Fix array bounds error for interzone windows and fix convexity of mirrored surfaces #10498

mjwitte · 2024-05-06T22:07:34Z

Pull request overview

Fixes idf file causing segfault and mirrors of nonconvex shading surfaces are classified as convex #10490
Fixes array bounds error with interzone (interspace) windows when the number of zones is < the number of enclosures. This issue was the root cause of a release build crash with the defect file.
Fixes MakeMirrorSurface to properly set IsConvex for the mirrored surface. When a mirrored surface is created, the original surface has already set IsConvex for itself. The former MakeMirrorSurface copied a list of specific attributes to the new surface, but did not copy IsConvex so it was always true. This resulted in a non-convex surface being classified as convex which then failed debug assert in Surface2D for mirrored nonconvex shading surfaces with 20 or more vertices (that's a mouthful). The defect file tripped on this assert in a debug build, masking the arrays bounds issue.
Streamlines MakeMirrorSurface.
Add some new constants to avoid using literal 1.0e-6 and the like.
Do some housekeeping in Vectors.cc
Fixes broken loop in ComputeDifSolExcZonesWIZWindows (uncertain impact on models with interior windows).
Correct I/O Ref to state that the minimum resolution for surface vertices is 1cm (not 1mm).

Defects Fixed

Revised defect file (which runs faster): 10490.idf.txt
The defect file crashed with a release build and failed an assert with a debug build revealing two separate issues.
The defect file now runs to completion with both release and debug builds.

Diffs

There are no diffs. There was an expectation that diffs might show up from fixing the mirrored surface convexity. This fix only impacts the mirrored side of a non-convex shading surface which will only impact the results if the mirrored side casts shadows toward the building and if the non-convex shape is such that the Polygon Clipping Algorithm does not handle it correctly.

Pull Request Author

Add to this list or remove from it as applicable. This is a simple templated set of guidelines.

Reviewer

This will not be exhaustively relevant to every PR.

…indowsAndSurfs20PlusVertices

mjwitte · 2024-05-08T17:51:27Z

Added some unit tests for surfaces with >=20 vertices. Here's a plot of the vertices for the defect file surface that fails the original assert. Looks like it may not be a valid surface in the first place. Clearly it should not be classified as Convex.

Here's the surface object shown above

  Shading:Building:Detailed,
    aim108660,               !- Name
    ,                        !- Transmittance Schedule Name
    ,                        !- Number of Vertices
    4.5047023,14.8653133,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 1 {m}
    6.5689151,13.4862441,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 2 {m}
    6.1242243,12.8206238,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 3 {m}
    7.8836902,11.6451513,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 4 {m}
    8.2156112,12.1419759,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 5 {m}
    8.7993282,11.7520035,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 6 {m}
    8.9659831,12.0014552,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 7 {m}
    9.2241656,11.8289674,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 8 {m}
    9.4352618,12.1449395,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 9 {m}
    8.5933623,12.7073998,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 10 {m}
    9.6032909,14.219077,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 11 {m}
    9.5550636,14.251297,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 12 {m}
    8.5268029,12.71218,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 13 {m}
    9.1313075,12.3083197,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 14 {m}
    8.7902205,11.7977752,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 15 {m}
    8.1857159,12.2016356,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 16 {m}
    7.8676828,11.7255986,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 17 {m}
    6.2046715,12.8366312,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 18 {m}
    6.6740828,13.5392534,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 19 {m}
    4.646872,14.8936022,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 20 {m}
    5.8684524,16.7220831,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 21 {m}
    7.8474358,15.3999543,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 22 {m}
    7.8796558,15.4481816,35.35,  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 23 {m}
    5.815443,16.8272508,35.35;  !- X,Y,Z ==> Vertex 24 {m}

mjwitte · 2024-05-09T13:39:12Z

Noticed this comment in SurfaceGeometry::MakeMirrorSurface:

EnergyPlus/src/EnergyPlus/SurfaceGeometry.cc

Lines 9758 to 9761 in 4d39dff

    
           // doesn't work when Vertex are pointers  SurfaceTmp(SurfNum+1)=SurfaceTmp(SurfNum) 
        
           state.dataSurfaceGeometry->SurfaceTmp(SurfNum + 1).Name = state.dataSurfaceGeometry->SurfaceTmp(SurfNum).Name; 
        
           state.dataSurfaceGeometry->SurfaceTmp(SurfNum + 1).Construction = state.dataSurfaceGeometry->SurfaceTmp(SurfNum).Construction; 
        
           state.dataSurfaceGeometry->SurfaceTmp(SurfNum + 1).ConstructionStoredInputValue =

But vertices haven't been POINTER since this commit many many moons ago.

