Is there an issue with assigning an elevator/stairs/multistory corridor a floor with an air boundary/airwall?
I have assigned all the elevators, stairs, and multistory corridors, and one two story lecture hall in my model an airwall floor. The lecture hall is a two-story segment of the building and the second story has an airwall floor because I clicked "True" for 'Open to below" in the Geometry tab. However, I get the following error message:
** Severe ** SetupEnclosuresAndAirBoundaries: Surface="FACE 1501" uses Construction:AirBoundary in a non-interzone surface.
FACE 1501 is the floor of the 5th story corridor. I get similar messages for the rest of the surfaces that are "open to below." I also noticed that some stairs in the model do not receive this error message which makes me think the issue is not related to the Construction:AirBoundary, but the vertices/convexity. I get the following error warning message associated with FACE 1501:
** Warning ** CheckConvexity: Surface="FACE 1501", vertex 13 is colinear with previous and next.
** Warning ** CheckConvexity: Surface="FACE 1501", vertex 14 is colinear with previous and next.
** Warning ** CheckConvexity: Surface="FACE 1501", vertex 15 is colinear with previous and next.
** Warning ** CheckConvexity: Surface="FACE 1501", vertex 18 is colinear with previous and next.
** Warning ** CheckConvexity: Surface="FACE 1501", vertex 19 is colinear with previous and next.
** Warning ** CheckConvexity: Surface="FACE 1501", vertex 20 is colinear with previous and next.
** Warning ** CheckConvexity: Surface="FACE 1501", vertex 21 is colinear with previous and next.
** Warning ** CheckConvexity: Surface="FACE 1501", vertex 26 is colinear with previous and next.
** Warning ** CheckConvexity: Surface="FACE 1501", vertex 27 is colinear with previous and next.
** Warning ** CheckConvexity: Surface="FACE 1501" has [9] collinear points that have been removed.
** Warning ** CheckConvexity: Surface="FACE 1501": The vertex points has been reprocessed as Sides = 33
These are some other error messages I get associated with the geometry:
* Severe ** GetSurfaceData: There are 2 degenerate surfaces; Degenerate surfaces are those with number of sides < 3.
** ~~~ ** These surfaces should be deleted.
** ~~~ ** For explicit details on each problem surface, use Output:Diagnostics,DisplayExtraWarnings;
** Fatal ** GetSurfaceData: Errors discovered, program terminates.
What is the recommended work around for the severe error and warning here? I tried simplifying the geometry early on.
@Mike117, please provide a link to the generated OSM or IDF (like this one). Or at a minimum, please provide a relevant excerpt of the OSM (i.e. "FACE 1501"). The Severe error message is clear: "FACE 1501" needs to be an interzone surface when using AirBoundries. The subsequent Warnings (not Errors) are typical with collinear surface vertices, which E+ attempts to fix automatically. Finally, the generated eplusout.err would hold (elsewhere) 2x distinct entries on which individual surfaces are degenerate.
Hi @Denis Bourgeois. I have used a work around in the model where I implements floors without insulation, but I do not think that would result in accurate energy reporting. The model I am having an issue with is here. The OSM files you provided above is my model, but I am not sure if that is with the floor airboundary/airwall issue.
Hi @Mike117. Indeed, the original model (which I linked, as an example) does not have that issue: "FACE 1501" is a wall in that one (I suspect FloorspaceJS automatically renames surfaces, or something). Unfortunately, the latest link (which you provided above) requires a Google Drive access authorization ...
I updated the access permissions. You should have all access/permissions.
Are you certain you linked the right file? I'm noticing that "Face 1501" is (also) a wall - not a floor. It does not have an AirBoundary construction. The 25 surfaces that do reference the single AirBoundary construction are ground-facing floors (i.e. not interzone surfaces). This issue has nothing to do with vertices. Maybe double-check the file? If this was autogenerated by FloorspaceJS, I'd add "FloorspaceJS" in the title: you'd want to raise awareness amongst its users/devs. Who knows, maybe a bug.