TM52 Report

[Hummingbird]

I found out that the results of the report depend also on the simulation time step of apache sim.
When I set a 30 minutes time step I get 8 rooms which fail to the standard.
When I set 1 minute time step 2 rooms fail.
It is obvious that simulation accurancy may change the results but it is not clear with the TM52 report ,which also needs a refinement concerning the appearance. Maybe a pdf output with a better structure would be nice.

[Terence]

If you are using the Macroflo link then the change in results when changing the time step will be due to the control you have on the windows. If you have the profile threshold to be say 23 degrees then the window would open fully at 23 degrees but with a proportional bandwidth of a few degrees included then you can have it start to open say at 21 degrees and be fully open as the temperature rises, this is generally quite a realistic control strategy to avoid the window to open and close repeatedly at each time step.

I’d recommend you spend some time practising with this and urn the simulation at a low time step and reporting interval (I usually set both to 6 minutes for something like this) so you can query the results in Vista and observe exactly how the profile is working. I would expect training show you this process as well so your training notes may be of use here.

[Hummingbird]

Thank you very much for the info.
Macroflo is enabled and a temperature opening step is set for the windows.
When I set an one minute simulation step the results are analytical and I can check the response of the building to the changes of the external temperature and air which looks absolutely logical.

My comment was just a ascertainment, not exactly a profound one related to the TM-52, concerning the detail that sometimes has to be applied in certain cases of simulation.
The same think may happen when you have changing internal gains. The smaller the simulation step the more detailed results will be produced, closer to reality