CoveTool - good? bad? ugly?

We used cove tool for a while. I discontinued it because it was very expensive for the benefit we were getting. I occasionally miss it but haven’t signed up again. Pros: * Easy to use, quick to get results * Was useful for generating a rough-order-of-magnitude EUI for a project before engineers were fully engaged * Graphically looks great; easy to impress clients with it Cons: * Very expensive compared to the frequency of use and what we were able to use it for. They pitch it as though you are going to be using it every day; the reality for our medium size 75 person firm is that I was using it every couple months- about 4-8 times a year. So it ended up costing about $1000 per project. $1k to give me a rough EUI and tell me that energy code compliance is already at the point of diminishing returns for energy upgrades. * Geared toward new standalone buildings. Not set up to easily handle remodels/ messy additions. * Not set up to easily use for K-12 projects, which is our main project type. It doesn’t handle a mix of system types like you get in a school, where classrooms have one system and large volume spaces like the gyms and theaters have different approaches. They offer some hacks and work-arounds, but it ends up feeling like the more work arounds you use, the less reliable the outputs. It seems set up for a spec office building. * I really didn’t like the change they made to selecting insulation and components for wall and roof assemblies. They tied the options to specific insulation products but then they don’t offer the actual products and thicknesses I’m interested in looking at. You can’t just choose a generic insulation or R-value very easily. Again, had to fall back on workarounds. * The cost info they tried to build in seemed completely irrelevant to actual construction costs. * Our energy code here in WA state is robust, so energy code compliance was usually starting with the ‘best’ options available to choose in Cove tool, so it was hard to create options for improvement to analyze. * I found the daylighting tool totally unreliable. It gave very different results from Climate Studio and DIVA, and was far more pessimistic than those other daylight tools. Cove tool told me that a north-facing classroom in the pacific northwest could never meet daylighting criteria, even if the north wall was 100% glass. Kristian Kicinski AIA, LFA, LEED AP BD+C (he, him) Associate Principal / Director of Sustainability direct: 206.536.1370 Send me files From: Jeremy Sh

We dropped it 3-4 years ago; we haven't really looked at it since. Kristian summarizes the issues extremely well. Super easy to get a starting EUI, but the numbers were always the same. I know they have been working to improve the embodied carbon analysis that was starting up when we stopped it; I felt this was premature at the time we dropped it, it seemed there was still energy stuff to work on. I felt the same way on the daylighting piece; there were better tools for that as well. Jim Jim Hanford, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Principal The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP

I'll say this - I've said it before, maybe in this forum, as well as to the tool developers. I think its an issue for anyone who might use this too, but also for our industry in general, as my understanding is that a good amount of firms are using Cove for 2030c benchmarking (enabled by some kind of direct data upload API). When we tested Cove, and compared it to other energy modeling tools we used, we noticed that energy use was 10-25% lower than expected, and thermal loads were off. When we talked to the developers about this, they let us know that Cove calculates thermal loads as a single zone per floor (in contrast, most all energy modeling programs have a (15' or so) perimeter zone and an interior core zone, even in open office type spaces to address perimeter-specific conditioning needss). For larger buildings in temperate climates (pretty much all we do) this means its calculations (during the heating season) will offset cooling loads in the interior with heating loads on the perimeter, effectively eliminating significant energy usage. Now, theoretically, this is great from an energy performance perspective (and great for any firm that wants to claim better 2030 performance), but if we did this in real life, you'd end up with a lot of uncomfortable people (or unusable space) at the perimeter. Cove didn't seem to think this was important to change (which was somewhat shocking to me); they told us we could use their MEP modeling tool if we wanted this accuracy. That effectively ended our trial. I'm still intrigued by the embodied carbon tool, and curious if folks have thoughts there - embodied calcs are far simpler (even if the underlying data isn't perfect). -C

Thank you all for sharing your experiences!

We used covetool for concept/SD eneryg modeling just to compare energy efficiency of different strategies.  The PEUI reporting fro 2030 would be coming from the third party energy modeling reports if not SD, then get corrected in DD or CD. Like WA, most of our MEP engineer consultants servicing California project would just include energy modeling service even for SD, but that aren't as common for practices in other regions, or for MF development. Since we don't have a dedicated in house energy modeler, I would love to know what other softwares are you ended up using for in-house energy modeling for early design stage? 

And Daylighting modeling?   Climate Stuido is amazing but it doesn't provide Revit plug in, so majority of designers wont' go through that extra steps...

 

Our experience has been: Cove is a fairly easy tool for teams to use for early daylight studies. It is not detailed enough to use for later-stage design of solar control strategies. We have used it frequently to document views and daylight credits for LEED. We are planning a robust test of their new assembly builder feature for Jan-April of 2024, with a new dedicated intern. We found them more willing to work with us on cost when we renewed this year. Heather DeGrella AIA, LEED Fellow, Fitwel Ambassador, EAC-PS, | (she / her / hers) Associate Principal | Sustainable Design Director Registered architect in Oregon [cid:opsis_rgb_blue_1c67de12-b325-4318-95e7-0704d8f48949.png] Architecture, Interiors & Planning 920 NW 17th Avenue, Portland, OR 97209 o 503.525.9511 d 503.943.6228 w opsisarch.com

We don't have a dedicated energy modeler (we do have folks that specialize in daylight and LCA), though we are fortunate to work with clients and MEP who are generally supportive and capable of early energy modeling. When we do have to energy modeling for whatever reason, I'll use equest, and/or we have some simple whole building or perimeter zone energy modeling in Grasshopper/Energy Plus (with ClimateStudio or HoneyBee). But both of those paths have their quirks (but IMO are much more useful).

I think it’s a great tool for energy literacy, which is as far as nearly all architects (that don’t have specialized training) should be going with energy modeling tools for medium to large or complex buildings. Clicking buttons in energy modeling software (I’m including cove.tool) and seeing results is important as it helps us hone our understanding of how energy use changes based on design parameters such as WWR, U values, shading, etc. I think even when we can get some things wrong, having architects actually click through the energy modeling process in good faith on a project or two to test out their ideas is invaluable. And this experience cannot be learned easily in other ways. For instance, how effective are narrow, widely-spaced, vertical fins on shading to make up for a highly glazed façade in a desert region where temps are over 100 every day in the summer? (Answer, they are not…but yet they are praised as energy saving strategies!). Clicking a few buttons can help show architects that they are not effective, which is an invaluable lesson that saves both the client’s perception of cost (these fins are expensive! But they look soooo sustainable they must be the most cost effective thing we could do) and perhaps allocate sustainability dollars to things that actually make a difference. We just let our license lapse. I did like many aspects about it, but it was very expensive for our use of it. We also work on large and complex projects where what we want from an energy model is too complex for use to reasonably get results out of it. Performing arts centers, convention centers, and very high performance projects where we need very nuances results. So we hire third party modelers on our projects early and trust them. I can see a firm with lots of medium to small projects that will not get early energy modeling to get use out of it. My favorite part of cove.tool was the ‘free run’ model where we can test idealized loads based on program and envelope (no heating/cooling system) to test how we are doing with our massing and envelope performance. -Kjell From: Heather

Our experiences were similar to Kristian's and others. We dropped it due to expense, lack of use, lack of deeply meaningful results and also a lot of trouble, at least at the time a few years ago, in importing Rhino models easily into the tool. We ended up having to engage their help team for almost every real project model.  While I appreciate Kjell's perspective on getting the lay user to work with a tool, I want confidence in the results. I didn't have that. I also don't have it for Insight. if lay users are getting poor results, who knows whether they are actually learning the right things. IMO directional accuracy is fine, but again, lacked confidence.  Our approach right now is more aligned with Chris Chatto's approach and we are working on developing easier, non-whole-building energy modeling approaches to some of the basic design questions like solar shading and glazing areas (a step above the facade solar radiation studies, a few steps behind a whole building simulation).  In my ideal world we would convince DOE to revive/refresh/expand COMFEN even just a little bit. It is a wonderful tool for many of those basic questions. 

I recommend you take a look at this thread (link below) where we discussed this same topic. In my replies, I also provided a few links and mentioned Cove.Tool's ASHRAE 140 report shows surprisingly poor results as I also found in my own testing. While I prefer other tools, and will be presenting on them at the Texas Society of Architects conference in November (shameless plug), I do strongly encourage everyone to use some tool to prompt questions, challenge assumptions, and validate decisions (literacy, as Kjell describes it). One more plug: I recently posted this playlist on YouTube about our workflow (the last four videos I are new): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsLVaxWkEowKIibO8ftQ5y06cRuHQ22YU Intermediate to advanced option for architects: We are also working with Autodesk and one of their consultants (as a beta tester of sorts), testing custom OpenStudio (OS) measures in Revit's Systems Analysis tool that uses EnergyPlus locally (not in the cloud, like Insight). We are able to inject service hot water (as gas, electric, HP  <-- mainly, not gas:)), generation (PV) plus storage, and completely custom HVAC systems into the OS report. There will be a session on this at Autodesk University for anyone who is attending (or at least tell your folks attending to check it out). https://www.buildinggreen.com/forum/cove-tool-early-stage-energy-modelling

