Semi-flat wall constructions

[szvsw]

Add a semi-flat wall construction representation for improved expressivity and ML-friendly feature generation.

---

 

[cursor]

Cursor Agent can help with this pull request. Just @cursor in comments and I'll start working on changes in this branch.
_{Learn more about Cursor Agents}

[codecov-commenter]

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 85.26119% with 79 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 66.8%. Comparing base (f6b3882) to head (07ca72b).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
epinterface/sbem/flat_model.py	0.0%	45 Missing ⚠️
epinterface/sbem/flat_constructions/audit.py	80.0%	6 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
epinterface/sbem/flat_constructions/roofs.py	94.2%	3 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
epinterface/sbem/flat_constructions/materials.py	91.8%	4 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
epinterface/sbem/components/envelope.py	50.0%	3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
epinterface/sbem/flat_constructions/slabs.py	95.5%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
epinterface/sbem/flat_constructions/walls.py	98.2%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            main     #60     +/-   ##
=======================================
+ Coverage   63.3%   66.8%   +3.4%     
=======================================
  Files         34      42      +8     
  Lines       4907    5472    +565     
  Branches     443     495     +52     
=======================================
+ Hits        3110    3656    +546     
  Misses      1651    1651             
- Partials     146     165     +19     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[daryaguettler]

I wonder if the materials and their quantities can still be part of the configurations an inputs as well, unless we are collectively exhaustive here

[szvsw]

Part of the goal is for the abstraction to be sufficient that users are not defining materials, only assemblies of materials. And yes, there should be sufficient options in the library to express what is needed. I think that there are probably sufficient options in there now, but we can add more on an as needed basis.

[daryaguettler]

I think this needs to be more flexible/handle the boundaries of E+ constructions / what is possible to model in E+. I can test the boundaries a bit!

[szvsw]

Not sure I follow here. currently the assumption is that (a) partition construction does not really matter for the most part and (b) it's fine to use a uniform partition for all buildings.

[daryaguettler]

where does the 0.9 come from?

[szvsw]

The goal of this test is really to check that the entire assembly comes out reasonably when a reasonable set of user inputs for e.g. cavity insulation, external insulation etc are used; as such, we need to make some sort of choice as to what the user might set for the cavity insulation; for now, it says : "We won't go above RSI-2/R10ish, but otherwise, let's set it to 90% of what the maximum nominal r-value that the cavity could support would be. In other words, if it's 2x4 studs, then the cavity depth is something like 3.x" and so we would use 0.9 * 3.x" of insulation in this test. We could do multiple tests in fact using several different cavity insulation levels; for now though it is just doing one. The goal here is not to test the behavior when the user provides extreme values in excess of what the cavity supports - instead we are trying to test that what we think should be a reasonable layup is in fact a reasonable layup.