Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
 | 1 | initial version |
Matt, looks like you're on to something. The linked screenshot compares OSApp v1.2.1 (E+ v9.5) vs v1.3.0 (E+ v9.6) input vs output (Benchmark Warehouse skylights, in SI units). I observe, as you, differences between input and reported (E+ & OS Results Measure) output for v9.5 (but not for v9.6). The generated IDF from OSApp v1.2.1 is OK (U-factor 6.64 W/m2.K in my example). Now 6.64 is rather poor (skylights!), but additional tests on other v1.3.0 models show consistency between input and output. So it doesn't look like either an OSApp or OS Results Measure issue - more on the E+ side ... Could you try with OSApp v1.3.0 / E+ v9.6 to see if you can reproduce the same observations?
| | 2 | No.2 Revision |
Matt, looks like you're on to something. The linked screenshot compares OSApp v1.2.1 (E+ (SDK v321, E+ v9.5) vs v1.3.0 (E+ (SDK v330, E+ v9.6) input vs output (Benchmark Warehouse skylights, in SI units). I observe, as you, differences between input and reported (E+ & OS Results Measure) output for v9.5 (but not for v9.6). The generated IDF from OSApp v1.2.1 is OK (U-factor 6.64 W/m2.K in my example). Now 6.64 is rather poor (skylights!), but additional tests on other v1.3.0 models show consistency between input and output. So it doesn't look like either an OSApp or OS Results Measure issue - more on the E+ side ... Could you try with OSApp v1.3.0 / E+ v9.6 to see if you can reproduce the same observations?
| | 3 | No.3 Revision |
Matt, looks like you're on to something. The linked screenshot compares OSApp v1.2.1 (SDK v321, E+ v9.5) vs v1.3.0 (SDK v330, E+ v9.6) input vs output (Benchmark Warehouse skylights, in SI units). I observe, as you, differences between input and reported (E+ & OS Results Measure) output for v9.5 (but not for v9.6). The generated IDF from OSApp v1.2.1 is OK (U-factor 6.64 W/m2.K in my example). Now 6.64 is rather poor (skylights!), but additional tests on other v1.3.0 models show consistency between input and output. So it doesn't look like either an OSApp or OS Results Measure issue - more on the E+ side ... Could you try with OSApp v1.3.0 / E+ v9.6 to see if you can reproduce the same observations?
FOLLOW-UP : I think this is simply linked to the following fix.
| | 4 | No.4 Revision |
Matt, looks like you're on to something. The linked screenshot compares OSApp v1.2.1 (SDK v321, E+ v9.5) vs v1.3.0 (SDK v330, E+ v9.6) input vs output (Benchmark Warehouse skylights, in SI units). I observe, as you, differences between input and reported (E+ & OS Results Measure) output for v9.5 (but not for v9.6). The generated IDF from OSApp v1.2.1 is OK (U-factor 6.64 W/m2.K in my example). Now 6.64 is rather poor (skylights!), but additional tests on other v1.3.0 models show consistency between input and output. So it doesn't look like either an OSApp or OS Results Measure issue - more on the E+ side ... Could you try with OSApp v1.3.0 / E+ v9.6 to see if you can reproduce the same observations?
FOLLOW-UP : I think this is simply linked to the following fix.
From the E+ v9.6 Input Output Reference: "Field: U-Factor. ... In versions up till 9.6.0, the maximum allowable input is U-7.0 W/m2·K, and the effective upper limit of the glazing generated by the underlying model is around U-5.8 W/m2·K. In later versions, such upper bound of the input U value is removed. So is the mis-match between the user input U and the effective U is resolved."
| | 5 | No.5 Revision |
Matt, looks like you're on to something. The linked screenshot compares OSApp v1.2.1 (SDK v321, E+ v9.5) vs v1.3.0 (SDK v330, E+ v9.6) input vs output (Benchmark Warehouse skylights, in SI units). I observe, as you, differences between input and reported (E+ & OS Results Measure) output for v9.5 (but not for v9.6). The generated IDF from OSApp v1.2.1 is OK (U-factor 6.64 W/m2.K in my example). Now 6.64 is rather poor (skylights!), but additional tests on other v1.3.0 models show consistency between input and output. So it doesn't look like either an OSApp or OS Results Measure issue - more on the E+ side ... Could you try with OSApp v1.3.0 / E+ v9.6 to see if you can reproduce the same observations?
FOLLOW-UP : I think this is simply linked to the following fix.
From the E+ v9.6 Input Output Reference: "Field: U-Factor. ... In versions up till 9.6.0, the maximum allowable input is U-7.0 W/m2·K, W/m2·K (~1.22), and the effective upper limit of the glazing generated by the underlying model is around U-5.8 W/m2·K. W/m2·K (~1.03). In later versions, such upper bound of the input U value is removed. So is the mis-match between the user input U and the effective U is resolved."
| | 6 | No.6 Revision |
Matt, looks like you're on to something. The linked screenshot compares OSApp v1.2.1 (SDK v321, E+ v9.5) vs v1.3.0 (SDK v330, E+ v9.6) input vs output (Benchmark Warehouse skylights, in SI units). I observe, as you, differences between input and reported (E+ & OS Results Measure) output for v9.5 (but not for v9.6). The generated IDF from OSApp v1.2.1 is OK (U-factor 6.64 W/m2.K in my example). Now 6.64 is rather poor (skylights!), but additional tests on other v1.3.0 models show consistency between input and output. So it doesn't look like either an OSApp or OS Results Measure issue - more on the E+ side ... Could you try with OSApp v1.3.0 / E+ v9.6 to see if you can reproduce the same observations?
FOLLOW-UP : I think this is simply linked to the following fix.
. From the E+ v9.6 Input Output Reference: "Field: U-Factor. ... In versions up till 9.6.0, the maximum allowable input is U-7.0 W/m2·K (~1.22), and the effective upper limit of the glazing generated by the underlying model is around U-5.8 W/m2·K (~1.03). In later versions, such upper bound of the input U value is removed. So is the mis-match between the user input U and the effective U is resolved."
| | 7 | No.7 Revision |
The linked screenshot compares OSApp v1.2.1 (SDK v321, E+ v9.5) vs v1.3.0 (SDK v330, E+ v9.6) input vs output (Benchmark Warehouse skylights, in SI units). I think this is simply linked to the following fix. From the E+ v9.6 Input Output Reference: "Field: U-Factor. ... In versions up till 9.6.0, the maximum allowable input is U-7.0 W/m2·K (~1.22), and the effective upper limit of the glazing generated by the underlying model is around U-5.8 W/m2·K (~1.03). In later versions, such upper bound of the input U value is removed. So is the mis-match between the user input U and the effective U is resolved."