As an architect I know I may be an outlier on this topic of architect’s using energy-modeling software, but here’s my take from the past recent years trying several different programs and spending a lot of office-overhead time training staff: Whether it’s Cove, Sefaira, Autodesk’s Energy-Insight, etc – the results are pretty much the same in that it takes an enormous effort of staff training-time and workflow changes, not to mention the money spent on the program -- all to end up with energy-model (EUI/carbon) output-results that really can’t be utilized with any level of confidence in a conversation or a professional/formal statement.  Yes, these programs can be nifty for comparing two different building massing designs or comparing wall/window ratios, and that’s a good thing to do – but that’s about their limit. To get modeling results/calculations that contain a high level of confidence and usefulness requires using people educated and trained specifically for this purpose – “professional” energy modelers. Professional energy-modelers need to be part of our early-design process team – we need to know their names -- not left out until DD or CD’s or when the client decides to hire one (often connected to the MEP firm). The problem is that most of our design firms don’t have the capacity or necessity to have one on staff, full-time. To resolve that, I’ve experimented with the pre-arranged hiring of several energy-modelers so they are on a “standby”/“on-call” hourly-basis (early, especially during concept and SD). All necessary contracts are completed ahead of time, and they are on the “bench” available (with some advance notice of course) to get into the game and assist with their early-modeling, side-by-side with the designers – and to get tangible and useful results. Since it’s hourly, it’s a simple and low-cost commitment by the design firm; and for the energy-modeler, it’s an early entry in the architect’s door for further/later-phase, fee-based modeling on the project. So in this respect, try saving your firm’s money and time from the software purchase, training, and workflow alterations – use it instead for low-energy/low-carbon design "education" -- and use petty-cash for hourly energy-modelers to get the results you/we need to make better buildings. If anyone tries this method, I'd enjoy hearing of your experience. Harry Flamm

Sorry I'm a bit late to the thread, but thought I'd share my experience. We used cove.tool for three years at our office before realizing, like many other commenters, that we were simply not getting the value out of it that we were paying for. Unfortunately, like many startups looking for rounds of funding, I find cove.tool to be more about talk and show than substance. Sure, they have an optimization tool, but in all three years of using it, I never got anything useful out of it, not least because the cost database they have doesn't correlate to any real-world costs I know of. The embodied carbon tool I found equally flawed. And while the EUI it spits out may be somewhat accurate for an office building in a temperate climate, it has a hard time dealing with anything else, and the lack of monthly data and heat flow info means it's all a black box. Ultimately, for our diverse mix of building types, with a lot of renovation work, it wasn't giving us useful information and became a liability. I agree with Kjell that it's a good education tool, but at that price tag, you might as well get your staff educated in a more cost-effective way. I've been told by MEP people I trust that the load.modeling tool is actually pretty good, but to get good results out you have to rebuild your entire model in drawing.tool, which defeats the purpose of a Revit exporter in the first place.   Right now we have switched to using Autodesk Insight for early stage strategizing, switching to ClimateStudio Thermal Analysis for in-office modeling in later phases when we can't get a consultant to do it. It's not as intuitive and does involve a bit of work in Rhino, but I trust the results much more and they are substantially finer-grained.   I'd love it if there were a better Revit to energy modeling workflow for architects. It's one of my biggest frustrations in our industry. I hope that the Pollination team solves this. I hope future releases of ClimateStudio solve this. In the meantime, we're cobbling together what we can.   Very curious to hear others' experiences/thoughts/reactions/workflows!   Best, Misha

A few other Things! Teresa: ClimateStudio indeed does have a Revit exporter for daylighting. I highly suggest you check it out. On Daylighting: Cove.tool's daylight tool gives very questionable results, and offers no way of easily separating out unoccupied areas from the calculation, making it fairly useless for LEED. I've given up on it. I agree with Peter on non whole building approaches. I've found that building small box models of the specific thing we want to study (solar heat gain in a room with fins, glazing percentages on a facade, etc) can be more effective than trying to build/export an entire building model.

I could almost copy Misha's post and sign my name to the bottom -- we have had the same experience at Flad and we've gone almost the exact same route. With an extensive amount of hand-holding, I was able to get some of our staff to get somewhat decent early phase results out of Cove.tool and have them start to see what some of the drivers are for energy on our projects. It just ultimately wasn't worth my time or the cost of the software -- I have provided that feedback to Cove.tool. We also work almost exclusively on labs and hospitals, which the tool doesn't handle well. We use OneClick for embodied carbon analysis and never liked or used that part of Cove.tool. I much prefer Climate Studio's capabilities for daylight/glare analysis and the thermal modeling can be a good early design tool, also, for the very small group of our staff who are willing to dig into it. 

Please note that Autodesk has two offerings associated with Revit, Insight (architect-focused) and Systems Analysis (engineer-focused), and both are 100% free (if you have Revit). As Misha mentioned, Cliamate Studio can also generate an EUI, and is a great tool. I wrote a blog post comparing Insight and CS, showing they are both good tools and validate each other. https://www.lakeflato.com/content/early-energy-modeling-and-comparing-tools-validate-results Here is another post I wrote on the Revit add-in for CS, which only streamlines the process of getting a Revit model into CS (super helpful). It flattens glazing and brings in room definitions so you can define occupied spaces easily (another thing Misha mentioned). https://bimchapters.blogspot.com/2022/05/climate-studio-revit-plug-in.html  Here is one more post on CS for daylighting: https://www.solemma.com/blog/lakeflato-alamogordo-middle-school-case-study Fun fact: Misha and I presented together at AIA national last year roughly on this topic (also with Jack Rusk)!!!

Thanks Misha and Dan!  Our team had to rebuild a lot in Rhino after they exported the Revit model, thus my misunderstanding.