the stack-loss method which simulates the
performance of a heating system and the seasonal performance of furnace and boiler systems
Park, C. and S.T. Liu. 1998. Performance of a Commercial Hot Water Boiler, NISTIR 6226; 22
p. November. (DEPAB)
Chi, J., C. Lih, and D.A. Didion, 1983, A commercial heating boiler transient analysis simulation
model (DEPAB2), NBSIR 83-2638, NIST.
Park, C. 1981. “Single-zone computer model for residential furnace location analysis.”
ASHRAE Trans. Vol. 87, Part 2. Pp. 897-920. (DEPAF)
Bonne, U. and A. Patani. 1980. “Performance simulation of residential heating systems with
HFLAME III.” ASHRAE Trans. Vol. 86. Part 1. Pp. 351-377.
Bonne, U. 1985. “Furnace and boiler system efficiency and operating cost versus increased
cycling frequency.” ASHRAE Trans. Vol. 91, Part 1B. Pp. 109-130.
Patani, A., R.D. Jacobson and U. Bonne. 1982. “Energy conserving controls for space
conditioning system.” ASHRAE Trans. Vol. 88, Part 1, Pp. 63-7.
A-26
ASHRAE Primary and Secondary Toolkits
The primary toolkit includes models of chillers, boilers, cooling towers, other plant components.
The secondary toolkit focuses on secondary system components such as fans, pumps, coils, and
simple equipment. It also provides routines for psychrometric calculations. ASHRAE has also
prepared a reference guide to dynamic (or transient) models.
HVAC1ToolKit: A Toolkit for Primary HVAC System Energy Calculation, ASHRAE, 1999.
CD.
Lebrun, J., J-P. Bourdouxhe and M. Grodent. 1994. A Toolkit for Primary HVAC System
Energy Calculation, ASHRAE Research Report 665-RP.
ASHRAE, 1993. HVAC 2 Toolkit Algorithms and Subroutines for Secondary HVAC Systems
Energy Calculations.
Bourdouxhe, J-P. and J. Lebrun, 1996. Reference Guide for Dynamic Models of HVAC
Equipment, Universite de Liege, Belgium, ASHRAE Project 738-TRP.
Building & HVAC Models
BLAST
Performs hourly simulations of buildings, air handling systems, and central plant equipment in
order to provide mechanical, energy and architectural engineers with accurate estimates of a
building's energy needs. The zone models of BLAST (Building Loads Analysis and System
Thermodynamics) are based on the fundamental heat balance method. BLAST output may be
utilized in conjunction with the LCCID (Life-Cycle Cost in Design) program to perform an
economic analysis of the building/system/plant design.
The BLAST Support Page www.bso.uiuc.edu/blastmain.htm
BLAST Support Office. 1992. BLAST 3.0 Users Manual. Urbana-Champaign, Illinois: BLAST
Support Office, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois.
A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BLAST RELATED ARTICLES by David Jacobson (October 1986) a

good bibliography available on the BLAST web page.
DOE-2.1E
DOE-2.1E is one of the most widely used and most respected building simulation programs in
industry. It was originally developed by Los Alamos and LBNL in the 1970s and has evolved
into one the most widely used building simulation programs. The most recent version (2.1E)
A-27
was developed jointly by LBNL and JJ Hirsch and Associates. The Energy Science and
Technology Software Center and JJ Hirsch distribute PC versions of DOE-2.1E.
LBNL Simulation Research Group http://SimulationResearch.lbl.gov
JJ Hirsch DOE-2 Page www.doe2.com
LBL-35520 DOE-2 BASICS, VERSION 2.1E,

F.C. Winkelmann, B.E. Birdsall, W.F. Buhl, K.L. Ellington, A.E. Erdem, J.J. Hirsch and S.
Gates, LBNL and Hirsch and Associates, Camarillo, CA, May 1994.
LBL-34947 DOE-2 SUPPLEMENT, VERSION 2.1E,

Buhl, W.F., B. Birdsall, A.E. Erdem, K.L. Ellington and F.C. Winkelmann, and Hirsch &
Associates 1993., November.
LBL-34946 DOE-2 BDL SUMMARY, VERSION 2.1E,

Buhl, W.F., B. Birdsall, A.E. Erdem, K.L. Ellington and F.C. Winkelmann, and Hirsch &
Associates, November 1993.
LBL-11353 DOE-2 ENGINEERS MANUAL, VERSION 2.1A,

