11392 MRT Inconsistencies#11666
Open
RKStrand wants to merge 4 commits into
Open
Conversation
This is the first posting of the NFP for review.
Revison of the NFP based on Comments from Technicalities Call on June 24. 2026
shorowit
reviewed
Jul 8, 2026
Comment on lines
+38
to
+40
| ### Approach 2: New Real Number Field Allowing a Combination of MRT Calculations | ||
|
|
||
| In this approach, the zone level MRT would be calculated using a combination of the different MRT values from all of the people statements defined for the zone. So, if say a zone had three different people statements, the user could define the zone MRT with weighting factors of 0.4 for the first people statement, 0.3 for the second people statement, and 0.2 from the third people statement. In this case, since the fractions are less than 1.0, the remainder of the average would come from the standard zone MRT calculation that is an area-emissivity weighted average of the surfaces within the zone. The new field would be limited between 0.0 and 1.0. So, if this field is 0.4, 0.3, and 0.2, respectively for the first, second, and third People statements of a zone and no other people statements have a non-zero value and since these three fractions only add up to 0.9, the remaining 0.1 fraction would come from the standard MRT calculation. When the fractions to add up to 1.0, these fractions will be used directly without modification. When the People statements have values that do not comply with the 0.0 to 1.0 range or the fractions add up to greater than 1.0, a warning message will be provided and everything will default back to the standard MRT calculation. One disadvantage to this approach is that across People input syntax, there has to be some agreement--meaning that one People statement is slightly "dependent" on another one. This would be a new "precedent", though technically one could also argue that Approach 1 also has this issue. |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not that you need more options (and I don't necessarily love adding more EnergyPlus objects), but another possibility is to create a new ZoneMRT object with an extensible list of (PeopleObject, fraction) fields. Then you only have to check that the fractions in this one object add to less than 1.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That makes sense and would avoid issues relating to going across People statements. As we discussed in the iteration call today, this will be the approach that I take (Approach 2 with your suggestion for a new ZoneMRT object). Thanks!
Updates to the NFP as a result of the Technicalities Call on July 8, 2026.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull request overview
Description of the purpose of this PR
To promote the wide accessibility of this NFP.
Pull Request Author
Reviewer