Thanks for the follow-up and the explanations! A difference of 0.02 W/m2-K is probably not significant but it still surprises me that the if we were account for surface air film then a single pane U-factor would reduce from 9.6 to 5.3 W/m2-K (U 1.7). I also read your thread where you explained the difference between U-value and U-factor which was very helpful. If the input U-factors (already accounts for surface films) and E+ strips that out, then can we preview the U-value assumed in the simulation?
Also, according to the thread if we strip out the air film resistance to calculate actual U-value used in the E+ simulation, I get a negative value as shown below. What can accurately represent the U-value assumed in the E+ simulation?
Testfile_SP.gh (80.6 KB)