Buhl, W.F., B. Birdsall, A.E. Erdem, R. Curtis, K. Olson, K.L. Ellington and F.C. Winkelmann,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Group Q-11, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
November 1982.
DOE-2.2/PowerDOE/eQuest
The newest version of DOE-2 in available from JJ Hirsch and Associates (JJH). This update of
DOE-2 was never officially adopted and released by LBNL due to a licensing dispute between
JJH, LBNL, EPRI, and DOE. PowerDOE, a user friendly interface for DOE-2.2, was released
by and is available from JJH or EPRI.
“Commercial” DOE-2 Site: www.doe2.com
J.J. Hirsch and LBNL. 1998. Overview of DOE-2.2. LBNL Simulation Group and JJH. June.
J.J. Hirsch and LBNL. 1998 DOE-2.2 Basics Manual: HVAC. June 6, 1998.
J.J. Hirsch and LBNL. 1998 DOE-2.2 Topics Manual: HVAC. June 6, 1998.
Energy-10
Energy-10 was developed by NREL as an easy-to-use tool for small commercial buildings (i.e.,
under 10,000 sf). The tool is designed to be helpful to designers: it always makes a base case
run that it can be easily compared to the energy-efficient run. The calculations engine is based on
A-28
the CNE program written by the Berkeley Solar Group for the California Energy Commission for
Title 24 energy code compliance certification.
NREL Energy-10 Page www.nrel.gov/buildings/energy10/
Balcomb, J. Douglas (1997). "ENERGY-10, A Design Tool for Low-Energy Buildings." Proc.
Building Simulation '97, International Building Performance Simulation Association, Sept. 8-10,
1997, Prague, Czech Republic.
EnergyPlus
EnergyPlus is being developed as the “next generation” simulation tool. It integrates the best of
BLAST and DOE-2. It is based on the “heat-balance” building envelope models from BLAST
(and ASHRAE Loads Toolkit) and the SYSTEMS and HVAC portion primarily from DOE-2.
EnergyPlus is only a calculation engine, it is leaving the development of a user interface to third
parties and is allowing links to several specialized building simulation modules/programs.
EnergyPlus Site http://www.energyplus.gov/
http://SimulationResearch.lbl.gov
Crawley, D.B., L.K. Lawrie, F.C. Winkelmann, W.F. Buhl, A.E. Erdem, C.O. Pedersen, R.J.
Liesen and D.E. Fisher. 1997. What Next For Building Energy Simulation - A Glimpse Of The
Future. Proceedings of Building Simulation ’97, IBPSA. Volume 2: 395-402.
Crawley, D.B., L.K. Lawrie, C.O. Pedersen and F.C. Winkelmann. 2000. "EnergyPlus: Energy
Simulation Program," in ASHRAE Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4 (April), pp. 49-56.
Fisher, D.E., R.D. Taylor, F. Buhl, R.J. Liesen, and R.K. Strand. 1999. "A Modular, Loop-Based
Approach to HVAC Energy Simulation And Its Implementation in EnergyPlus," in Proceedings
of Building Simulation ’99, Kyoto, Japan, September 1999. IBPSA.
Strand, R., F. Winkelmann, F. Buhl, J. Huang, R. Liesen, C. Pedersen, D. Fisher, R. Taylor, D.

Crawley and L. Lawrie. 1999. "Enhancing and Extending the Capabilities of the Building Heat
Balance Simulation Technique for use in EnergyPlus," in Proceedings of Building Simulation
’99, Volume II, pp. 653-660, Kyoto, Japan, September 1999. IBPSA.
Crawley, D.B., L.K. Lawrie, C.O. Pedersen, R.J. Liesen, D.E. Fisher, R.K. Strand, R.D. Taylor,
F.C. Winkelmann, W.F. Buhl, A.E. Erdem and Y.J. Huang. 1999. "EnergyPlus, A New-
Generation Building Energy Simulation Program," in Proceedings of Building Simulation ’99,
Volume I, pp. 81-88, Kyoto, Japan, September 1999. IBPSA.
Additional EnergyPlus bibliography available at:
www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/energy_tools/energyplus/energyplus_bibliography.html
A-29
ESP-r
A detailed building simulation model developed at the University of Strathclyde in the UK and
widely used in Europe. It is capable of simulation technologies including daylighting, natural
ventilation, combined heat and electrical power generation and photovoltaic facades, CFD,
multi-gridding, and control systems.
www.esru.strath.ac.uk/
Data model summary ESP-r Version 9 Series', ESRU Publication, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow.
'ESP-r: A Building and Plant Energy Simulation Environment, User Guide Version 9 Series,'
ESRU Publication, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
HAP V3.2/4.0
Carrier’s Hourly Analysis Program (HAP) has been in wide use since the 1980s. Version 4.0 of
this hour-by-hour building model was recently converted to Windows 95\NT (V 3.2 was the last
DOS version). This program models a wide variety of HVAC systems and has the libraries of
Carrier HVAC equipment built into the model.
Carrier HAP Site www.carrier-commercial.com

(under Products \ E20-II Engineering Software \ Hourly Analysis Program)
Energy Analysis User’s Manual for the Hourly Analysis Program, Carrier Software Systems
Network, 1995
HVACSIM+
Simulation model of a building HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning ) system plus
HVAC controls, the building shell, the heating/cooling plant, and energy management and
control system (EMCS) algorithms. The main program of HVACSIM+ (HVAC SIMulation
PLUS other systems) employs a hierarchical, modular approach and advanced equation solving
techniques to perform dynamic simulations of building/HVAC/control systems. The modular
approach is based upon the methodology used in the TRNSYS program. This DOS program is
primarily aimed at detailed (short-timestep) simulation of HVAC systems and control issues.
User by researchers.
HVACSIM+ Building Systems and Equipment Simulation Program Reference Manual, U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, 1985
Park, C, D. Clark, and G. Kelly. 1986. HVACSIM+ Building Systems and Equipment
Simulation Program: Building Load Calculations. NBSIR86-3331.
A-30
IDA Solver
An equation-based solver for component connection and solving. Uses components from the
NMF library (above). Also includes translators to convert TRNSYS, HVACSIM+ components.
BrisData IDA Page: www.brisdata.se/ida/index.htm
Indoor Climate and Energy www.brisdata.se/ice/index.htm

