Working with Rhino plugin of Pollination, after validating the model and bringing it to GH for running the annual energy use, either on cloud or local, I could not get the final result. It is on running process for more that 30 mins on the cloud and still no result of failed or successful run.
On the local system, OpenStudio XML validator error appears and after 15 mins still no change on the command prompt.
Update: Cloud run is done after 1 hour and 4 minutes!! and do not know why it took that much time.
I ran the simulation in HB and got this error: 1. ** Severe ** DetermineShadowingCombinations: There are 5 surfaces which are casting surfaces and are non-convex.
But it gave me the EUI result.
It seems like you just had a medium-sized model with a couple hundred rooms are so. Am I correct? If I’m wrong and it’s a lot fewer, then please upload the HBJSON (or link to it on Pollination) and I will have a look.
Also, this is not an error:
That’s a warning that E+ just wants you to be aware of. The simulation has succeeded and I would still consider your results valid. It’s just that the accurate solar model we use in E+ simulation by default might not be hitting the high level of accuracy that it’s designed to do and, instead, it is probably on par with other BEM tools.
And I’m not sure what is going on with the OpenStudio XML Validator but I sense that it might be related to some measures. Did you use any additional measures in your simulation here?
Thanks for sharing the model with me and I should have given some more qualifiers about what could make the simulation take so long. In your case, even though the number of Rooms is small, you have over 2,200 apertures in the model and this will take the E+ solar calculation a long time to compute:
So an hour to run this model in E+ is actually pretty reasonable to me.
If you want to get the model to simulate faster, you can format your model so that you just match the overall aperture area with one window per wall. This model below should run in under 15 minutes and, because the overall aperture area is matched with your original model, the final energy usage should be pretty similar:
