國立虎尾科技大學 |

Building Performance Simulation for Architects, Comparing Three Leading Simulation Tools.

Record Type:	Language materials, manuscript : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Building Performance Simulation for Architects, Comparing Three Leading Simulation Tools./
Author:	Abo Issa, Mohamed A.
Description:	1 online resource (92 pages)
Notes:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-05.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International57-05(E).
Subject:	Architecture. -
Online resource:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9780355959000

Building Performance Simulation for Architects, Comparing Three Leading Simulation Tools.
Abo Issa, Mohamed A.

Building Performance Simulation for Architects, Comparing Three Leading Simulation Tools. - 1 online resource (92 pages)

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-05.

Thesis (M.S.)--The University of Texas at San Antonio, 2018.

Includes bibliographical references

The primary objective of this research was to assess, compare, and contrast the capabilities of the most commonly used BEM tools by architects: Designbuilder, eQuest, and IES-VE, concerning their effectiveness in modeling a complex academic building and simulating its energy use. The research defined a set of evaluation criteria based on previous studies from the literature review as follows: 1) Usability, 2) Data Interoperability, 3) Support Options, 4) Information Management, and 5) Computing Capabilities. The objective of the criteria was to assess the suitability of these tools to be used by architects during preliminary design phases, and identifying any additional development that may be needed for these tools to achieve the required penetration in this critical sector. The results of the research showed strength in eQuest in importing thermal and construction data from the gbXML file, which both Designbuilder and IES-VE were not able to successfully do. On the other hand, IES-VE and Designbuilder were more successful in importing the geometry data, which encountered many issues by eQuest. IES-VE and Designbuilder provided a variety of support options while eQuest had insufficient support resources. On the other hand, eQuest was the fastest simulation running tool, and due to the successful thermal and construction data interoperability, least data input was required by architects; however, the GUI on eQuest was not as friendly as IES-VE and Designbuilder. Although IES-VE and Designbuilder required higher efforts especially on thermal, and construction data input, their comprehensive template library compensated part of the effort needed for data reentry. Finally, load and energy simulations were carried with only one variable "template default values of VAV HVAC system" resulted in 10%, and 28% higher equipment and lighting energy used respectively on Designbuilder when compared to IES-VE and eQuest. On the other hand, the heating to cooling ratio was higher on eQuest (2:3) compared to that of IES-VE and Designbuilder (1:3). To conclude, the results showed that eQuest could offer more potential for construction and thermal data interoperability with significantly faster simulation time, while IES-VE and Designbuilder can provide more potential with their built-in comprehensive templates data library as well as architect-friendly GUI and presentation of output results.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2018

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9780355959000Subjects--Topical Terms:

555123
Architecture.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Building Performance Simulation for Architects, Comparing Three Leading Simulation Tools.
LDR:03668ntm a2200349Ki 4500 001 917420
005 20181012133445.5
006 m o u
007 cr mn||||a|a||
008 190606s2018 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9780355959000
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10686099
035 $a (MiAaPQ)utsa:12450
035 $a AAI10686099
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Abo Issa, Mohamed A. $3 1191461
245 1 0 $a Building Performance Simulation for Architects, Comparing Three Leading Simulation Tools.
264 0 $c 2018
300 $a 1 online resource (92 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 57-05.
500 $a Adviser: Hazem Rashed-Ali.
502 $a Thesis (M.S.)--The University of Texas at San Antonio, 2018.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a The primary objective of this research was to assess, compare, and contrast the capabilities of the most commonly used BEM tools by architects: Designbuilder, eQuest, and IES-VE, concerning their effectiveness in modeling a complex academic building and simulating its energy use. The research defined a set of evaluation criteria based on previous studies from the literature review as follows: 1) Usability, 2) Data Interoperability, 3) Support Options, 4) Information Management, and 5) Computing Capabilities. The objective of the criteria was to assess the suitability of these tools to be used by architects during preliminary design phases, and identifying any additional development that may be needed for these tools to achieve the required penetration in this critical sector. The results of the research showed strength in eQuest in importing thermal and construction data from the gbXML file, which both Designbuilder and IES-VE were not able to successfully do. On the other hand, IES-VE and Designbuilder were more successful in importing the geometry data, which encountered many issues by eQuest. IES-VE and Designbuilder provided a variety of support options while eQuest had insufficient support resources. On the other hand, eQuest was the fastest simulation running tool, and due to the successful thermal and construction data interoperability, least data input was required by architects; however, the GUI on eQuest was not as friendly as IES-VE and Designbuilder. Although IES-VE and Designbuilder required higher efforts especially on thermal, and construction data input, their comprehensive template library compensated part of the effort needed for data reentry. Finally, load and energy simulations were carried with only one variable "template default values of VAV HVAC system" resulted in 10%, and 28% higher equipment and lighting energy used respectively on Designbuilder when compared to IES-VE and eQuest. On the other hand, the heating to cooling ratio was higher on eQuest (2:3) compared to that of IES-VE and Designbuilder (1:3). To conclude, the results showed that eQuest could offer more potential for construction and thermal data interoperability with significantly faster simulation time, while IES-VE and Designbuilder can provide more potential with their built-in comprehensive templates data library as well as architect-friendly GUI and presentation of output results.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2018
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Architecture. $3 555123
650 4 $a Sustainability. $3 793436
650 4 $a Energy. $3 784773
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0729
690 $a 0640
690 $a 0791
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a The University of Texas at San Antonio. $b Architecture. $3 1191379
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 57-05(E).
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10686099 $z click for full text (PQDT)