(IDA-based application)
NMF Model Libraries
A Neutral Model Format (NMF) for building simulation has been developed as part of two
research projects completed by ASHRAE (RP-839) and IEA Annex 17 – Primary and Secondary
HVAC Systems. HVAC component models have been developed in NMF from TRNSYS and
the ASHRAE’s Primary Toolkit.
NMF Handbook: home.swipnet.se/nmf/handbook/handbo.htm
Grozman, P., P. Sahlin, 1996, ASHRAE RP-839 NMF Translator - User's Guide, ASHRAE Inc.
and Bris Data AB
Sahlin, P., A. Bring, E.F. Sowell, 1996. The Neutral Model Format for Building Simulation,
Version 3.02, Report, Dept. of Building Sciences, KTH, Stockholm
SPARK
An object-oriented program (i.e. equation solver) that allows the user to quickly build models of
complex physical processes by connecting calculation modules from an object library. SPARK
(Simulation Problem Analysis and Research Kernel) creates an executable simulation program
from this network ready to be run. A development and modeling environment. Contains an
extensive library of HVAC component and system models.
LBNL Simulation Research Group Page http://SimulationResearch.lbl.gov

(follow Spark links)
LBL-45936 EFFICIENT SOLUTION STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING ENERGY

SIMULATION. Edward F. Sowell, California State University at Fullerton, and Philip Haves,
LBNL.
LBL-44097 NUMERICAL PERFORMANCE OF THE SPARK GRAPH-THEORETIC

SIMULATION PROGRAM. Edward F. Sowell, California State University at Fullerton, and
Philip Haves, LBNL.
A-31
LBL-42355 SIMULATION MODEL: FINNED WATER-TO-AIR COIL WITHOUT

CONDENSATION M. Wetter, LBNL, January 1998.
TRACE600
Complete building simulation package from the Trane Company. Models building loads,
building systems, and economics.
Trace 600 Engineering Manual, The Trane Company, 1992
TRNSYS
Modular system simulation software; includes many of the components commonly found
in thermal energy systems as well as component routines to handle input of weather or
other time-dependent forcing functions and output of simulation results. TRNSYS
(TRaNsient SYstem Simulation Program) is typically used for HVAC analysis and
sizing, solar design, building thermal performance, analysis of control schemes, etc.
TRNSYS comes with 60 standard components and 100 more are available in user
libraries. TRNSYS has a wide user base around the world. It is widely used in Europe
by building designers (in addtion to researchers). The popularity of TRNSYS has been
driven by the grpahical front end IISiBAT. IISiBat is a graphical user-interface written
by CSTB, the buildings division of the French government.
TESS Web Site (TRNSYS reseller/cosultant) www.tess-inc.com
UW/Solar Lab Site sel.me.wisc.edu
IISiBAT Page evl.cstb.fr/iisibat.htm
TRNSYS: A Transient System Simulation Program, Solar Energy Laboratory, University of

Wisconsin - Madison, 1994
The Solar Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin and many MS and PhD theses and
published paper related to TRNSYS on their web page.
Technical Reviews of Energy Simulation Techniques and Software
Gough, M. 1999. A Review of New Techniques in Building Energy and Environmental

Modelling. April. Prepared for the Building Research Establishment under contract BREA-43.
Lee, S. 1999. Empirical Validation of Building Energy Simulation Software: DOE-2.1e, HAP,
and TRACE. Doctoral Dissertation. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
A-32
Schler, M. A Knirsch, J. Morhenne. 2000. Entwicklung eines benutzerfreundlichen

Auslegungswerkzeuges fur solare Luftsysteme (report on Modeling Solar Air Systems, IEA
Solar Heating and Cooling Program, Task 19). December. Available at www.transsolar.de.
Simulation Web Resource Sites
http://www.carrier.com
Several pages are devoted to the HAP hourly building energy simulation program. An
introduction of the HAP version 4.0 for Windows program is presented, including input
definition and typical input screen shots. Comparisons between the HAP 4.0 and the previous
DOS-based HAP 3.2 are presented. Other pages present “white papers” on the benefits of
systems-based design, and the benefits of 8760 hour-by-hour building energy analysis.
http://www.doe2.com
The main web page for information on the DOE-2.2, PowerDOE, and eQUEST programs from
J.J. Hirsch.
http://www.energytoolsdirectory.govalphabetical.htm
DOE Building Energy Tools Directory. A comprehensive alphabetical list of Building

