Microclimate Comfort Map - The calculation has been terminated by user

thermal-comfort
comfort-map
#1

Hello All,

I am finding an issue in running the microclimate comfort map for one model.
I get the following warning:

microclimate map 1. The calculation has been terminated by the user!

Looking on the forum I saw that this was caused by a bug that I thought was fixed.
Would someone be able to tell me how to solve this?

I want to attach the model and the script but I am not able to as I am a new user; suggestions?

Thanks a lot,

Carmelo

#2

Carmelo,

That is the generic warning that pops up because it’s usually supposed to be triggered by holding down the escape key (that’s how you cancel the calculation) But in this case, an error is probably triggering it (I’m sure that it’s something different than the previous bug you cite). It’s going to be extremely difficult to know what went wrong without a grasshopper file that recreates the issue. Once you post the link to the GH file, I’ll have a look. It’s probably just an incorrect input that isn’t caught by the checks inside the components.

-Chris

#3

Ah, and by “post the link”, I mean post a link to a Dropbox for now. We’ll probably be posting some info on upload capabilities soon.

#4

This is a discourse feature to protect the forum from the spammers. I made you a basic user and now you should be able to upload your files. :slight_smile:

#5

Thanks, @mostapha . So @CarmeloGGalante , don’t post a drobox link as I said. Just upload as you normally would.

#6

Thanks a lot guys!

Chris, you have already seen this model before when I had some problems with the energy analysis due to geometry etc.

Best,

Carmelo

comfort_study.gh (750.7 KB)
model.3dm (432.4 KB)

#7

Carmelo,
It’s going to take a long time for your file to run on my system. As I recommended last time, it will help you a lot if you just planarize your zone geometry. If the simulation manages to finish in 15 minutes, I’ll have a go at fixing the issue but it looks like it takes this 3-zone energy model over an hour to run because the geometry is not planar. If this is the case, I’ll let it run overnight and try to get back to you whenever it finishes. But my #1 suggestion is just planaraize the geometry rather than waiting hours for a simulation like this to finish.

#8

Carmelo,
I left the components running over the weekend and, while the energy simulation finished in 1.1 hours, the other components are not yet done. There’s really no substitute for just planarizing your geometry. If you build a planar version of your model and find that the issue still persists, I’ll check it. But a model with this level of curvature just ends up being too meshed be practical.

#9

Hello Chris,

Thanks a lot for your feedback. I will follow your suggestion and be in touch in case there are still issues with the model.

Best,

Carmelo

split this topic #10

A post was split to a new topic: Questions About the Calculation Methods of the PMV Microclimate Map

#11

Hello everyone

I am finding the same issue with my indoor microclimate comfort map.

  1. The calculation has been terminated by the user!

However, my geometry is simple and planar. It does have three zones of which I have attempted to customize the profiles.

It would be great you could take a look at the model and give some suggestions.

Thank you

Drishti

Indoor_MicroclimateMap_6x9.gh (1008.9 KB)
IndoorStudy_6x9_9x6.3dm (275.1 KB)

#12

Following this conversation as well cos I am experiencing the same issue for both the PMV and PET analysis tool. The geometry is planar and energy+ takes 7.something seconds to run so I don’t think is a geometry issue.

Any idea or comment is much appreciated!

#13

@drishtichatrath ,
If you check the readme! output of the comfort component, it will give you more information about what went wrong. In your case, you have a bunch of duplicate surface names:


You need to make sure that each surface of your model has a unique name when you use the surface-by-surface method.

I don’t know if that is the same situation for you @alberto.gallotta .

#14

Chris,

thanks for the feedback. I inquired the tool several times and i have several issue in all the thermal comfort tools. I need to dig it deeper to understand what is going wrong.

At the moment I am focused on E+ side. Once I will focus again on the thermal comfort I will provide more information.

P.S.
I love these tools and GH!

#15

Thank you Chris. It worked.

#16

I don´t know if your problem @alberto.gallotta, could be related to this, but I recently I found out that the microclimate analysis component doesn´t like subsurfaces in adiabatic walls. As a result, it throws the same error:

The calculation has been terminated by the user!

E+ was fine to run the simulation though.