Hi,
Trying to comparitively simulate thermal envelope differences of an extension to an existing large zone building (warehouse).
We have two options;
1. Make educated guesses about the thermal performance of the existing elements or,
2. Model the interface between the existing and new building sections as adiabatic.
There are pros and cons of each and both can be considered by purists as fudges at some level.
"Wall:Adiabatic" only permits rectagular elements (the building has a pitched roof)
We are trying to use, "BuildingSurface:Detailed" with "Adiabatic" Outside Boundary Condition.
Eplus requires a Construction be specified whihc is non-ideal as we dont want the thermal mass effect of the adiabatic wall in the simulation as there is no wall in reality.
We are seeing non-zero "Surface Int Convection Heat Rate" for a wall which should be adiabatic.
We have defined a psuedo-material with very low specific heat capacity, very low density, and very low conductivity and still see much larger than expected Convection Heat Rates on the surface, any suggestions?
Thanks,
Mark Carey
__._,_.___
Primary EnergyPlus support is found at:
http://energyplus.helpserve.com or send a message to energyplus-support@xxxxxxxx
The primary EnergyPlus web site is found at:
http://www.energyplus.gov
The group web site is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EnergyPlus_Support/
Attachments are currently allowed but be mindful that not everyone has a high speed connection. Limit attachments to small files.
EnergyPlus Documentation is searchable. Open EPlusMainMenu.pdf under the Documentation link and press the "search" button.
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___