Energy Related Software Tools.
http://gundog.lbl.gov/
The home page for the Simulation Research Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
which develops and supports the DOE-2.1E, SPARK, and EnergyPlus programs. An electronic
version of the Building Simulation User News is also available for download.
http://kmp.lbl.gov/BDA/
The home page for the Building Design Advisor (BDA). The BDA is a computer program that
supports the concurrent, integrated use of multiple simulation tools and databases, through a
single, object-based representation of building components and systems. BDA currently
supports DOE-2 building energy simulation and DElite daylighting simulation. Future links to
Radiance, Athena (material life cycle cost analysis). Plans for the future also include links to
cost estimating modules, building rating systems, CAD software and electronic product catalogs.
http://www.sbicouncil.org
The home page for the Sustainable Energy Industries Council, which markets the Energy-10
simulation program.
A-33
http://www.trane.com
A brief introduction to the TRACE 600 energy analysis program is presented.
Refrigeration System Models
General Refrigeration Model References
Below are some references that have compared various models and also looked at the overall
requirements and needs of these type of software.
Conditioners and Heat Pumps Under Extreme Temperature and Humidity Conditions.”
ASHRAE Research Report, Project 859-RP. January.
Fischer, R.D., 1986. State-of-the-Art Review of Vapor-Compression Heat Pump System Models,
Task 2.1 Technical Report, Battelle Columbus, GRI Report, GRI-86/-, February.
M.J.E. Verschoor, 1998. Analysis Of Software Tools For Designing Heat Pumps, TNO-Report,
TNO-MEP-R 98/353.
Bourdouxh, J-P. and Jean Lebrun, 1996. Reference Guide for Dynamic Models of HVAC
Equipment, Universite de Liege, Belgium, ASHRAE Project 738-TRP.
Thorbergsen, E.: "Requirements of a State-of-the-Art Computer Tool for Heat Pump Design",
6th International Energy Agency Heat Pump Conference 1999, Berlin, May 31 - June 2, 1999.
Damascenco, G.S., Rooke, S.P., and Goldschmidt, V.W. 1992. “Comparison of three steady
state heat pump computer models,” ASHRAE Transactions, Vol 98, Part 1. Pp. 191-204.
Conde, M.R.,1992. A Contribution to Heat Pump Design by Simulation, Dissertation, Swiss

Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.
References for the DOE/ORNL Heat Pump Design Model (HPDM)
Web version of HPDM: www.ornl.gov/~wlj/hpdm/doehpdm.html
Rice, C.K., 1997. "DOE/ORNL Heat Pump Design Model, Overview and Application to R-22
Alternatives", 3rd International Conference on Heat Pumps in Cold Climates, Wolfville, Nova
Scotia, Canada, Aug. 11-12, 1997; Caneta Research, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada,
November, pp.43-66.
Rice, C.K., 1996. "ORNL Heat Pump Design Model, Description of Heat Pump Specification
Data, Mark V, Version 95D," Update Notes, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May, 23 pages.
A-34
Rice, C.K., 1996. "ORNL Mark V Heat Pump Design Model, Summary Of Changes From
Version 95B To 95D," Update Notes, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May, 3 pages.
Rice, C.K. and W.L. Jackson, 1994. PUREZ -- The Mark V ORNL Heat Pump Design Model For
Chlorine-Free, Pure And Near-Azeotropic Refrigerant Alternatives, Documentation Package,
Version 0.95B, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, November.
Rice, C.K., 1991. The ORNL Modulating Heat Pump Design Tool - Mark IV User's Guide,
ORNL/CON-343, [Draft, June 1991] Final, September 2001. 199 pages.
Fischer, S.K., C.K. Rice and W.L. Jackson, 1988. The Oak Ridge Heat Pump Model: Mark III
Version Program Documentation, ORNL/TM-10192, March, 31 pages.
Rice, C.K., 1987. "The Effect of Void Fraction Correlation and Heat Flux Assumption on
Refrigerant Charge Inventory Predictions," ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 93, Part 1, pp.341-67.
Fischer, S.K. and C.K. Rice, 1983. The Oak Ridge Heat Pump Models: I. A Steady-State
Computer Design Model for Air-to-Air Heat Pumps, ORNL/CON-80/R1, August, 185 pages.
Dabiri, A.E. and C.K. Rice, 1981. "A Compressor Simulation Model with Corrections for the
Level of Suction Gas Superheat," ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 87, Part 2, pp.771-782.
Ellison, R.D. et al., 1979. "Heat Pump Modeling: A Progress Report," Proceedings of the 4th
Annual Heat Pump Technology Conference, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, April 9-10,
1979, pp. II 1-9.
Ellison, R.D. and F.A. Creswick, 1978. A Computer Simulation of Steady-State Performance of
Air-to-Air Heat Pumps, ORNL/CON-16, March, 104 pages.
Bergt, C., 1989. “Creating a PROLOG knowledge-based system using an existing air-to-
refrigerant computer model,” ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 95, Pt. 1, pp. 1237-1242.
Hiller, C.C. and L.R. Glicksman, Improving Heat Pump Performance via Compressor Capacity
Control — Analysis and Test, Vols. I and II, MIT Energy Laboratory Report No. MIT-EL 76-
001, 1976.
Copeland Corporation, 1997. COPESIM-HPTM System Design Tool, Installation / User Manual,
Release 1.1 (For Windows 95), AS4-10372, January.
Fischer, S.K. and C.K. Rice, 1985. "System Design Optimization and Validation for Single-
Speed Heat Pumps," ASHRAE Transactions, 91, Pt. 2B, pp. 509-523.
Fagan, T.J., et al, 1987. Oak Ridge National Laboratory heat pump performance prediction
computer code: additions and verification, Westinghouse Research Report 87-9J8-MATHP-R1,
November.
Rice, C.K., "Benchmark Performance Analysis Of An ECM-Modulated Air-To-Air Heat Pump