So let's try SurfaceTmp(SurfNum+1)=SurfaceTmp(SurfNum) and see what happens . . .

mjwitte

Code walkthrough.

mjwitte · 2024-05-10T14:27:42Z

src/EnergyPlus/DataGlobalConstants.hh

+    Real64 constexpr OneThousandth = 1.0e-3; // Used as a tolerance in various places
+    Real64 constexpr OneMillionth = 1.0e-6;  // Used as a tolerance in various places

+    Real64 constexpr DistTooSmall(1.e-4);      // Geometric tolerance


Added some new constants that are used as tolerances in various places in surface geometry and shadowing calculations. DistToolSmall was moved up from a local declaration in Vectors.cc - decided to keep the same name.

Does DistTooSmall represent a unit or is it dimensionless?

Does DistTooSmall represent a unit or is it dimensionless?

Good questions. After some digging, it's in meters. And after some discussion with @JasonGlazer about other geometric tolerances, I'm going to make some other changes. How do you feel about names like this?
Real64 constexpr 1centimeter = 0.01 // Distance tolerance [m]

Well, I mean that exact name won't compile since it starts with a numeric literal :) But I think oneCentimeter is fine. Or you could just call it oneHundredth and allow it to be used for multiple units. As long as it's pretty obvious I'm not too picky.

mjwitte · 2024-05-10T14:28:39Z

src/EnergyPlus/DataSurfaces.cc

@@ -88,15 +87,6 @@ using namespace WindowManager;

 Array1D_string const cExtBoundCondition({-6, 0}, {"KivaFoundation", "FCGround", "OSCM", "OSC", "OSC", "Ground", "ExternalEnvironment"});

-// Parameters to indicate surface classes


Removed some comments that were left behind at some point when the parameters were moved to an enum.

mjwitte · 2024-05-10T14:32:23Z

src/EnergyPlus/DataSurfaces.cc

-            assert((shapeCat == ShapeCat::Nonconvex) || (crossEdges.size() == 2));
+            assert((shapeCat == ShapeCat::Nonconvex) || (crossEdges.size() == 2u));


This is the assert that was failing. Initially, I thought it was incorrect and should be >=2, but in the end the failing surface was ShapeCat:Convex here when it should have been Nonconvex.

mjwitte · 2024-05-10T14:35:32Z

src/EnergyPlus/SurfaceGeometry.cc

+        auto &origSurface = state.dataSurfaceGeometry->SurfaceTmp(SurfNum);
+        auto &newSurface = state.dataSurfaceGeometry->SurfaceTmp(SurfNum + 1);
+        newSurface = origSurface;


In MakeMirrorSurface just copy the entire original surface into the new surface instead of trying to copy each pertinent field individually. Then go about modifying name, vertices and other things. See #10498 (comment).

Seems like a more reliable option. 👍

mjwitte · 2024-05-10T14:36:28Z

src/EnergyPlus/Vectors.cc

@@ -110,16 +106,6 @@ Vector const XUnit(1.0, 0.0, 0.0);
 Vector const YUnit(0.0, 1.0, 0.0);
 Vector const ZUnit(0.0, 0.0, 1.0);

-// DERIVED TYPE DEFINITIONS


Some housekeeping throughout Vectors.cc.

mjwitte · 2024-05-10T14:45:35Z

tst/EnergyPlus/unit/DataSurfaces.unit.cc

@@ -244,6 +244,154 @@ TEST_F(EnergyPlusFixture, SurfaceTest_Surface2D)
    }
 }

+TEST_F(EnergyPlusFixture, SurfaceTest_Surface2D_bigVertices)


2 new unit tests added related to the failed assert in Surface2D. The first is a convex surface, the second is nonconvex. In hindsight, this isn't focusing on the root problems.

Do you feel more tests are justified? Or is this still covering the issue enough?

Myoldmopar

Based on what I'm seeing here, I'm good with this. I like the increased uniformity with named tolerances, and so much cleanup :). I'm curious about the DistTooSmall units and if you think you need more unit tests, but otherwise it seems good to go.

