Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
 | 1 | initial version |
I'm not quite sure what all you changed, but it appears that you did the following things:
Did I miss anything?
As of 9.4, you should not need the second and fourth items. The year handling of EnergyPlus was modified so that there's better tracking of the year that's being simulated. There was discussion of whether we should repeat the weather of February 28 (or something similar) if the 29th was not found, but in the end the feeling was that this was information that needed to be provided. The three things that need to happen now are:
EnergyPlus ignores most of the start date information in the EPW because it is unreliable. There is a flag to treat the weather as actual weather, which causes more checking of the dates involved and will require that the year of the starting time be correctly set in the EPW. If you would like your simulation to fail if something is not quite right, then setting that flag (in the RunPeriod object) will be the way to go. I believe in that mode, EnergyPlus will require that a leap day be present for a leap year and will fail if there's no 2/29.
If you're using OpenStudio and want to avoid the warning about nonconsecutive data points, you will need to modify the year of each data point. As far as I know, that warning doesn't mean too much at this point, as OpenStudio does not give you access to the full RunPeriod object. The most reliable way around that will be to use an EnergyPlus measure to set the fields directly.
Apologies that there isn't a simple answer on this. The situation is a lot better than 3 years ago from the EnergyPlus standpoint, but the EPW part is complicated.