With A Reciprocating Compressor," ASHRAE Transactions, 98 (1), 1991, pp. 430–450.
A-35
Rice, C.K., 1997. "DOE/ORNL Heat Pump Design Model, Overview and Application to R-22
Alternatives," 3rd International Conference on Heat Pumps in Cold Climates, pp.43-66,
published November 1997.
Nowakowski, G., et al., 1995. “Field performance of a 3-ton natural gas engine-driven heating
and cooling system,” ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 101, Pt. 2, pp 1382-1388.
Monahan, R.E., et al, 1987. “The development of a kinematic stirling-engine-driven heat pump,”
ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 93, Pt. 2.
Hughes, H.M., 1985. “A parameterized cost model for unitary water-source heat pumps,”
ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 91, Pt. 2B, pp. 1204-1215.
Catan, M.A. and V.D. Baxter, 1985. “An optimized ground-coupled heat pump system design for
northern climate applications,” ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 91, Pt. 2B, pp. 1185-1203.
Chapp, T.L., Modine Manufacturing Co., 1997. “Advances in central air conditioning system
performance utilizing microchannel heat exchangers,” Seminar 22, ASHRAE Annual Meeting,
Boston, Mass., June 28-July 2.
Rosenquist, G.J., 1997. ”Comparison of Simulated and Measured Test Data on Air-Source Heat
Pumps,” Heat Pumps In Cold Climates, Third International Technical Conference, Proceedings;
Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada; August 11-12.
NIST/HPSIM and Evaporator Model References
Domanski, P.A. and Didion, D.A., 1984, "Mathematical Model of an Air-to-Air Heat Pumps
Equipped with a Capillary Tube," International Journal of Refrigeration, Vol. 7, No. 4.
Domanski, P.A. and Didion, D.A., 1983, Computer Modeling of the Vapor Compression Cycle
with Constant Flow Area Expansion Device, Building Science Series 155, National Bureau of
Standards, Gaithersburg, MD.
Domanski, P.A., 1999, "Finned-Tube Evaporator Model With a Visual Interface," 20th Int.
Congress of Refrigeration, Sydney, Australia, September 19-24, 1999, International Institute of
Refrigeration, Paris.
Domanski, P.A., 1991, Simulation of an Evaporator with Nonuniform One Dimensional Air
Distribution, ASHRAE Transactions, Paper No. NY-91-13-1, Vol. 97, Part 1.
Domanski, P.A., 1989, EVSIM - An Evaporator Simulation Model Accounting for Refrigerant
and One Dimensional Air Distribution, NISTIR 89-4133, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
A-36
Purdue University/ACMODEL
ACMODEL was developed at Purdue to aid the development of automated fault detection and
diagnostic methods for vapor compression equipment. It was also used ASHRAE Research
Project 859-RP and compared the HPDM and HPSIM programs.
Rossi, T.M., 1995. Detection, Diagnosis, and Evaluation of Faults in Vapor Compression Cycle
Equipment, Report No. 1796-3 HL 95-13, Ph.D. Thesis, Ray W. Herrick Laboratories, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Rossi, T.M. and Braun, J. 1999. “A Real-Time Transient Model for Air-Conditioners”, 20th Int.
Congress of Refrigeration, Sydney, Australia, September 19-24, International Institute of
Refrigeration, Paris.
LeRoy J.T., Groll E A., Braun J.E. 1998. “Computer model predictions of dehumidification
performance of unitary air conditioners and heat pumps under extreme operating conditions.”
ASHRAE Trans., 1998, Vol.104, Part 2, Paper number TO-98-9-3 (RP-859), 773-788.
Conditioners and Heat Pumps Under Extreme Temperature and Humidity Conditions.”
ASHRAE Research Report, Project 859-RP. January.
University of Illinois/ACRC - Modular Simulation Model for AC Systems
The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Center (ACRC) at the University of Illinois
has developed a detailed air conditioner simulation model with a modular structure that can
accommodate the various types of heat exchangers and expansion devices that are used in a wide
variety of stationary and mobile air conditioning and refrigeration applications. The model builds
on an existing model / solver structure that enables the user to exchange input and output
variables without rewriting or recompiling the program. Models specific to refrigerator / freezers
and room air conditioners have been developed. The models are only available to ACRC
consortium members with minimal user support.
TR-61. Refrigerator / Freezer System Modeling, Goodson, M.P. and C.W. Bullard,
August 1994, 122 pp.
TR-79. Simulation of Room Air Conditioner Performance, Bridges, B.D. and C.W.
Bullard, July 1995, 133 pp.
TR-99. Development, Validation, and Application of a Refrigerator Simulation Model,

Woodall, R.J. and C.W. Bullard, June 1996, 195pp
TR-116. Development and Validation of a Room Air Conditioning Simulation Model,

Mullen, C. E., B. D. Bridges, K. J. Porter, G. W. Hahn, and C. W. Bullard, April
1997, 18pp
A-37
TR-149. Modeling, Design, and Testing of a Microchannel Split-System Air

