Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
 | 1 | initial version |
@LEUNG Peijun : This is not a list of definitive fixes for your model - just highlighting a few below.
I ran the latest version of your .osm file using the OpenStudio Application (App) v1.9.0 (EnergyPlus 24.2.0). EnergyPlus again halted the simulation with 2x FATAL errors. It's probably worth testing (a copy of) your model against the latest App to compare reported errors/warnings between EnergyPlus releases. Here's the relevant excerpt of the generated eplusout.err file:
The EnergyPlus feedback is fairly clear on the error. I suggest you go over the concepts here, and input parameters here. This seems to be the culprit entry:
Admissible values should be "1" or "2" - not "0".
The eplusout.err file reports unusually high occupancy density:
... which may be at the root of other occupant-related errors, e.g. calculated (billions!) m3/s:
On interzone surfaces & constructions: Fix the default interior wall construction ...
... so it's symmetrical (Layer 1 should be the same as Layer 3). This should get rid of the numerous warnings:
Again, this is just a selection of issues/fixes. I suggest you adopt an iterative QAQC approach to fixing your model:
Until you have fixed the bulk of the errors and warnings, I wouldn't pay too much attention to reported energy use at this point ...
| | 2 | No.2 Revision |
@LEUNG Peijun : This is not a list of definitive fixes for your model - just highlighting a few below.
I ran the latest version of your .osm file using the OpenStudio Application (App) v1.9.0 (EnergyPlus 24.2.0). EnergyPlus again halted the simulation with 2x FATAL errors. It's probably worth testing (a copy of) your model against the latest App to compare reported errors/warnings between EnergyPlus releases. Here's the relevant excerpt of the generated eplusout.err file:
The EnergyPlus feedback is fairly clear on the error. I suggest you go over the concepts here, and input parameters here. This seems to be the culprit entry:
Admissible values should be "1" or "2" - not "0".
The eplusout.err file reports an unusually high occupancy density:
... which may be at the root of other occupant-related errors, e.g. calculated (billions!) m3/s:
On interzone surfaces & constructions: Fix the default interior wall construction ...
... so it's symmetrical (Layer 1 should be the same as Layer 3). This should get rid of the numerous related warnings:
Again, this is just a selection of issues/fixes. I suggest you adopt an iterative QAQC approach to fixing your model:
Until you have fixed the bulk of the errors and warnings, I wouldn't pay too much attention to reported energy use at this point ...
| | 3 | No.3 Revision |
@LEUNG Peijun : This is not a list of definitive fixes for your model - just highlighting a few below.
I ran the latest version of your .osm file using the OpenStudio Application (App) v1.9.0 (EnergyPlus 24.2.0). EnergyPlus again halted the simulation with 2x FATAL errors. It's probably worth testing (a copy of) your model against the latest App to compare reported errors/warnings between EnergyPlus releases. Here's the relevant excerpt of the generated eplusout.err file:
The EnergyPlus feedback is fairly clear on the error. I suggest you go over the concepts here, and input parameters here. This seems to be the culprit entry:
Admissible values should be "1" or "2" - not "0".
The eplusout.err file reports an unusually high occupancy density:
... which may be at the root of other occupant-related errors, e.g. calculated (billions!) m3/s:
On interzone surfaces & constructions: Fix the default interior wall construction ...
... so it's symmetrical (Layer 1 should be the same as Layer 3). This should get rid of numerous related warnings:
Again, this is just a selection of issues/fixes. I suggest you adopt an iterative QAQC approach to fixing your model:
Until you have fixed the bulk of the errors and warnings, I wouldn't pay too much attention to reported energy use at this point ...
EDIT : Finally ran the model using OpenStudio Application 3.8.0. As you indicated, the model runs without FATAL errors from EnergyPlus. That's interesting. It's not as if EnergyPlus recently changed policy on outdoor air reset parameters. That said, many of the same anomalies (discussed above) are reported in the eplusout.err file, such as the (huge) calculated design max air flow rates.
