Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
 | 1 | initial version |
The zones which are connected by Construction:Airboundary become one continuous enclosure for solar and radiant exchange. You should be able to compare Output:Variables such as "Surface Inside Face Solar Radiation Heat Gain Rate per Area" and "Surface Inside Face Net Surface Thermal Radiation Heat Gain Rate per Area" with air boundary vs an interior window to see the impact.
If the openings are large relative to the connected zones or spaces (such as the air boundary between perimeter and core office spaces) then Construction:AirBoundary is a good option. If the openings are small, relative to the zone volumes, then an interior window is probably a better model. because the interior solar distribution algorithm is not able to model the impact of opaque surfaces within the enclosure which may block solar from other surfaces.
| | 2 | No.2 Revision |
The zones which are connected by Construction:Airboundary become one continuous enclosure for solar and radiant exchange. You should be able to compare Output:Variables such as "Surface Inside Face Solar Radiation Heat Gain Rate per Area" and "Surface Inside Face Net Surface Thermal Radiation Heat Gain Rate per Area" with air boundary vs an interior window to see the impact.
If the openings are large relative to the connected zones or spaces (such as the air boundary between perimeter and core office spaces) then Construction:AirBoundary is a good option. If the openings are small, relative to the zone volumes, then an interior window is probably a better model. because the interior solar distribution algorithm is not able to model the impact of opaque surfaces within the enclosure which may block solar from other surfaces.surfaces (when using the default PolygonClipping ShadowCalculation method. The PixelCounting method will do better, but I'm not sure of the limitations). Also, the radiant exchange algorithm uses very simple rules: all surfaces in the same enclosure can "see" each other unless they are facing the same direction.
| | 3 | No.3 Revision |
The zones which are connected by Construction:Airboundary become one continuous enclosure for solar and radiant exchange. You should be able to compare Output:Variables such as "Surface Inside Face Solar Radiation Heat Gain Rate per Area" and "Surface Inside Face Net Surface Thermal Radiation Heat Gain Rate per Area" with air boundary vs an interior window to see the impact.
If the openings are large relative to the connected zones or spaces (such as the air boundary between perimeter and core office spaces) then Construction:AirBoundary is a good option. If the openings are small, relative to the zone volumes, then an interior window is probably a better model. because the interior solar distribution algorithm is not able to model the impact of opaque surfaces within the enclosure which may block solar from other surfaces (when when using the default PolygonClipping ShadowCalculation method. The PixelCounting method will do better, but I'm not sure of the limitations). Also, account for the initial solar distribution (if using FullInteriorAndExterior Solar Distribution).
However the radiant exchange algorithm and distribution of reflected interior solar uses very simple rules: all surfaces in the same enclosure can "see" each other unless they are facing the same direction.
| | 4 | No.4 Revision |
The zones which are connected by Construction:Airboundary become one continuous enclosure for solar and radiant exchange. You should be able to compare Output:Variables such as "Surface Inside Face Solar Radiation Heat Gain Rate per Area" and "Surface Inside Face Net Surface Thermal Radiation Heat Gain Rate per Area" with air boundary vs an interior window to see the impact.
If the openings are large relative to the connected zones or spaces (such as the air boundary between perimeter and core office spaces) then Construction:AirBoundary is a good option. If the openings are small, relative to the zone volumes, then an interior window is probably a better model. because the interior solar distribution algorithm is not able to model the impact of opaque surfaces within the enclosure which may block solar from other surfaces when using the default PolygonClipping ShadowCalculation method. The PixelCounting method will account for the initial solar distribution (if using FullInteriorAndExterior Solar Distribution).
However the radiant exchange algorithm and distribution of reflected interior solar uses use very simple rules: all surfaces in the same enclosure can "see" each other unless they are facing the same direction.