Myoldmopar · 2024-06-05T18:48:05Z

src/EnergyPlus/DataGlobalConstants.hh

+    Real64 constexpr OneThousandth = 1.0e-3; // Used as a tolerance in various places
+    Real64 constexpr OneMillionth = 1.0e-6;  // Used as a tolerance in various places

+    Real64 constexpr DistTooSmall(1.e-4);      // Geometric tolerance


Does DistTooSmall represent a unit or is it dimensionless?

Myoldmopar · 2024-06-05T18:48:50Z

src/EnergyPlus/SolarReflectionManager.cc

@@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ namespace SolarReflectionManager {
                    ObsVec = state.dataSurface->Surface(ObsSurfNum).Vertex(loop);
                    DotProd = dot(state.dataSolarReflectionManager->SolReflRecSurf(RecSurfNum).NormVec, ObsVec - RecVec);
                    // CR8251      IF(DotProd > 0.01d0) THEN  ! This obstructing-surface vertex is not behind receiving surface
-                    if (DotProd > 1.0e-6) { // This obstructing-surface vertex is not behind receiving surface
+                    if (DotProd > Constant::OneMillionth) { // This obstructing-surface vertex is not behind receiving surface


Hmm, that's actually really satisfying to read like this.

Myoldmopar · 2024-06-05T18:49:22Z

src/EnergyPlus/SurfaceGeometry.cc

+        auto &origSurface = state.dataSurfaceGeometry->SurfaceTmp(SurfNum);
+        auto &newSurface = state.dataSurfaceGeometry->SurfaceTmp(SurfNum + 1);
+        newSurface = origSurface;


Seems like a more reliable option. 👍

Myoldmopar · 2024-06-05T18:49:33Z

src/EnergyPlus/Vectors.cc

@@ -110,16 +106,6 @@ Vector const XUnit(1.0, 0.0, 0.0);
 Vector const YUnit(0.0, 1.0, 0.0);
 Vector const ZUnit(0.0, 0.0, 1.0);

-// DERIVED TYPE DEFINITIONS


Myoldmopar · 2024-06-05T18:50:09Z

tst/EnergyPlus/unit/DataSurfaces.unit.cc

@@ -244,6 +244,154 @@ TEST_F(EnergyPlusFixture, SurfaceTest_Surface2D)
    }
 }

+TEST_F(EnergyPlusFixture, SurfaceTest_Surface2D_bigVertices)


Do you feel more tests are justified? Or is this still covering the issue enough?

Myoldmopar · 2024-06-06T19:07:28Z

@mjwitte I'm marking this waiting on developer per your comment about "more changes". Ping me back if it's ready for me to review again!

…indowsAndSurfs20PlusVertices

mjwitte

Follow up code walkthru. Some additional changes to note. CI is looking green so far. This is complete pending final review.

mjwitte · 2024-06-12T21:02:45Z

doc/input-output-reference/src/overview/group-thermal-zone-description-geometry.tex

@@ -1983,7 +1983,7 @@ \subsection{Surface Vertices}\label{surface-vertices}
 use the same vertex input. The numeric parameters indicated below are taken from the \hyperref[buildingsurfacedetailed]{BuildingSurface:Detailed} definition; the others may not be exactly the same but are identical in configuration. They are also ``extensible'' -- so, to define more vertices for these surfaces, simply add the required number of vertices (X, Y, and Z coordinates for each vertex) to the input file. Note that \hyperref[fenestrationsurfacedetailed]{FenestrationSurface:Detailed} is not extensible and is limited to 4 (max) vertices. If the Number of Surface Vertex groups is left blank or entered as \textbf{autocalculate}, EnergyPlus looks at the number of groups entered and figures out how many coordinate groups are entered.

 \begin{callout}
-\warning{Note that the resolution on the surface vertex input is 1 millimeter (.001 meter). Therefore, using vertices that are very close together (\textless{} 1 mm) may result in invalid dot product and fatal errors during shading calculations.}
+\warning{Note that the resolution for surface vertex input is 1 centimeter (0.01 meter). Vertices that are \textless{} 1 cm apart will be combined.}


discovered that the I/O Ref was incorrect.

mjwitte · 2024-06-12T21:03:12Z

src/EnergyPlus/DataGlobalConstants.hh

+    Real64 constexpr OneCentimeter = 0.01;     // Geometric tolerance in meters
+    Real64 constexpr TwoCentimeters = 0.02;    // Geometric tolerance in meters
+    Real64 constexpr SmallDistance = 1.0e-4;   // Geometric tolerance in meters


