You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I might have stumbled upon a bug or unclear documentation around simulation of the infiltration per exterior area.
My interpretation is that the intent of the component is to assign infiltration rate as per the exterior facade area (not total area, which will include roofs for the core zones):
However, when I look at the IDF, it assigns Flow/ExteriorArea method and weird coefficients for the core zones and DOE standard coefficients for the perimeter zones:
This results in a very high infiltration rates in non-perimeter zones, where I would expect them to have zero (at least at other than top floor).
My interpretation is that Flow/ExteriorWallArea method was supposed to be used:
In that case it produces the results I would expect. Could you let me know if using Flow/ExteriorArea was intentional or it is an error?
Thanks
Dmitry
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi there,
I might have stumbled upon a bug or unclear documentation around simulation of the infiltration per exterior area.
My interpretation is that the intent of the component is to assign infiltration rate as per the exterior facade area (not total area, which will include roofs for the core zones):
However, when I look at the IDF, it assigns Flow/ExteriorArea method and weird coefficients for the core zones and DOE standard coefficients for the perimeter zones:
This results in a very high infiltration rates in non-perimeter zones, where I would expect them to have zero (at least at other than top floor).
My interpretation is that Flow/ExteriorWallArea method was supposed to be used:
In that case it produces the results I would expect. Could you let me know if using Flow/ExteriorArea was intentional or it is an error?
Thanks
Dmitry
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: