search

kbenne / cbecc

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/cbecc
0 stars 0 forks source link

CBECC-Com Issue - Unexpected Crash #853

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
IES Technical Support Reference: 0074217

Version = 2013_2b_609
Category = Unknown Simulation Error

Issue Summary:

Looking at attached customer model, we were able to clear up all the errors 
that appeared in the LOG file, but the simulation still does not complete.  
There are warnings, but no errors listed.  Likewise, I can’t figure out what 
is causing the failure to simulate.

Passed it along to our developers before sending to you guys:

I tried running this model through the v3 API and it still fails, but now with 
Error 26 and the following log errors:

I couldn’t see anything missing from our UI or XML for the above named 
objects (one OA supply and two Fans).

Any suggestions on how to get this one running?  Customer has to turn in full 
results and EEMs on Wednesday.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by f.le...@gmail.com on 18 Nov 2014 at 12:08

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
The model you sent has multiple HVAC objects of the same type (fans, cooling 
coils, etc.) on a single air segment.  This is not supported.  See the image 
below when the model is opened in CBECC-Com.  For example, read literally, 
MAINT BAYS system has three cooling coils in series, followed by three heating 
coils and three fans, all in series.  I’m not sure what the system 
configuration is that the user is trying to model, but my guess is that this 
should be three different air systems.  

There is also a problem with terminal units in the model.  For example, For the 
MAINT BAYS system, there is only one terminal unit with an airflow of 4,500 
cfm, but the system has fans with airflows of 11,250 cfm, 20,893 cfm and 7,232 
cfm.  Terminal units are required to connect the system to the zones being 
served.  With only 4,500 cfm of air going to a zone, the remainder of the fan 
airflow has nowhere to go.  

Finally, it appears that this building has extensive exhaust airflow.  Exhaust 
systems were not supported in v2b but were added in v3.  Attempting to model 
exhaust systems using air segments of type Relief and without any Return air 
segments may be causing problems, although I haven’t investigated this.  

I’m not sure why the OA control for the FUEL air system did not translate 
correctly, but the OA control for the MAINT OFFICES, for example, did.  But if 
the other issues discussed above are corrected, and the OA control is still 
causing a problem, please let me know.

Original comment by rhedr...@archenergy.com on 18 Nov 2014 at 6:34

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
The model you sent has multiple HVAC objects of the same type (fans, cooling 
coils, etc.) on a single air segment.  This is not supported.  See the image 
below when the model is opened in CBECC-Com.  For example, read literally, 
MAINT BAYS system has three cooling coils in series, followed by three heating 
coils and three fans, all in series.  I’m not sure what the system 
configuration is that the user is trying to model, but my guess is that this 
should be three different air systems.  

There is also a problem with terminal units in the model.  For example, For the 
MAINT BAYS system, there is only one terminal unit with an airflow of 4,500 
cfm, but the system has fans with airflows of 11,250 cfm, 20,893 cfm and 7,232 
cfm.  Terminal units are required to connect the system to the zones being 
served.  With only 4,500 cfm of air going to a zone, the remainder of the fan 
airflow has nowhere to go.  

Finally, it appears that this building has extensive exhaust airflow.  Exhaust 
systems were not supported in v2b but were added in v3.  Attempting to model 
exhaust systems using air segments of type Relief and without any Return air 
segments may be causing problems, although I haven’t investigated this.  

I’m not sure why the OA control for the FUEL air system did not translate 
correctly, but the OA control for the MAINT OFFICES, for example, did.  But if 
the other issues discussed above are corrected, and the OA control is still 
causing a problem, please let me know.

Original comment by rhedr...@archenergy.com on 18 Nov 2014 at 6:34