Eco Designer

[Anonymous]

Hello,

I would like to inquire if anybody has proper experience with Eco Designer for energy analysis and thermal bridges. Is there any limitation using these tool, meaning formulas, compliances, standards before try.

[rjwilden]

I have spent more time on it than would be reasonable to expect, the manipulation of zones is better, but on a complex building it takes a lot of work to get them all set up. The problem I have is the results. They bear absolutely no relation to my own real world experience. The numbers are all to hell. Even did an example on the house I live in. The printout suggest The demand is three time the energy than I really do use.

[Anonymous]

thank you!!!!!
Am i the only one that thinks that eco design is a joke?
It is so much a joke that i cant use it.
The energy demand in kWh/m2a i so hight that if you present any work done by eco design to a municipality you will never get any building permit.

I have been trying to use the energy evaluation on different project but never succeeded because it always show to much annually energy consumption.
I set the windows to be about 1,1 , walls 0,16 , roof and ground 0,13 Wm2K.
All those factors result in a energy consumption of at least 130.00 kWh/m2a.
Can this be truth???? When our energy consultant count on the project with another energy program he gets 43kWh/m2a.
Here in sweden the municipality regulations of energy consumption for new construction is a maximum of 55kWh/m2a.

I have been looking on manny other tutorials on the energy evaluation in Archicad but "130.00 kWh/m2a" amount of energy consumption seams to be a normal amount when calculated in Archicad.

[Anonymous]

Indeed, the number seems to be very high
However, EcoDesigner is not the final product but still in the BETA phase so if you have any suggestions, please add your comments to the BETA portal.

Also, Window is not the only factor that is included in the calculation process,
operation profile, zone settings, Climate data, insulations, Glazing factors, active building systems... I am sure you went thru these factors into your Energy model but double check and if you still have question, please forward it to GSHQ or distributor for further comments.

[Anonymous]

I'm also getting values that are way, way higher than they should be. I'm hoping that ED Star does a far better job of enabling accurate and detailed energy analyses to be conducted.

Our clients are expecting such accuracy these days and many more of them are becoming better acquainted with building science and energy consumption.

On another note, ED is also crashing ArchiCAD whenever I select the 'Structures" tab on the EcoDesigner window. Anyone else had this problem?

[Laszlo Nagy]

I got a reply to this from Miklos Sved, the "father of EcoDesigner" at Graphisoft. He is on holiday so he asked me to forward his answer:

Since EcoDesigner STAR is a new product featuring several industry first solutions, several users find it difficult to provide the proper input for the calculations at first. Faulty input yields faulty results every time, therefore GSHQ helps new users calibrate their first energy models to assure standard compliant output accuracy. Please send your pla-s to GSHQ Technical Support for assistance.
Best Regards,
Miklos Sved, Product Manager.

[Anonymous]

We are using Ecodesigner and EcoDesigner Star very extensively and using the correct local weather data.

Miklos is right, you have to make sure that your model has proper and extensive input. Also, Graphisoft should let users know NOT to include highly detailed landscape objects like trees - we experienced Solar Anlaysis taking 17 hours just to get 20% through Phase 6. Deleting the trees brought the calculation time back to a couple of minutes.

EcoDesigner and EcoDesigner Star also seem to be over-estimating energy consumption. For a project in Phoenix, Arizona, we have R-35 wall and roof constructions with low solar absorptance external cladding materials, high efficiency windows and so on. Yet EcoDesigner way over estimates energy consumption per unit area per annum when compared to an ACTUAL building with R-Values are far less than in our building model. This "test building" has had its energy consumption monitored (for two occupants) for the past 5 years.

[Laszlo Nagy]

If this is what you experience then I think you should do what Miklos said and send your PLA file to GSHQ (through your local reseller, who will forward it to GSHQ) so they can take a look at it and see what the cause of this discrepancy is.

[Anonymous]

pallsopp42 wrote:
EcoDesigner and EcoDesigner Star also seem to be over-estimating energy consumption. For a project in Phoenix, Arizona, we have R-35 wall and roof constructions with low solar absorptance external cladding materials, high efficiency windows and so on. Yet EcoDesigner way over estimates energy consumption per unit area per annum when compared to an ACTUAL building with R-Values are far less than in our building model. This "test building" has had its energy consumption monitored (for two occupants) for the past 5 years.

In my opinion, this happens because EcoDesigner has a fundamental deficiency that I brought to the attention of GRAPHISOFT in June of 2013, but nothing was done to correct it.

More over, this deficiency was carried on to EcoDesigner STAR rendering this $2500-dollar add-on totally useless in energy calculations for buildings relying on solar gain or shading for sustainable strategies (aren't all sustainable buildings rely on that?).

In short, using any windows in your project, short of orienting then north, away from sun, will show a constant solar gain throughout the year for those windows without taking into account widely marketed "model based shading".

Anybody can see that happening by creating a simple project with a window facing south and then placing a solid wall right in front of that window to block the sun completely. If one then looks at this window's solar analysis, one will find a properly shaded window receiving no sun throughout a year, but the energy report will put a full solar gain load though that window anyway showing a tremendously high need for additional cooling.

I have no idea who does quality assurance in GRAPHISOFT, but assuming that this was brought to their attention last summer, releasing EcoDesigner STAR as a "Standard Compliant-NOT Simulation Engine" for $2500 a pop is odd.

I am also curious, how can thousands of architects working on sustainable buildings worldwide not to be concerned about this glaring error and not start to voice their concern with spending thousands of dollars on licenses for software products that do not deliver what they are marketed to do?

I have a feeling that a rather cryptic manual that accompanies all EcoDesigner products has to do with people having difficulty understanding how the package works, let alone trying to find bugs and omissions, but yet, we are talking about a sun-related calculation being wrong and we don't get many sustainable design-related items as prominent as the Sun.

This issue was instantly apparent as soon as AC17 came out in 2013 being marketed as to having "model based shading" for standard EcoDesigner, then nothing changed in EcoDesigner BETA, and finally commercial version of EcoDesigner STAR has the same issue.

To sum up, this was brought to the attention of GRAPHISOFT as early as last summer (see this thread: Solar Analysis is not accounted in Energy Simulation (AC17))

Am I missing something?