More new (and revised) constants

mjwitte · 2024-06-12T21:05:46Z

src/EnergyPlus/HeatBalanceSurfaceManager.cc

-        for (int MZ = 1; MZ <= NumberOfEnclosures; ++MZ, ++l) {
+    assert(state.dataHeatBalSurf->ZoneFractDifShortZtoZ.isize1() == numEnclosures);
+    assert(state.dataHeatBalSurf->ZoneFractDifShortZtoZ.isize2() == numEnclosures);
+    for (int NZ = 1; NZ <= numEnclosures; ++NZ) {
+        for (int MZ = 1; MZ <= numEnclosures; ++MZ) {
            if (MZ == NZ) continue;
-            if (state.dataHeatBalSurf->ZoneFractDifShortZtoZ[l] > 0.0) { // [ l ] == ( MZ, NZ )
+            if (state.dataHeatBalSurf->ZoneFractDifShortZtoZ(MZ, NZ) > 0.0) {
                state.dataHeatBalSurf->EnclSolRecDifShortFromZ(NZ) = true;
                break;


When I extended the unit test for the interzone window function, I found that this loop was broken. The l counter was added as an efficiency measure long ago, but l doesn't get incremented when the inner loop breaks out. Reverted (way-way-back) to using the dual subscripts instead of l.

mjwitte · 2024-06-12T21:06:27Z

src/EnergyPlus/HeatBalanceSurfaceManager.cc

-void ComputeDifSolExcZonesWIZWindows(EnergyPlusData &state, int const NumberOfEnclosures) // Number of solar enclosures
+void ComputeDifSolExcZonesWIZWindows(EnergyPlusData &state)


Dumped the second parameter, because that's already known in state.

Love it ❤️

mjwitte · 2024-06-12T21:07:35Z

src/EnergyPlus/SurfaceGeometry.cc

-                    if (std::abs(maxZ - wallHeightZ) > 0.0254) { //  2.54 cm = 1 inch
+                    if (std::abs(maxZ - wallHeightZ) > Constant::TwoCentimeters) {


Not a 1:1 replacement, but it shouldn't cause any problems.

mjwitte · 2024-06-12T21:08:42Z

src/EnergyPlus/SurfaceGeometry.cc

@@ -13080,7 +13010,6 @@ namespace SurfaceGeometry {
    {
        // J. Glazer - March 2017

-        Real64 tol = 0.0127; //  1.27 cm = 1/2 inch


Per discussion with @JasonGlazer this group of functions are using OneCentimeter instead of 1.27cm

mjwitte · 2024-06-12T21:10:32Z

tst/EnergyPlus/unit/HeatBalanceSurfaceManager.unit.cc

-    state->dataViewFactor->NumOfSolarEnclosures = 2;
+    state->dataViewFactor->NumOfSolarEnclosures = 3;


Extended this unit test to cover the real defect here (interior window with numEnclosres>numZones).

mjwitte · 2024-06-12T21:11:03Z

tst/EnergyPlus/unit/SurfaceGeometry.unit.cc

-    b.x = 7.01;
-    b.y = 11.01;
-    b.z = 17.01;
+    b.x = 7.0095;
+    b.y = 11.0095;
+    b.z = 17.0095;


Adjusted this unit test due to the tighter tolerance in these functions (1cm instead of 1.27cm).

Myoldmopar

LGTM!

Myoldmopar · 2024-06-25T14:24:44Z

src/EnergyPlus/HeatBalanceSurfaceManager.cc

-void ComputeDifSolExcZonesWIZWindows(EnergyPlusData &state, int const NumberOfEnclosures) // Number of solar enclosures
+void ComputeDifSolExcZonesWIZWindows(EnergyPlusData &state)


Love it ❤️

Myoldmopar · 2024-06-25T14:26:22Z

src/EnergyPlus/SolarShading.cc

@@ -5746,7 +5746,7 @@ void SHADOW(EnergyPlusData &state,
                     state.dataSurface->Surface(NGRS).lcsz.y * state.dataSolarShading->SUNCOS(2) +
                     state.dataSurface->Surface(NGRS).lcsz.z * state.dataSolarShading->SUNCOS(3);

-                if (std::abs(ZS) > 1.e-4) {
+                if (std::abs(ZS) > Constant::SmallDistance) {


Myoldmopar · 2024-06-25T14:27:25Z

tst/EnergyPlus/unit/HeatBalanceSurfaceManager.unit.cc

-    state->dataViewFactor->NumOfSolarEnclosures = 2;
+    state->dataViewFactor->NumOfSolarEnclosures = 3;


