Cove tool for early stage energy modelling?

We leveraged the free trial and used two projects as test subjects for the Cove.Tool. Overall, we felt the tool had great promise. It dramatically reduced the amount of time associated with early energy analysis and provided us with some tangible approaches to reducing Energy Use Intensity in our early design phases. While we did not experiment with the plug-ins, the tutorial suggests they are available for Sketchup, Rhino and Revit. One limitation is analysis is only available for 5-6 different building typologies, though the developers suggested they were open to expanding if there was enough interest. If you want to explore further, they hold a weekly webinar on Wednesday to demonstrate the tool. 

Thanks for sharing Allen. We are testing the Cove Tool as well on a few projects. What modeling tool had you been using and comparing Cove Tool to? Thanks! Cindy Davis LEED AP BD+C Senior Associate MG2 1101 Second Ave, Ste 100 / Seattle, WA 98101 Direct 206-962-6654 / Main 206-962-6500 MG2.com Disclaimer: The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and the property of MG2. From: Allen

Currently, we use Insight360. 

Full disclosure, we are an engineering group, so our needs are somewhat different than most architects.  When allowed by our architectural clients, we do “simple box modeling” (Cycle 1, as defined in ASHRAE 209-2018 “Energy Simulation Aided Design for Buildings”.  For more information on Standard 209, which will be liberally referenced in the soon-to-be-released second edition of the AIA “Energy Modeling Design Guide”, just let me know).  We investigated cove.tool and found it lacking in its inability to do simple perimeter/core zoning – it simulates a single zone per floor.  In a building with a significant core geometry – not to be pejorative, but that's a condition commonly known as “fat floorplate”, this can yield a significant error, mostly in the envelope contribution to energy use. On the other hand, we find cove.tool to be more useful for early phase parametric modeling than Sefaira. Our tool of choice is IES Virtual Environment

We are starting to use it;  So far I've found the building types to be limiting, especially that we do a lot of laboratories with specialty needs that are not covered by any of the other building types.  In addition, if we have an energy intensive program component, like an industrial kitchen, we can't separate it out in the model (unless we identify it as a separate building type and then modify all the pre-sets).  Even considering the few drawbacks, I think cove.tool blows Sefaira out of the water.  Its' simple user interface and graphics, along with well-presented options on energy vs cost are Gold.  I doubt it would be useful past the schematic design phase, but by then we typically have the MEP on-board to do the detailed energy model...the real test will be how the MEP energy model (most often our consultants use IES) compares with the cove.tool model.    

I have presented and written a lot on this topic in general... including a presentation just a few weeks ago at the national AIA convention. I will share my thoughts based on a recent trial and tools we currently use:

• The version for architects does not use EnergyPlus
• Their ASHRAE 140 report shows significant deviations
• As KIM mentioned, no thermal zoning (see my related post linked below)
• Results off a lot compared to two other tools tested in post linked below

Comparing tools: https://www.lakeflato.com/content/early-energy-modeling-and-comparing-tools-validate-results Thermal zoning: https://bimchapters.blogspot.com/2019/03/thermal-zoning-in-early-energy-analysis.html In addition to Insight, we use an intermediate workflow within Revit that uses OpenStudio and EnergyPlus locally. You can learn more about that in this recorded webinar: https://www.autodesk.com/autodesk-university/class/Revit-Systems-Analysis-Features-and-Framework-Introduction-2019  Insight and Systems analysis are both included with the cost of Revit.

LMN has a subscription. I find it useful for energy literacy among staff. When they run a model and ask a question about peak loads, that is a teachable moment. Would I use it for an early modeling pie when we don't have an energy analyst signed up yet? Probably. Would I use it to tell the engineer that the EUI is going to be 28.2? No. Sometimes we forget that play is the quickest and most thorough way of learning something, and staff playing with tools like this gives them a glimpse of the detail that our modelers are getting into, assisting them in talking with these important folks with a common language.

@Daniel, the link to the recorded webinar you mentioned isn't working for me. Is there a title of it or other key words we could use to search on the website for it?

@Emily, i got it to work by deleting everything after "2019" in the URL. 

This is our 2nd year with COVE and I second Kjell's analogy. With a lot of “caveats” we're able to integrate the tool into our early process. Putting the energy lingo into everyone's vocab is so far the crowning achievement along with steady user group. 

Daniel, thanks for your side-by-side comparison. Very helpful! I need to re-evaluate Insight, it has been several years since we tried it out and it was not working for us (not enough HVAC options that matched our projects). We also use Climate Studio primarily for daylighting but we’re evaluating it for energy also, so your comparison is very timely. [A picture containing text, sign Description automatically generated] Kristian Kicinski LEED AP BD+C Associate Principal Director of Sustainability (he, him) Bassetti Architects o 206-340-9500 / d 206-536-1370 www.bassettiarch.com *Please note that May 31st through September 6th, Bassetti will be celebrating summer with modified office hours: Monday - Thursday 8am-5pm; Friday 8am-12pm. F

I appreciate Daniel's post, I had read the comparison article previously and found it helpful. We've been using Cove.tool for a couple of years now, with marginal success -- I'll second Kjell and Seonhee that my favorite thing about it is that it starts to help our staff understand energy modeling without being so confusing that they give up. I've been thinking of it as "gateway energy modeling." I caution our teams to only use it for comparative analysis and confirm the effectiveness of design strategies with our engineering teams -- we had to make lab and hospital templates because I was seeing lab project models with EUIs in the 30s and other things that made me very nervous. We're still trying to come up with a good baseline early-design process; we've been using Climate Studio and other tools as well, but so far Cove.tool has the fewest barriers to entry. 

In my original reply I had started typing almost exactly what Kjell had commented... but then felt like it was getting to wordy:) When presenting on this, and my preferences, I always recommend using some tool, any tool, (Please!) to begin asking questions, challenge assumptions, and work towards validating design solutions (also referencing the AIA 2030 By the Numbers report on the proven advantages of performing early energy modeling). Based on other comments, a few more things to share... Insight still has some limitations for HVAC systems, but everything else being equal, the percentage change in the adjustments to envelop and internal loads (which Revit handles pretty well) is very accurate. However, with Systems analysis run locally via OpenStudio and EnergyPlus there are a lot more possibilities (we are still exploring). Related, both Insight and Systems analysis use the same envelop and internal loads data. Here is a fun hack to create custom constructs that align with EnergyPlus and are overrides for modeled elements in Revit: https://bimchapters.blogspot.com/2021/12/revit-insight-custom-schematic-wall.html  Baseline: Insight provides an ANSRAE 90.1 baseline and an Architecture 2030 baseline (via the Zero Tool API)... the former will include elevator loads for multi-story buildings and the latter only works for a single occupancy type. One more share, an hour-long presentation I gave on the highlights of Revit + Insight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8rpu9-OP4Y  Edit: here is some interesting information on the more advanced opportunities to develop HVAC systems in Revit, such as a VRF + DOAS which can be modified further (e.g., creating a Revit parameter to manually edit cooling COP): https://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2022/ENU/?guid=GUID-B5B57BE7-4FF3-46F1-BD01-A7BD3FC9121A

I think Revit/Autodesk has been working hard to get the "systems analysis" into the energy optimization platform, and I wonder whether we should "nudge" our MEP friends to join the bandwagon and try the tool.. it looks promising, but alas I’m just an architect.. ☹

One last comment to add to the excellent ones already:    While some people think it is dangerous to have architects perform some energy modeling, I think it is much more dangerous to exclude them (us). We have the ear of the client, we can often get passive energy savings into the deisgn, and we coordinate among all consultants that design building systems that together result in high or low energy use.

I'll add another (sorry, very long) 'last comment' to the energy modeling discussion... I also agree it is important for architects to perform and understand energy modeling. To that end, I have worked to involve and train staff in early modeling. But in the process learned that unless they are using the software (any software) on a continuous basis, they don't get results worth using in a design meeting -- except in finding which massing might have better results between the two. Unless they have a specific interest and niche in energy modeling, many architects jump around: doing CA for one period of time, designing stairs the next, or maybe today they are involved in a building's Concept or Schematic design and can think about energy -- "what was that software I used a year ago?" Instead of, or in addition to, the time spent for in-house modeling training, I devised a work-around that incorporates trusted professional energy modelers early in the design process -- so that "confident" actual results can be utilized early by the design team. Of course, early modeling by professionals can always occur, but it only does once there is a modeler's fee arrangement AND when the client agrees to activate them -- usually too far down the design path to integrate it into the initial concept. So, here's the thing: we contacted and contracted with 3 different professional energy analysts to be on stand-by, to perform their work on an hourly basis, and on short notice. Like a house-doctor, or designated hitter in baseball: on the bench and ready to go. We created an RFP with our requirements for deliverables, they gave us their hourly rate, and we processed all the contract papers ahead of time. We even provided them a standardized form to use to infill the modeling results so that the energy-language is the same each time and with each modeler. Hourly rates (with an estimated cap) are a lot easier to swallow by the design firm and don't need a client's approval to get underway. The analysts like it because it gets them in the architect's door and paves their way for further (fee-based) analysis on the project. The results are relatively quick, confident, early energy modeling -- by the professionals. Harry Flamm

Thank you, Esteban, for starting this thread! It hits on the topics we are circling around and reinforcing our findings which I was not previously prepared to consider conclusions.  As Cove.Tool users, we have also seen value in crafting a common language and a window into the energy modeler’s perspective on how they “view” a building design as others note. We continue searching for accessible tools & processes to help us make more informed early design decisions; @Harry I take your findings to heart in this regard!  With most of our portfolio urban settings with density and near zero-lot line conditions, the early studies, such as orientation, massing, etc., are relatively limited at best. I have recently been exploring more the value of the “shoebox study” available through Cove.Tool with the hope to discover ways in which studying a prototypical space (for example, a housing unit, hospital room, or office space) in each orientation can help us better understand how shading would be beneficial to more balanced daylighting, occupant comfort, and an understanding of energy savings in a single space – multiplied by repeat occurrences. Have others found winder success using this function within Cove.Tool?  Perhaps a more targeted question: as architects, our greatest impact is in the envelope design; what tool will help us evaluate our envelope’s impact on the building’s loads prior to systems considerations? 

I’ve been playing around with a modification to the TEDI approach to look at the envelope impact on energy use (stripping out ventilation impact, for example). One of the constant challenges that frustrates me is when our MEP/modeling consultants tell us that the envelope has no real impact on EUI because of exaggerated internal loads or other reasons. While I appreciate that in, for example, a lab, focusing on areas like ventilation might be a higher priority, the message is a poor one that does not help the industry. Nor does it capture the linked benefits of high performance facades. My modified TEDI approach is aiming to strip out some of that, but at the same time it is only looking at energy, so misses the integration. But perhaps combining it with daylight and thermal autonomy metric might be useful. No magic bullet yet, but a side noodle project for the brain… Peter Alspach, PE Principal | Director of Design Performance NBBJ 223 Yale Avenue North SEATTLE WA 98109 Direct: 206.621.2279 Mobile: 206.816.4902 nbbj.com NBBJ is a certified CarbonNeutral® company From

While envelope impact on annual energy use for high internal load buildings can be relatively minor (I have had some buildings in some climates actually "hold in" heat during shoulder seasons, increasing cooling load energy), there is usually a strong correlation between envelope and peak loads (and thus system sizes, first cost, and embodied carbon - and more often than not, operating energy reduction) as well as the building's "grid-interactivity".  Reducing peak loads is a win-win-win strategy that, IM not-so-H O, we fail to concentrate on because LEED and the2030  Challenge has made us EUI-addicts. Also, conduction heat transfer (which is proportional to the temperature difference between indoor and outdoor conditions) through the envelope tends to be a much bigger deal in heating dominated climates, less so in mild climates.

I agree, Peter. I think this is the biggest challenge in using energy modeling to inform design. I look forward to whatever you come up with. Many of the engineers tell us that window to wall ratio, shading, and glazing properties are very important for EUI. Many also then tell us when we propose one of these strategies that they save 0.1 EUI or less. What appears to be missed is that the system size may be smaller with the better orientation/WWR, the system may cost less, and more advanced systems may be possible. Each of those could drive down EUI, but we are not told that as architects. I have no solution other than to ask for peak load reductions as well as EUI reductions. And then, if we can say an AHU is $X/cfm of cooling and a strategy reduces cooling by XX,XXX cfm we can find some dollars. We could also ask how much we’d need to reduce cooling load to go down one AHU size, and then set that as a target to save cost, but I personally haven’t seen this work. -Kjell Fro