Net ZEB Design Processes and Tools - Modeling, Design, and Optimization of Net-Zero Energy Buildings - page 200

Fig. 4.15 Proportion of time devoted to different tasks for building energy
modeling (reproduced from data from (Bazjanac, 2001))
Several approaches that can shorten the process of geometry input include
- Import from 3D modeling software . Many BPS tools allow direct
import from 2D or 3D architectural drawing and modeling tools, or at
least allow a drawing to be imported and traced (e.g., in ESP-r and
eQUEST). A straightforward transition from 3D models to energy
models is not yet possible. The challenge is not limited to the translation
of geometry but also the logic of combining rooms into thermal/HVAC
zones and other geometric simplifications that are recommended for
energy modeling.
- Simplify geometry of whole building. Another approach is to create
simplified geometry, which excludes minor details (e.g., bay windows
and dormers) and combines zones. Grouping rooms into zones saves on
effort to create models, but also on debugging and simulating models.
- Analyze one zone at a time. For buildings with a high degree of
repetitiveness (e.g., multiple identical offices, dwelling units, or stories),
much can be learned by focusing on one part of the building at a time.
In fact, this can help designers reduce the overwhelming amount of data
that are produced from BPS tools. Several tools (e.g., EnergyPlus)
facilitate simplifying the geometry if zones or floors are repetitive by