There are a few resources for training in eQuest in the United States.  I am not sure that there are anywhere in the Middle East though.  However, I think some of the US based ones do have a website component where you could watch a video of the presentation and maybe even call in if you have any questions.  You might look for one of these or even a webinar version where all there is would be the online part. 

Good luck and feel free to ask questions here.  I imagine this website is more useful for specific questions, but I will try to help in any way I can. 

hi, im all new to the software but will be involved more with new construction modeling. i work in Jordan - Middle East and have been looking for training courses on eQuest and energ modeling principles that comply with leed.

so any idea if there exist any training been held in my area?

Many thanks.

I went ahead and moved this to the off topic section.  I would prefer the advice and questions section remain just advice and questions. 

Good luck getting some help.  I am already full time employed. 

Hello All-

I am a former help desk member for Trace 700. I have expanded my options and I am looking for an equest expert looking to partner up so we can pool our skills.

Thanks

That will be very helpful.  We have a few projects going on right now that could use that software.

For the most part the suggestion of multiplying by 8760 is correct.  However, what I find is useful for getting unmet load hours under control is to stay in eQuest for the most part ignoring your outputs.  Under Air-Side HVAC if you click on your project name in the top of the project tree, and then select the summary tab you get a nice breakdown of your unmet load hours.  At the very bottom, if you have the information for the whole project displayed it will tell you the building's unmet load hours.  

The nice thing is this gives you an integer.  3.4 rounds down to 3, and 3.5 rounds up as you would expect.  

24 x 365 = 8760

We are allowed less than 300 unmet load hours so

300 / 8760 = 0.0342 or around 3.4%

So if your total unmet percentage for the project says 3 or less in eQuest under the Air Side HVAC summary, you are within your unmet load window.  Luckily this accounts for concurrent unmet load times.  If you look at individual Air Handling units or other equipment, it adds up the unmet load hours non concurrently, so the percentage can get pretty ugly looking.  


For filling out the LEED template, I still use the BEPS/BEPU report information however.  I just multiply that number by 8760 as said before and you are good to go. 

Hope this helps. 

I've never seen a very good explanation of how to interpret the eQuest reports to obtain the number of unmet hours. I'm an expert Trace user who has been using eQuest for about a year and still slamming my head against the program daily.

What I understand:
- In the BEPS and BEPU reports, there is "% of hours any system zone outside of throttling range". I've seen people refer to this percentage, multiply by 8760 and obtain total unmet hours. This is nice, but its not a good breakdown, specifically for those of us who have to fill out the LEED documentation for an energy model.
- The SS-F report has monthly "hours under heated" and "hours under cooled". This is for each individual zone, which is great to have, but is not a summary for the whole building (again needed for LEED).
- The SS-R report has columns for zones under heated/cooled. This is also great to know, but the program sums them up instead of accounting for hours that certain zones are simultaneously unmet in their space conditioning needs.

In sum: How, besides creating a fun spreadsheet and doing the calculation each time I simulate the building, do I obtain the unmet hours so I can ensure that they meet the criteria in Appendix G?

Check out SolarSim as a supplemental software for renewable energy simulation.

"SolarSim simulates the performance of active solar hot water, active solar space heating, photovoltaic and transpired collector systems using TMY2 data and hour-by-hour algorithms. S/olarSim is appropriate for design professionals, do-it-yourselfers, and for use in education"
http://www.engr.udayton.edu/faculty/jkissock/http/research/SolarSim.htm

Agreed.

eQuest is free, public domain software, which is one of the best reasons to support it. However unlike the other big guys out there, it doesn't really have tech support or gurus that can be called/e-mailed to ask questions. Most of us have to use this and other forums and those are not usually reliable when a critical project-specific question comes up. Not to promote Trace, but you can call their tech experts at any reasonable time of day and someone will walk you through how to do almost anything in that program.

On the onebuilding forums there have been many discussions (but no real action) about attempting to set up eQuest help desk, tuitorials, etc. Rather than continue those discussions/rants, its obvious that some or all of the following is somehow needed:
- a dedicated funding source (fees, donations, help from the USGBC, etc) that will enable eQuest to rapidly evolve and fix bugs, simulate new types of systems, improve functionality, etc. If this is already there then the question becomes "why isn't this happening more quickly and more often"... is more funding needed?
- some form of well-done tutorials showing step by step instructions for eQuest use anywhere from the beginner to the seriously advanced level
- paid individuals who can be sent questions about eQuest who know how to answer them. The forums are great and can be helpful, but most people are up against project deadlines and forum responses don't always fit those schedules.

We could all probably add to this list. Who do we as the eQuest using professional community need to contact in order to address these and many other concerns?

It does feel like eQuest is getting longer in the tooth so to speak. 

Wouldn't it be great if the next release were just a huge overhaul?  I have been using it on a daily basis for about 5 weeks on now, and really, I am getting tired of some of its shortcomings.  Some of those shortcomings have cost me a weeks work a few times.  I know it is free software, but when you start spending that much time fixing little mistakes, the software starts to cost money.