The Global ARCHICAD Community

Stay informed. Get help. Share your knowledge.

Sustainable design; Energy Evaluation, EcoDesigner and EcoDesigner STAR

Moderators: Barry Kelly, Karl Ottenstein, LaszloNagy, ejrolon, gkmethy

User avatar
By chrrev
#299006
Using Ecodesigner has been at first without any particular problems however when going a little deeper into it, there are some issues that I would have thought need some attention and/or clarification from GS.
Ecodesigner is a very important component of Archicad in my opinion and an excellent one too.
1 - Geometry clarification
In the Key Values of the Report produced by EcoDesigner, we have the External Envelope Area.
a - If I make a total from the "Components by Elements" schedule I get a larger number (in my case 184 versus 179 for the "Key Values" value). I am curious to know how the software gets the external envelope result in EcoDesigner if GS would like to clarify.
b - Two lines down in the Key Values we have the Glazing Ratio which is currently calculated as a ratio to the total external envelope.
Would it not be useful to have wall glazing ratios also since this is more readily comparable to standard glazing ratios for energy efficient design is my question on that one.

2 - In the "Energy Consumption by Sources" chapter of the Report, I am getting contradictory results for the bundled value of Solar (Thermal and PV) in my case 3074 kWh/a and the sum of the individual values in the "Renewable Building System Summary" two chapters down (Solar Thermal 2983 + PV 183 = 3166 kWh/a).
It is not a huge difference but it does worry me that there are these types of inconsistencies as in "what else is there that I haven't discovered yet" type of thing... - Could anyone at GS help clarify on how these results are computed.

3 - In the "Energy Consumption and Savings" chapter at the end of the comparative report, there are three tables related to "Purchased Energy", "On SIte Renewable Energy" and a table total of the two.
a - The first table "Subtotal line" gives incorrect readings in the "Saving" column - in my case it should be a repeat of the line above since there is only one item.
b - The second table lists the energy costs associated with On Site Renewable Energy. In my case ( I am using thermal for hot water only), the Solar thermal cost is calculated based on the Circulation Pump Electricity % , Accumulator Tank heat loss, and Sewer Heat Recovery Efficiency , all defined in the Building Systems.
The Heat Pump Heating energy cost however I am a little unsure how it is calculated in function of the COP, Circulation Pump, Evaporator Fan or Circulation Brine etc... Perhaps we can have some idea on how this is calculated thanks.
Finally, the Total table "Saving" column has the same mistake as in the first table at item a above. Note that the Excel equivalent file does not have this error.
This table also gives the impression that the proposed design consumes more energy than the baseline because the total renewable and purchased for the proposed design is compared to the purchased only of the baseline design which does not have any renewables. Not sure if it's me who missed the point, but it is unclear to me - if I could get a clarification on this thanks.

Overall a great product, I should say that zones remain problematic in some cases but that should be a separate detailed review - I also noted that to update zones via the "Update Selected Zones" and then "Update Energy Model Review" seems to work consistently better than "Update All Zones" whenever there are issues with zones, no idea why.

Bear with me please I am still learning so hopefully these are my mistakes :-) Attach the report in question, appreciate any help with this I would like to get it right.
Attachments
(807.75 KiB) Downloaded 11 times