Conditioner, Kirkwood, A.C. and C.W. Bullard, March 1999, 133 pp.
TR-151. Controlling Indoor Humidity Using Variable-Speed Compressors and

Blowers, Andrade, M.A. and C.W. Bullard, July 1999, 73 pp.
Mullen, C.E., B.D. Bridges, K.J. Porter, G.W. Hahn, and C.W. Bullard,"Development and
Validation of a Room Air-Conditioning Simulation Model," Transactions of the American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, 104:2, 1998.
University of Maryland – CycleBuilder
Several references from the Center for Energy and Environment and their efforts to develop an
object-oriented, Windows-based tool to combine components together to form refrigeration
systems.
Tandon, A., 1999. Object-Oriented Modeling of Vapor Compression Systems and Components,
M. S. Thesis, University of Maryland.
Anand, G., 1999. Transient and Steady State Model of a Household Refrigerator, M. S. Thesis,
University of Maryland.
CETIAT Models (France)
CETIAT has developed the Modular System Modeling (Mo-Mo) Program as well as the
CYRANO (Heat Exchanger Design Program).
Mondot, M.,1991, “Component Based Modeling as a Design Tool for Refrigeration Machines,”
Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Refrigeration, Volume III, pp. 970-974.
Mondot, M.,1991, “Water Loop Heat Pump System Modelling,” Proceedings of the XVIIIth
International Congress of Refrigeration, Volume III, pp. 1476-1480.
Bensafi, A., S. Borg and D. Parent, 1996. “Design and Simulation of Heat Pumps and A/C
equipment using pure and mixed refrigerants with MoMo (Modular Modeling)," Toronto,
Canada, 5th IEA Conference on Heat Pumping Technologies.
Bensafi, A., S. Borg and D. Parent, 1997. “CYRANO: A Computational Model For The Detailed
Design Of Plate-Fin-And-Tube Heat Exchangers Using Pure And Mixed Refrigerants,”
International Journal of Refrigeration, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 218-228.
Auffret, P., F. Beck, P. Girault and G. Guyon, 1999. “The Electricite de France R&D Programme
on Heat Pumps”, 6th International Energy Agency Heat Pump Conference 1999, Berlin, May 31
- June 2.
A-38
ETH - HPDesign Program (Swiss)
HPDesign was developed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) for heat pump
design and simulation. The DOS program is marketed through M. CONDE ENGINEERING (the
author’s company).
Conde, M.R. and P. Suter, 1991. “HP design - a computer program for simulation of domestic
heat pumps,” Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Refrigeration, Volume III,
pp. 1448-1453.
Conde, M.R., 1992. A Contribution to Heat Pump Design by Simulation, Dissertation, Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.
Conde, M.R., 1993. "The Design of Heat Pumps by Simulation," Heat Pumps for Energy
Efficiency and Environmental Progress, J. Bosma Editor, 229-235, Elsevier.
Conde, M.R., 1996, "HPDesign" Technical Manual, M. Conde Engineering, Zurich-Switzerland.
Conde, M.R., 1996, “The Design of Heat Pumps By Computers with ‘HPDesign’”, 5th IEA
Conference on Heat Pumping Technologies, Conference Proceedings, Vol. II, pp. 361-369,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Sept. 22-26. (Note: good source of other references.)
TNO – Cycle/Cycle-Tempo (Netherlands)
Netherlands Institute of Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Institute of Environmental

Sciences, Energy Research, and Process Innovation has developed Cycle-Tempo. It is based on
Cycle which was originally developed at Delft Technical University. Cycle-Tempo is for
thermodynamic modeling and optimization of systems for the production of electricity, heat and
refrigeration. Such systems often comprise various interconnected cycles each of which consists
of (sometimes many) different apparatuses, resulting in a complex network of mass and energy
flows. The primary aim of Cycle-Tempo is to calculate the size of the relevant mass and energy
flows in the system. The program leaves the system configuration entirely up to the user. This
almost unlimited flexibility is said to be an advantage over many existing programs in which the
configuration cannot be varied, or only to a limited extent.
TNO main page www.mep.tno.nl
Description of Cycle-Tempo www-pe.wbmt.tudelft.nl/ev/cycle/cycle.html
Miedema, J.A. (1981) CYCLE; a general computer code for thermodynamic cycle computations
- Studies of cogeneration in district heating systems. Dissertation WTHD 135, Delft University
of Technology.
Linnemeijer, M.J.J. and J.P. VAN BUIJTENEN (1988) Design Possibilities and Performance of
Combined Cycle Operation of Converted Steam Power Plants. ASME Publication 88-GT-178.
A-39
Verschoor, M.J.E., 1998. Analysis Of Software Tools For Designing Heat Pumps, TNO-Report,
TNO-MEP-R 98/353.
Verschoor, M.J.E., 1998. “Adapting CHP Software to Suit the Modelling of Heat Pump and
Refrigeration Systems,” 59th Eurotherm Seminar on Thermodynamics, Heat and Mass Transfer
of Refrigeration and Heat Pumps, Nancy, France, 6-7 July.
Verschoor, M.J.E., 1999. “Modeling Refrigeration and Heat Pump Systems with Software for
Power Cycles,” Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Refrigeration, Sydney,
Australia, September.
SINTEF FrigoSim Model (Norway)
FrigoSim is a process simulation program for thermal energy plants. It is commercially available
through Thorbergsen Frigosoft. It allows the user to design refrigerating plants, including heat
pumps and air conditioning systems. FrigoSim assists the user in making an optimal design of a
plant with respect to capacity and economy. The accuracy of the calculation is mainly based on
the component data quality and the user effort to set up a detailed plant description.
FrigoSim web page: ed.interconsult.com/frigosoft/frigosim/index.html
Thorbergsen, E. "PROSIM, a Program System Simulating Heat Pump Plants", International

