[unable to reproduce issue] transmittance schedule of shading surface doesn't affect cooling loads

It seems that with or without a transmittance schedule the effect of a horizontal shading surface (HB context surface) on the cooling loads of a room is the same.

This is how I define a transmittance schedule for a HB context surface:

Isn't that a shading surface with relatively higher transmittance value, e.g a much porous or transparent surface, will have less shading effect, resulting in higher cooling loads, as compared to one with lower transmittance (less porous or less transparent)?

Appreciate your advice.

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Grasshope on April 20, 2017 at 7:28am

sorry, I'm unable to reproduce the issue.

The attached example file can show the correct impact of shading surface transmittance on cooling loads.

Nevertheless, the Run Energy Simulation component still produces result file with important output missing such as cooling loads which is not an issue when using the Export to OpenStudio component:

Attachments:

shading transmittance test.gh, 571 KB

Permalink Reply by Leland Curtis on April 20, 2017 at 7:31am

Shot in the dark, but could the space in scheduleName be causing a problem?

It's possible that the space is not getting much solar gain during the analysis period you are studying. Perhaps isolating the solar gain values of the window surface in question will give you more info.

Permalink Reply by Grasshope on April 20, 2017 at 7:37am

(waving towards the dark...) Hi, Leland, seems the SPACE in the name of the csv schedule will not affecting the result: