Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
Get started with the Help page
Ask Your Question

Revision history [back]

I don't think there's a need to go crazy here. Just start with total annual site energy consumption. If that's off (I highly doubt it), you can stop there, you should use the non convex one.

If it's very close, just make sure you aren't trading heating for cooling or vice versa by comparing monthly total site energy consumption.

I don't think there's a need to go crazy here. Just start with total annual site energy consumption. If that's off (I highly doubt it), off, you can stop there, you should use the non convex one.

If it's very close, just make sure you aren't trading heating for cooling or vice versa by comparing monthly total site energy consumption.

I don't think there's a need to go crazy here. Just start with total annual site energy consumption. If that's off, you can stop there, you should use the non convex one.

If it's very close, just make sure you aren't trading heating for cooling or vice versa by comparing monthly total site energy consumption.


Edit: to answer your update post.

Finding Default values:

Most of the time you can find the default for a field by looking at the I/O reference guide. In the case of Solar Distribution, the I/O guide here doesn't give the default. Then you're left looking a the Energy+.idd (it's in your E+ installation folder), which gives you this:

  A3 , \field Solar Distribution
       \note  MinimalShadowing | FullExterior | FullInteriorAndExterior | FullExteriorWithReflections | FullInteriorAndExteriorWithReflections
       \type choice
       \key MinimalShadowing
       \key FullExterior
       \key FullInteriorAndExterior
       \key FullExteriorWithReflections
       \key FullInteriorAndExteriorWithReflections
       \default FullExterior

So the default is FullExterior.

Results of your try:

You're seeing a -0.0026% difference in EUI, which is basically peanuts, especially compared to the actual uncertainties in a model. It's probably fine to use the non-convex model.

I don't think there's a need to go crazy here. Just start with total annual site energy consumption. If that's off, you can stop there, you should use the non convex one.

If it's very close, just make sure you aren't trading heating for cooling or vice versa by comparing monthly total site energy consumption.


Edit: to answer your update post.

Finding Default values:

Most of the time you can find the default for a field by looking at the I/O reference guide. In the case of Solar Distribution, the I/O guide here doesn't give the default. Then you're left looking a the Energy+.idd (it's in your E+ installation folder), which gives you this:

  A3 , \field Solar Distribution
       \note  MinimalShadowing | FullExterior | FullInteriorAndExterior | FullExteriorWithReflections | FullInteriorAndExteriorWithReflections
       \type choice
       \key MinimalShadowing
       \key FullExterior
       \key FullInteriorAndExterior
       \key FullExteriorWithReflections
       \key FullInteriorAndExteriorWithReflections
       \default FullExterior

So the default is FullExterior., which means there is self shading and all beam solar radiation is assumed to fall on the floor. It's probably an adequate choice to "minimize the accuracy of non-convex surfaces" like you said.

Results of your try:

You're seeing a -0.0026% -0.0026% difference in EUI, which is basically peanuts, especially compared to the actual uncertainties in a model. It's I'd say it's probably fine to use the non-convex model.