Institute of Refrigeration, Commission E2, Trondheim, June 1985.
Thorbergsen, E. "PROSIM Introduction - Getting started with PROSIM.", SINTEF Refrigeration

Engineering,1987.
Thorbergsen, E. "PROSIM Report - Detailed description of PROSIM", SINTEF Refrigeration

Engineering, 1987.
Thorbergsen, E. "Design Programs for Compression Heat Pump Refrigeration Systems and
Components", 3rd International Energy Agency Heat Pump Conference, Tokyo, Japan, March
1990.
Thorbergsen, E. "PC Program for Design of Public Halls in Rock Caverns - Modelling and User
Interface",International Symposium on Underground Openings for Public Use, Gjøvik, Norway,
June 1994.
Alves-Filho, O., I. Stømmen and E. Thorbergsen. "A Simulation Model for Heat Pump Dryer
Plants for Fruits and Roots," Drying Technology, Volume 15, Number 5, 1997.
Thorbergsen, E. "Requirements of a State-of-the-Art Computer Tool for Heat Pump Design," 6th
International Energy Agency Heat Pump Conference 1999, Berlin, May 31 - June 2, 1999.
A-40
ABSIM
ABSIM has been employed successfully to simulate a variety of single-, double- and triple-stage
absorption chillers, heat pumps and heat transformers using the working fluids LiBr-H2O, H2O-
NH3, LiBr/H2O-NH3, LiBr/ZnBr2-CH3OH and more. Eleven absorption fluids are presently
available in the code's property database, and twelve units are available to compose practically
every absorption cycle of interest. The code in its present form may be used not only for
evaluating new cycles and working fluids, but also to investigate a system's behavior in off-
design conditions, to analyze experimental data and to perform preliminary design optimization.
Grossman, G. and E. Michelson, 1986. Absorption Heat Pump Simulation and Studies,
ORNL/Sub/83-43337/2.
Grossman, G., K. Gommed, and D. Gadoth, 1991. Computer Model for Simulation of
Absorption Systems in Flexible and Modular Form, ORNL/Sub/90-89673.
Grossman, G. and M. Wilk, 1993. Enhanced Absorption Cycle Computer Model. ORNL/Sub/91-
SH641/1 (1993).
Grossman, G., 1998, ABSIM, Modular Simulation of Absorption Systems, User’s Guide and
Reference, WINDOWS Version 5.0 (AbsimW), March, Draft.
Grossman, G. and M. Wilk: Advanced modular simulation of absorption systems. International

Journal of Refrigeration, 17, 231-244, (1994).
Grossman, G., M. Wilk and R.C. DeVault: Simulation and performance analysis of triple-effect
absorption cycles. ASHRAE Transactions, 100, Part 1, 452-462, (1994).
Grossman, G., R.C. DeVault and F.A. Creswick: Simulation and performance analysis of an
ammonia-water absorption heat pump based on the generator-absorber heat exchange (GAX)
cycle. ASHRAE Transactions, 101, Part 1, 1313-1323, (1995).
Grossman, G., A. Zaltash and R. C. DeVault: Simulation and performance analysis of a four-
effect lithium bromide-water absorption chiller. ASHRAE Transactions, 101, Part 1, 13021312,
(1995).
Grossman, G., A. Zaltash, P.W. Adcock and R. C. DeVault: Simulating a 4-effect absorption
chiller. ASHRAE Journal, , 37, 45-53, (1995).
Grossman, G., A. Zaltash, “Simulation and Performance Analysis of Basic GAX and Advanced
GAX Cycles with Ammonia/Water and Amonnia/Water/LiBr Absorption Fluids”, International
Ab-Sorption Heat Pump Conference, Conference Proceedings, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Sept.
17-20, 1996, p. 445.
Hellmann, H-M. and G. Grossman: Improved property data correlations of absorption fluids for
computer simulation of heat pump cycles. ASHRAE Transactions, 102, Part 1, (1996).
A-41
Engler, M., G. Grossman and H-M. Hellmann: Comparative simulation and investigation of
ammonia-water absorption cycles for heat pump applications. International Journal of
Refrigeration, 20, 504-516, (1997).
Grossman, G. and A. Zaltash, ABSIM: Modular Simulation of Advanced Absorption Systems,

