CalculateZoneVolume: The Zone="ROOM" is not fully enclosed. To be fully enclosed, each edge of a surface must also be an edge on one other surface.

asked 2022-09-12 03:13:16 -0500

23 ●3

updated 2022-09-13 07:01:27 -0500

Hello, I’m doing a project about HVAC optimization and I’m using EnergyPlus to do it. It’s the first time I’m using it so I don’t know how to fully use the software. The room I am trying to simulate has interior rooms. So when I define the walls of theses rooms I chose interior walls materials. At first I was just adding simples walls, but EnergyPlus wasn't computing so I decides to defines entirely enclosed interior rooms (for each rooms I defined 4 walls, even if somes wall were on exteriror walls). But I keep havings these warnings only for the interior walls:

CalculateZoneVolume: The Zone="ROOM" is not fully enclosed. To be fully enclosed, each edge of a surface must also be an edge on one other surface.
**   ~~~   **   The zone volume was calculated using the floor area times ceiling height method where the floor and ceiling are the same except for the z-coordinates.
**   ~~~   **   The surface    "WALL_INT_SALADERIE_4" has an edge that is either not an edge on another surface or is an edge on three or more surfaces:
**   ~~~   **     Vertex start { 0.0000, 14.3950, 2.1000}
**   ~~~   **     Vertex end   { 0.0000, 25.2950, 2.1000}

I tried to change the Outside Boundary Condition of these walls (at first I only putted "Outdoors" and I though that it was the problem). So I tried to put "adiabatic" but it doesn't work this walls that have doors. So I mixed "outdoors" and "adiabatic"... But I still have the sames warnings.

I verified a lot of times the way I defined the walls. I always look at the wall from the outside, and I always start to define the top left corner point and then I go counter-clockwise (as I did with the outdoors walls like "FACE_NORD" etc... which don't have warnings). But still have the same warnings so I don't know what to do...

edit retag flag offensive close merge delete

Comments

Noticed the Z-axis coordinates of the edge @2.1m, which at first glance suggest an alignment with a 10.9m strip window head/lintel. Is this the case? There could be valid reasons for having a wall edge this "low" (e.g., half-height basements, switching constructions @wall mid-height), but alignment with subsurface edges isn't usually one of them. The simplest would be to share your IDF.

Denis Bourgeois ( 2022-09-13 06:19:32 -0500 )edit

Did you define the floor and ceiling for the zone?

JasonGlazer ( 2022-09-13 07:04:22 -0500 )edit

Thank you for your answer Denis . It is actually the case. How can I share you my IDF file ? I can't link a IDF from here can I ?

samuelnavarro31 ( 2022-09-13 07:12:20 -0500 )edit

Thank you for your answer Jason. I defined the floor and the ceiling for the zone called "ROOM"

samuelnavarro31 ( 2022-09-13 07:13:48 -0500 )edit

@samuelnavarro31 : Provide a link (e.g. Google Drive, OneDrive, even GitHub) to an online copy of the IDF.

Denis Bourgeois ( 2022-09-13 08:20:06 -0500 )edit

see more comments

1

answered 2022-09-13 14:44:56 -0500

Denis Bourgeois
2071 ●81 ●8 http://www.rd2.ca

updated 2022-09-14 05:41:51 -0500

Looked over the IDF. FYI, here's excerpt of the SketchUp plugin import feedback:

Error:  WALL_INT_RANGEMNTS_5
This planar surface shares the same SketchUp face as WALL_INT_RANGEMNTS_2.
This error cannot be automatically fixed.  The surface will not be drawn.

Error:  WALL_INT_ALLO_1
This planar surface shares the same SketchUp face as FACE_SUD_1.
This error cannot be automatically fixed.  The surface will not be drawn.

Error:  FACE_SUD_2
This planar surface shares the same SketchUp face as WALL_INT_HALL_1.
This error cannot be automatically fixed.  The surface will not be drawn.

Error:  FACE_NORD_2
This planar surface shares the same SketchUp face as WALL_INT_BACS_3.
This error cannot be automatically fixed.  The surface will not be drawn.

Error:  FACE_EST_3
This planar surface shares the same SketchUp face as WALL_INT_BACS_2.
This error cannot be automatically fixed.  The surface will not be drawn.

Error:  DOOR_OUEST
This sub surface is not contained by its base surface, it cannot be drawn.

Warning:  A surface was subdivided because of connected geometry.
Added new surface Surface 1
You should check your geometry carefully for mistakes.

Warning:  A surface was subdivided because of connected geometry.
Added new surface Surface 2
You should check your geometry carefully for mistakes.

Removed duplicate drawing interface for object FACE_OUEST_1
Potential duplicate of object Surface 2

A general suggestion: As there are only 2x thermal zones in the model (PLENUM and ROOM), only PLENUM floors (with matching, interconnected ROOM ceilings) can be true interzone surfaces - interior walls and doors in the model aren't/can't. Specifying "Adiabatic" for such interior walls is OK, but the E+ InputOutput Reference does suggest adding mirrored surface clones to reflect true exposed interior wall areas. In the future, you may want to consider InternalMass objects as a simpler (and lighter) alternative.

Regardless, a number of interior walls in the model have "Outdoors" (instead of "Adiabatic") as Outside Boundary Conditions (e.g. "WALL_INT_BUREAU_3") ... something to fix.

In addition, I noted several issues with interconnected ROOM ceilings vs PLENUM floors:

there is 1x interzone ROOM ceiling facing "Ground" - should be facing "Surface"
the 3x other interzone ROOM ceilings are facing "Outdoors" - should also be facing "Surface"
the "Outside Boundary Condition Object" is left blank for all interzone ROOM ceilings
while the PLENUM floors correctly reference the interconnected ROOM ceilings, they also face "Outdoors"

That's enough to confuse E+. Maybe E+ has some built-in tolerances for some of these situations (I haven't tested any solutions), but I suggest fixing these inputs before moving on. Bonne chance!