Myoldmopar · 2024-06-25T14:41:56Z

All green here, and all happy with develop pulled in. Thanks @mjwitte, this is a great set of changes.

mjwitte added 2 commits May 6, 2024 13:09

Fix interior window array size

17c808c

Fix Surface2D assert

7461b39

mjwitte added the Defect Includes code to repair a defect in EnergyPlus label May 6, 2024

mjwitte marked this pull request as draft May 6, 2024 22:09

mjwitte added this to the EnergyPlus 24.2 milestone May 8, 2024

mjwitte added 2 commits May 8, 2024 12:32

Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/origin/develop' into Interzonew…

c40c608

…indowsAndSurfs20PlusVertices

Initial unit tests

bcf2046

mjwitte added 3 commits May 8, 2024 18:05

Revert Surface2D assert

259849e

Revise unit tests

2a93689

Fix convexity for mirrored surfaces

85662bb

mjwitte added 4 commits May 9, 2024 09:28

Streamline MakeMirrorSurface

28ec9eb

Add some constants

b5d41cf

Use new constants

c4fd8dc

Use new constants and housekeeping

57e23ee

mjwitte changed the title ~~Fix array bounds error for interzone windows when number of zones < enclosures~~ Fix array bounds error for interzone windows and fix convexity of mirrored surfaces May 10, 2024

mjwitte commented May 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

mjwitte marked this pull request as ready for review May 10, 2024 14:46

Myoldmopar self-assigned this May 22, 2024

Myoldmopar approved these changes Jun 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

Myoldmopar assigned mjwitte and unassigned Myoldmopar Jun 6, 2024

mjwitte mentioned this pull request Jun 11, 2024

IDF file causing segfault #10555

Closed

3 tasks

mjwitte added 5 commits June 11, 2024 09:04

Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/origin/develop' into Interzonew…

ebe5fee

…indowsAndSurfs20PlusVertices

Rename SmallDistance and add units

7243d5a

More constants correct I/O ref

06b60e4

Extend unit test, drop param, fix EnclSolRecDifShortFromZ loop

d36f8ba

Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/origin/develop' into Interzonew…

231b3b1

…indowsAndSurfs20PlusVertices

format

72f29f7

mjwitte commented Jun 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

mjwitte assigned Myoldmopar and unassigned mjwitte Jun 12, 2024

Myoldmopar approved these changes Jun 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

Myoldmopar merged commit 1383904 into develop Jun 25, 2024
15 checks passed

Myoldmopar deleted the InterzonewindowsAndSurfs20PlusVertices branch June 25, 2024 14:42

		@@ -88,15 +87,6 @@ using namespace WindowManager;

		Array1D_string const cExtBoundCondition({-6, 0}, {"KivaFoundation", "FCGround", "OSCM", "OSC", "OSC", "Ground", "ExternalEnvironment"});

		// Parameters to indicate surface classes

		assert((shapeCat == ShapeCat::Nonconvex) \|\| (crossEdges.size() == 2));
		assert((shapeCat == ShapeCat::Nonconvex) \|\| (crossEdges.size() == 2u));

		void ComputeDifSolExcZonesWIZWindows(EnergyPlusData &state, int const NumberOfEnclosures) // Number of solar enclosures
		void ComputeDifSolExcZonesWIZWindows(EnergyPlusData &state)

		if (std::abs(maxZ - wallHeightZ) > 0.0254) { // 2.54 cm = 1 inch
		if (std::abs(maxZ - wallHeightZ) > Constant::TwoCentimeters) {

		state->dataViewFactor->NumOfSolarEnclosures = 2;
		state->dataViewFactor->NumOfSolarEnclosures = 3;

Fix array bounds error for interzone windows and fix convexity of mirrored surfaces #10498

Fix array bounds error for interzone windows and fix convexity of mirrored surfaces #10498

Conversation

mjwitte commented May 6, 2024 • edited Loading

Pull request overview

Defects Fixed

Diffs

Pull Request Author

Reviewer

mjwitte commented May 8, 2024 • edited Loading

mjwitte commented May 9, 2024

mjwitte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Myoldmopar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Myoldmopar commented Jun 6, 2024

mjwitte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Myoldmopar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Myoldmopar commented Jun 25, 2024

mjwitte commented May 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mjwitte commented May 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading