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

# Area mismatch errors

When I want to calculate the multiplier for the standard layer, this error occurs. When the multiplier is 1, the error will not occur the following error categories occurred. Consider correcting or noting.

************* InterZone Surface Areas -- mismatch
************* ..Area mismatch errors happen when the interzone surface in zone A is
************* ..not the same size as it's companion in zone B.
** Warning ** GetSurfaceData: InterZone Surface Areas do not match as expected and might not satisfy conservation of energy:
**   ~~~   **   Area=11.8, Multipliers=1, Total Area=11.8 in Surface=SURFACE 140 Zone=1F-BED-1
**   ~~~   **   Area=11.8, Multipliers=20, Total Area=237.6 in Surface=SURFACE 287 Zone=2F-BED-1


Thanks

edit retag close merge delete

@mikiksoar9@gmail.com what simulation tool are you using? Please mention it in the title or body of your post, as well as add a tag so that others can provide better help.

Also, by "multiplier" do you mean a zone or floor multiplier, or something different?

( 2024-07-14 12:14:00 -0500 )edit

@mikiksoar9@gmail.com could you please provide the input file that shows this warning. And which multiplier you are referring to? I assume it's the zone multiplier.

( 2024-07-17 09:13:48 -0500 )edit

I'm sorry, I don't know how to upload files. I am using EnergyPlus, and by 'multipliers,' I mean that I created a zone list for the standard floor and then applied multiplication in the zone group

( 2024-07-19 00:41:41 -0500 )edit

Sort by » oldest newest most voted

This is an EnergyPlus warning (Line 110). It's pretty clear: although both (paired) interzone surfaces have equal areas (~11.8 m2), the multiplier (20) has only been applied to "Surface=SURFACE 287 Zone=2F-BED-1" (20x ~11.8 m2 = ~236 m2) ... ~11.8 vs 236 m2 - not good. Either avoid multipliers when dealing with interzone surfaces, or ensure that the multiplier is equally applied to both (paired) interzone surfaces.

I echo @Aaron Boranian 's question: does this stem from a zone or floor multiplier? e.g.:

• a 22-storey building with 20x the same similar middle storey?
• 20 apartment units side-by-side, yet only 1 is modelled?

If so, I strongly suggest avoiding interzone surfaces. With multipliers, you're better off with adiabatic boundary conditions, or self-referencing conditions, e.g.:

• middle storey case: have a space's floor as boundary condition for its own ceiling (and vice-versa)
• side-by-side units (e.g. east-to-west layout): have a space's east wall as boundary condition for its own west wall (and vice-versa)

EDIT: The floor and ceiling surfaces illustrated here (in pale green) would normally be adjacent to ceiling or floor surfaces in other zones (e.g. ground floor, top floor). Yet when dealing with zone multipliers (as a proxy for a whole building story), it is safer to avoid interzone surfaces (linking other surfaces in other zones), as suggested in EnergyPlus' IO Reference:

Surfaces in Middle Zones – Middle zones in a building can be simulated using a judicious use of surfaces and zone multipliers to effect the correct “loads” for the building. Thus, middle zone behavior can be simulated without modeling the adjacent zones. This is done by specifying a surface within the zone. For example, a middle floor zone can be modeled by making the floor the Outside Boundary Condition Object for the ceiling, and the ceiling the Outside Boundary Condition Object for the floor.

2nd EDIT: One thing to look out for when setting floors/ceilings to adiabatic (vs interzone) is SolarDistribution. Unless this parameter is set to one of the 2 "WithReflections" options, all "beam solar radiation entering the zone is assumed to fall on the floor, where it is absorbed according to the floor’s solar absorptance". Depending on fenestration layout, internal loads, cooling/ventilation strategies, internal mass settings, etc., trapping beam solar radiation in an adiabatic floor construction (as this energy can't be transferred to the zone below) may indeed tilt cooling vs heating profiles. For the middle storeys, you have the option of setting aside adiabatic boundary conditions, and instead setting the middle storey floor as facing its own ceiling, and vice versa (as described above). This may alleviate the discrepancy. Otherwise, you have variables you can tweak, such as adjusting the inside floor material solar absorptance (a lower value redistributes in a zone a greater portion of beam radiation as diffuse). And in all cases, I would suggest paying attention to InternalMass definitions in each zone, which ideally should include all mass not explicitly-modelled as surfaces ...

more

Yes, because I am using EnergyPlus, when I use multipliers, a zone group for intermediate standard layers is created, but then an error message appears. When the multiplier is set to 1, this doesn't happen. I'm not very familiar with this software, so I'm quite confused

( 2024-07-19 00:37:33 -0500 )edit

OK. I suspect by "intermediate standard layer", you mean an intermediate building story (or similar)? I edited my initial answer in support of using multipliers while avoiding true interzone surfaces. Hoping this is clearer to you.

( 2024-07-19 10:58:23 -0500 )edit

Thank you for your response and guidance. Do you mean that I should set the standard floor's floor and the ground floor's ceiling as adiabatic, as well as the standard floor's ceiling and the top floor's floor as adiabatic? However, after making these adjustments, I still encounter the same error message. It is possible that I have misunderstood your instructions.

( 2024-07-23 08:02:08 -0500 )edit

By the standard floor, I mean the intermediate floor, such as the middle floor in a three-floor configuration. My residential building has a total of 24 floors, but I simplified the model. Therefore, I multiplied the standard floor by 22, which caused the error message to appear.

( 2024-07-23 08:06:04 -0500 )edit

You wrote: "I should set the standard floor's floor and the ground floor's ceiling as adiabatic, as well as the standard floor's ceiling and the top floor's floor as adiabatic?"

That is one way of doing it. There should no longer be any horizontal interzone surfaces in the IDF file: all adiabatic, except the ground floor floor (facing ground) and the top floor ceiling (facing outdoors). Double-check. Once completed, you shouldn't be seeing the exact same error message. Otherwise, consider sharing a public link to the IDF, or at least the relevant eplusout.err excerpts.

( 2024-07-23 11:33:47 -0500 )edit