Mais informações

NUTALAYA, S. et al. Comparison of windows and dos versions of the doe2 in simulating a passive building. In: CONFERENCE ON PASSIVE AND LOW ENERGY ARCHITECTURE, 16., 1999, Brisbane. Anais... Brisbane: PLEA, 1999. p. 603-608.
Clique no nome do(s) autor(es) para ver o currículo Lattes:

Dados do autor na base InfoHab:
Número de Trabalhos: 1 (Com arquivo PDF disponíveis: 1)
Citações: Nenhuma citação encontrada
Índice h: Indice h não calculado  
Co-autores: Nenhum co-autor encontrado

Dados do autor na base InfoHab:
Número de Trabalhos: 2 (Com arquivo PDF disponíveis: 2)
Citações: Nenhuma citação encontrada
Índice h: Indice h não calculado  
Co-autores: Nenhum co-autor encontrado

Dados do autor na base InfoHab:
Número de Trabalhos: 1 (Nenhum com arquivo PDF disponível)
Citações: Nenhuma citação encontrada
Índice h: Indice h não calculado  
Co-autores: Nenhum co-autor encontrado

Dados do autor na base InfoHab:
Número de Trabalhos: 4 (Nenhum com arquivo PDF disponível)
Citações: 46
Índice h: 5  
Co-autores: Nenhum co-autor encontrado

Abstract

Visual DOE is a Windows interface version of the DOE2 simulation program. Its purpose is to help save time in writing BDL input for the simulation. As its calculation engine is the same as DOE2 in the DOS version, DOE should result in the same output as the DOS version. However, difficulties arise in identifying the building's configurations, materials and construction and systems in the two input versions. While modeling a simple one-story "passive" building, it was difficult to get a good match in the simulation results in the two versions. Furthermore, using the Windows version of DOE is not as simple as it should be. For example, it was harder to model a simple "pitched" roof using the Windows version than in the DOS version. Similar problems have occurred in dealing with issues such as "shading". The problem with shading devices is the difficulty in modeling the configuration of the shading, resulting in errors in calculating the correct solar gain. As a result, it is necessary for the Windows users to create an input file, run the program to generate a BDL file, freeze the BDL generator, modify the BDL manually, and then run again using the modified BDL. Even after such modifications, the match between DOS and the Windows versions of DOE- 2 was not consistent. Comparing the simulations of the two versions with measured data, when the buildings were closed and un-shaded, show better a match with the Windows version. On the other hand, when the same buildings were shaded, the Windows version showed a poorer match with the measured data. In simulation sequences of days with varying climatic conditions, the Visual DOE’s output was lower than the DOS output on some days and higher on other days.
-