Proceedings of the ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division - 1999, AES-Vol. 39, November
1999, Nashville, TN.
NIST CYCLE-D Model
The CYCLE_D database package simulates the vapor compression refrigeration cycles. Version
2.2 of CYCLE_D uses a suite of refrigerant property routines from the Version 6.0 of the well-
known and widely-used NIST Standard Reference Database 23 - NIST Thermodynamic
Properties of Refrigerants and Refrigerant Mixtures (REFPROP). Computationally, CYCLE_D
is fully compatible with REFPROP 6.0 and covers the 33 pure fluids that are available in
REFPROP 6.0. Fluids can be used in mixtures comprising up to five components.
Domanski, P.A., D.A. Didion and J. Chi, 1999. NIST Standard Reference Database 49,
CYCLE_D: NIST Vapor Compression Cycle Design Program, Version 2.0, NIST Standard
Reference Data Program, NIST.
http://www.nist.gov/srd/nist49.htm
ORNL REFCYCLE, BICYCLE, and TRICYCLE
Three basic vapor compression cycle simulation models are available for pure and mixed
refrigerants: REFCYCLE, BICYCLE, and TRICYCLE. All use the NIST REFPROP program
for refrigerant thermodynamic and transport properties. REFCYCLE calculates the theoretical
cycle performance of refrigerants at specified heat exchanger temperatures (mean or dew point),
superheat / subcooling / intercooling levels, and compressor efficiencies. BICYCLE simulates
cycle performance in both heating and cooling modes (bimodal) with specified external flows or
temperature changes (for a variety of fluids), heat exchanger conductances (UAs), and capacity
or compressor size. TRICYCLE extends BICYCLE to include refrigerant-specific heat transfer
and pressure drop effects in the heat exchangers and allows tube diameter and circuitry to be
optimized for each refrigerant.
Rice, C.K., L.S. Wright, and P.K. Bansal, “Thermodynamic Cycle Evaluation Model for R-22
Alternatives in Heat Pumps -- Initial Results and Comparisons”, Proceedings of Heat Pumps in
Cold Climates, Second International Technical Conference, August 16-17, 1993, published
January 1994 by Caneta Research, Inc., pp 81-96.
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/BTC/modeling.htm
A-42

Building and HVAC Design Tools and Processes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building and HVAC Design Tools and Processes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTI-21CR-605-30010-30020-01

Authors: P. Jacobs, H. Henderson

ARCHITECTURAL ENERGY CORPORATION

CDH Energy Corp.

Prepared for the

Distribution A – Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited.

Available to the public from

U.S. Department of Commerce

Available to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors in paper from

U.S. Department of Energy

Authors: P. Jacobs, H. Henderson

Prepared for the

• Fred Porter, Michael Holtz, and Laurel Van Driest, AEC.

The specific objectives of the project were to:

• Understand user requirements among three key groups – architectural designers,

Current Design Practices

Existing Software Tools

Market Research on Software Used for Building Design

Pathways to Improve Tools

A good example of relevant design assistance materials is available at

1. Embracing and supporting software interoperability efforts,

1 DESIGN PRACTICES ..................................................................................................... 2-1

3 REVIEW OF EXISTING BUILDING AND HVAC SOFTWARE ............................. 3-1

3.3.1 Simplified Energy Analysis Models ......................................................... 3-28

4 WEB SURVEY.................................................................................................................. 4-1

5 FOCUS GROUPS ............................................................................................................. 5-1

6 WHOLE BUILDING ENERGY ANALYSIS TOOLS.................................................. 6-1

6.6.2 EnergyPlus Systems Simulation ............................................................... 6-30

7 TOOL CAPABILITIES ................................................................................................... 7-1

8 PATHWAYS TO IMPROVE DESIGN TOOLS ........................................................... 8-1

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ A-1

Table 2-1 Comparison of Standard vs. Energy-Efficient Design............................................ 2-6

Table 3-1 List of Sub-Categories in Practitioner Design Tools .............................................. 3-4

Table 5-1 Characteristics of Denver, Colorado Attendees...................................................... 5-2

Table 6-1 User Interfaces Written for DOE-2.1E ................................................................. 6-28

Table 7-1 Comparison of Simulation Program Capabilities ................................................... 7-1

Figure 4-1 Web Survey Announcement ................................................................................... 4-2

Figure 6-1 Energy-10 Autobuild Screen................................................................................... 6-6

Figure 6-17 eQUEST Detail Mode 3D Building View ............................................................ 6-26

To conduct this investigation, several research objectives were defined:

• Understand user requirements among three key groups – architectural designers,

1.1 Report Organization

2.1 Design Process

Architectural Design and Construction Phases

Pre-Design / Schematic Design Construction Construction Post-

Figure 2-1. Graphical Representation of the Design and Construction Process

A brief description of each design phase is as follows:

Pre-Design / Programming. The pre-design / programming phase is typically concerned with

2.1.1 Impact of Timing on Energy Efficiency

Schematic Construction Occupancy

Figure 2-2. Impact of Timing on Energy Savings Potential

2.2 Design Practices

The recent innovation in CAD technology is object-oriented 3D model-based design products.

2.2.2 Energy Analysis Tools

2.3 Whole Building Design

2.3.1 Conceptual Example of Whole Building Design

Table 2-1. Comparison of Standard vs. Energy-Efficient Design

Energy Consumption Comparison

Standard Building Energy-Efficient Building

Figure 2-3. Energy Consumption Comparison of Standard and Energy-Efficient Design.

2.3.2 Real-World Example of Whole Building Design

2.4 Market Barriers to Energy-Efficient Building Design

Table 2-2. Market Barriers to Energy-Efficient Building Design

2.4.1 Institutional Barriers