Geometric Not sequential Error After Using the TBD Measure

I have been working on a project involving model simulation and have recently encountered an issue that I am struggling to resolve. I am reaching out to the forum for assistance and guidance in addressing this problem.

The issue I am facing pertains to a geometric error that arises after using the TBD measure. Up until now, I have used this measure without encountering this particular type of error. Additionally, it’s worth noting that the error does not occur consistently across all buildings; rather, it seems to be specific to certain buildings. I am puzzled by the occurrence of this error and would appreciate any insights that the forum community can offer to help me better understand and resolve it.

Here is an excerpt from the error message I received in one of the buildings results output:
out.osw (17.4 KB).

Error probably related with the TBD Measure Version or the bad Geojson format used to the ‘RunURBANopt’ component.

Hi Batiste. I’m one of the authors of the TBD gem/measure. Not sure if you’ve managed to fix your issue (since Sep 5). From the OSW feedback you sent, one of TBD’s dependencies (Topolys) has “raised” an invalid sequence of vertices (‘recalculate’ method in the Wire class … see here). We have not come across this before. I’m leaning towards an invalid sequence of surface vertices in OpenStudio. I can look into it if you send me the .osm file. PS: I came across your post by accident - we do check UnmetHours (UMH) postings almost daily - next time maybe try there as well

1 Like

The issue seems linked to this post (right?). Fixed?

1 Like

Hi @brig ,

First of all, thank you so much for your amazing tool. We are developing a workflow in Grasshopper to model UBEM in Catalonia, and we believe that your tool is the best option to include thermal bridges. We have modified the psi values to incorporate the CTE (Spanish Regulation) properties.

Regarding the issue, it turned out that it was not related to your tool. It disappeared when the geojson input was correctly formatted.

1 Like

Bon dia @Batiste,

Great that you’ve solved your issue. And nice to learn that TBD is part of your workflow! As we’re about a week away from releasing another version (mainly to support ASHRAE 90.1 2022 requirements), we could always integrate CTE PSI-factor sets (1x? 2x?) directly in TBD. We’re expanding the current selection (to this). Let me know.

1 Like

It would be awesome to have it @brig . Regarding the regulations (CTE), it differentiates between different climatic zones, as you can see in the table. If it’s okay with you, I’ll check the classification you’ve made on GitHub and create the JSON format for each one, then I’ll send it to you.


Great @Batiste. You can reach me directly if you prefer : denis “at”