VE and Trace 700 for Energy Analysis

[mccurdyks]

I've seen some threads on this, but nobody has fessed up yet.

Trace 700 has been mechanical's choice for analysis in the past and they're bucking learning IES's VE. They are still in CAD land while we're using RAC for our architectural work.

Anyone have some good experience/amusing anecdotes to share on either VE/Revit or Trace/Revit? All the info (green papers, etc.) on VE/Revit has not been convincing to the engineers. They really want to stick with Trace. Any insider information on coming functionality on either front that may help?

Thanks.

[Mottiqua]

you can easily export your data to gbxml into trace.

Arup EnergySave
Carmel LoadSoft
Carrier HAP
DOE Energy-10
Green Building Studio
IES <VE>
Silicon Energy Calibrated Load Shaping
Trane Trace® 700
Cylon Controls

I haven't done it myself per se, but I know the most important thing, is making sure you have your room data set up properly.

Here's a portion of Jason Martin's class from AU 2006...I've attached the whole pdf for your use. HTH

"The methods that the gbXML functionality uses to export data is based on rooms. If the room definitions are not correct, the gbXML file that is generated from the Revit Model will be just as incorrect.

There are a number of parameters available in Revit Systems that can be exported to gbXML. The values under the Energy Analysis section of room properties are only exported if Use Data in Energy Analysis is set to ON. The parameters involving Load Analysis are available for export only in Revit Systems.

Revit Systems also has an additional functionality that allows us to import the results of the Load Analysis. These calculated values can then be used to determine if adequate airflow has been provided to the spaces."

[kyle.bernhardt]

All the info (green papers, etc.) on VE/Revit has not been convincing to the engineers. They really want to stick with Trace.

What are their concerns regarding the IES <VE> calculation ability?

Kyle B

[mccurdyks]

I think it's unfortunate, but the biggest problem I'm having is that our MEP department watched the architectural side of our firm struggle with Revit back in 6. Mind you, in hindsight that was mostly our own fault due to our own entrenched ideas of workflow and document output. But during that struggle, MEP heard how great the software is from all the hype at AU, etc. only to watch us struggle to get up to speed...

That's why papers and "I know it will work theoretically" discussions aren't going to fly. I need to hear from someone who's using this stuff with success. I know it will work. I've done it with small examples for them.

What are the major hurdles to productivity so I can head that stuff off? In users' experience, how much do they end up having to build their own geometries anyway to get good results rather than just being able to take the architects output? Is VE as user friendly once you learn it as Trace (or more difficult to get the same results)? Can it do the same things? More analyses? Less?

Honestly, it's kind of worrying me that no one wants to talk about how much this has helped their productivity...

[dmb.100468]

What are their concerns regarding the IES <VE> calculation ability?

Kyle B

Our Mechanical department head has expressed dissatisfaction with IES<VE> due to the very limited and general information given with the Heating and Cooling loads calculation tool provided in Revit MEP (too basic) along with the need to purchase several different modules to get the analysis we're looking for. He also stated that there is too much concentration on information that we don't need or use. At this time we will continue to use Trace.

[mccurdyks]

Thanks. I knew someone had tried this in the real world. These are also our initial concern, and we didn't want to waste time really digging into VE add ons to see if the features we need are there or not.

At this time we will continue to use Trace.

Are you using information exported from MEP as a basis for Trace, or are you still entering all room info from scratch?

Kevin

[Mottiqua]

At my firm, we have a small department dedicated to nothing but Energy Analysis/Modeling for our clients. They have been using IES<ve> for a few years now, but it's a complicated program to learn. We use the integration of IES and revit for a "first tier" analysis...A much more complex analysis will be done using the full blown version of IES.
As for the rest of our design engineers, they use Trane Trace, it's what they're comfortable with

[mccurdyks]

After all my poking and prodding, that's the direction I'm heading. I would like to use the integrated VE as a "lite" analysis method for now and continue with Trace for our final. I'm hedging that the linked VE will become even more robust in future releases...

Kevin

[dmb.100468]

Are you using information exported from MEP as a basis for Trace, or are you still entering all room info from scratch?

Kevin

The goal is to get our engineers more comfortable with exporting the information from MEP, but right now we have a smattering of both methods.

[alan.jackson]

At my firm, we have a small department dedicated to nothing but Energy Analysis/Modeling for our clients. They have been using IES<ve> for a few years now, but it's a complicated program to learn. We use the integration of IES and revit for a "first tier" analysis...A much more complex analysis will be done using the full blown version of IES.
As for the rest of our design engineers, they use Trane Trace, it's what they're comfortable with

Our firm has also been using IES <VE> for a few years now and like any piece of software there are pros and cons. I will try to summarize as best I can my experiences.

IES <VE> is indeed a difficult piece of software to use. As a mechanical engineer I am only concerned about the ASHRAE load calculation module, which I am quite pleased with and have had much success with. I have built many complex buildings with difficult geometry. Many others in our office still fall back on Trane Trace only because it is what they know and do not have the time to learn something new. The main benefit for our office as a whole is that we are consistently being asked, as many are, to provide simulations for daylighting (radiance), cfd modeling, condensation, system simulation, LCC analysis (mostly handled by our sustainability and computation analysis departments). Much of this can not be done with Trace and IES allows us to have a uniform single platform model to work off of and we are happy with results. If it were not for the other departments and additional services that are required with I would be happy with Trace or eQuest.

We were extremely excited about Revit because we had the impression that we could take our architects Revit model and with little fuss have our load calcs and building simulation and analysis completed w/o ever having to recreate the building in multiple platforms multiple times which is time and money. The truth of the matter is that we have been less than satisfied with the gbxml export and internal Apache calcs within Revit. We have struggled to assign thermal templates and the geometry and zoning is frequently wrong and you can't go back and forth between the two making changes. This may be a function of the architect I don't know. We deal with very modern complex architecture and it is not always straight forward. There is a reason why every example in software seems to be a square office!

I am really interested to see where the IFC standard is going as an alternative to gbxml. If anyone has information on this please let me know. I have only seen ArchiCAD and energyplus make use of this format for direct translation but I understand Revit does also (maybe?).

Alan Jackson, LEED® A.P.
Mechanical Engineer
Buro Happold Consulting Engineers, PC