Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
Get started with the Help page
Ask Your Question
1

OpenStudio 3.1 erases surfaces when surface matching. Not present in OpenStudio 2.9

asked 2022-01-28 19:44:36 -0500

jugonzal07's avatar

updated 2022-01-29 12:18:13 -0500

See the image below for context. At the top, you'll see the model before surface matching. Below, you'll see the model in OS 2.9 and in 3.1. You'll notice how the boundary condition for the floors changes to Surface for all the surfaces except a sliver that remains adjacent to Ground.

Comparisons

If you look at the roof surfaces, you'll notice this sliver is now missing altogether in OS 3.1.

Missing Sliver

I'm unsure why this is happening. Here is a clue I get when doing the intersect surfaces in OS 3.1

[openstudio.model.Surface] <1> Initial area of surface 'Surface 18' 646.605 does not equal post intersection area 646.605

Link to source in C++ code as far as I can tell. Appears to have something to do with intersection code

Things I have checked:

  • The order in which spaces are matched is identical
  • Both versions of OpenStudio agree upon which spaces intersect.
  • The OpenStudio methods OpenStudio::Model.intersectSurfaces(spaces) and OpenStudio::Model.matchSurfaces(spaces) do not resolve the issue (they made it worse somehow, not sure why).

LINK TO MINIMUM WORKING EXAMPLE:

https://github.com/jugonzal07/stack_o...

Meat of the surface code is under match_spaces on L95

def match_spaces(spaces)

    # Sort spaces for consistency between models
    spaces = sort_spaces(spaces)

    n = spaces.size

    boundingBoxes = []
    (0...n).each do |i|
        boundingBoxes[i] = spaces[i].transformation * spaces[i].boundingBox
    end

    (0...n).each do |i|
        (i+1...n).each do |j|
            next unless boundingBoxes[i].intersects(boundingBoxes[j])
            puts "#{spaces[i].name.to_s} intersects #{spaces[j].name.to_s}"
            spaces[i].intersectSurfaces(spaces[j])
            spaces[i].matchSurfaces(spaces[j])
        end #j
    end #i
end
edit retag flag offensive close merge delete

Comments

@jugonzal07 is this a result of surface matching via SketchUp plug-in or an OpenStudio measure? Both would use Ruby.

Aaron Boranian's avatar Aaron Boranian  ( 2022-01-29 09:56:30 -0500 )edit

hi Aaron - this is being done with the OpenStudio SDK. In the code snippet I posted, you can see spaces[i].intersectSurfaces(spaces[j]) and spaces[i].matchSurfaces(spaces[j]) . That is where the surface intersecting and matching happens.

jugonzal07's avatar jugonzal07  ( 2022-01-29 11:28:47 -0500 )edit

@jugonzal07 thanks for all the details. The surface matching doesn't alter surface geometry, but only the outside boundary condition field and the outside condition object. This is definitely from intersection which does alter geometry. We have been working to improve it, and have added in some additional logging that you have seen, but in some fixes we go fix some instances, but create new issues. In your repo, I assume can test with either of the OSM files with before in the name, but didn't know what os_matching_method.osm was for. [Issue filed.](https://github.com/NREL/OpenStudio/issues/4526)

David Goldwasser's avatar David Goldwasser  ( 2022-01-29 17:24:23 -0500 )edit

oh, sorry about that! I didn't mean to add os_matching_method.osm to the repo. That was a dummy file I was using to test different ideas.

jugonzal07's avatar jugonzal07  ( 2022-01-29 19:40:25 -0500 )edit

1 Answer

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted
1

answered 2022-01-29 17:59:53 -0500

updated 2022-01-29 18:01:32 -0500

I haven't tried your code, but I did take your model and ran it though surface matching measure in OpenStudio 3.3.0 and that seems to work.

Is there a reason you are using OpenStudio 3.1 instead of 3.3, it could be good for you to confirm on your end that 3.30 also works. I have selected the surface that for you you is being deleted in OpenStudio 3.1.

image description

edit flag offensive delete link more

Comments

Thanks so much David! This has all been very helpful.

I will try explicitly running the measure you ran in 3.3 in 3.1 to see if it works. If it works, I'll try and replicate our surface intersecting and matching code with it.

Updating to 3.3 would require rerunning our regression tests and possibly creating new issues to resolve (plus any ruby update issues that might come along). We've been working toward 3.1 for a bit now. However, if we can't get this working in 3.1 pulling the band aid off might be worth it.

jugonzal07's avatar jugonzal07  ( 2022-01-29 19:53:04 -0500 )edit

Unfortunately running the measure appeared to have had the same result as when I manually ran OpenStudio::Model.intersectSurfaces(spaces) and OpenStudio::Model.matchSurfaces(spaces) . I'm not sure what's different in OS 3.1, but it causes about half to match correct and half to not. A very different result than our internal surface intersection and mapping code.

Will download OS 3.3 and give it a shot there tomorrow.

jugonzal07's avatar jugonzal07  ( 2022-01-29 20:06:06 -0500 )edit

Running the measure you linked in OS 3.3 correctly intersects and matches surfaces on my end as well.

jugonzal07's avatar jugonzal07  ( 2022-01-30 08:03:51 -0500 )edit

Your Answer

Please start posting anonymously - your entry will be published after you log in or create a new account.

Add Answer

Training Workshops

Question Tools

1 follower

Stats

Asked: 2022-01-28 19:44:36 -0500

Seen: 225 times

Last updated: Jan 30