Adding effective R-value lookup

[nmerket]

Fixes #156

Pull Request Description

Some HPXML files have an AssemblyRValue element instead of Insulation/Layer.

Checklist

PR Author: Check these when they're done. Not all may apply. strikethrough and check any that do not apply.

PR Reviewer: Verify each has been completed.

• Code changes (must work)
• Test exercising your feature or bug fix. Check the coverage report in the build artifacts.
• All other unit tests passing
• Update translation docs

[github-actions]

File	Coverage
All files	91%	✅
__init__.py	83%	✅
base.py	93%	✅
exceptions.py	96%	✅
hpxml2.py	86%	✅
hpxml3.py	84%	✅

Minimum allowed coverage is 83%

Generated by 🐒 cobertura-action against e5eaf54

[nmerket]

Left to do:

• Roofs
• Ceilings
• Floors
• Knee Walls
• Foundation Walls (or throw error on AssemblyRValue and fix if someone really needs it)
• Slabs (or throw error on AssemblyRValue and fix if someone really needs it)

[nmerket]

Also address the "continuous- exterior" and "continuous - interior" installation types for rigid insulation.

One more wrinkle: in ResStock, for foundation walls we're not specifying insulation material. We may not be checking that for foundation walls, but we should see, but it may be overly restrictive for above grade walls.

[nmerket]

@bpark1327 to add unit tests and request review.

[bpark1327]

It seems that the CI fails because of a new test file (i.e., house9.xml) that I added to this branch. house9 is one of the example files generated by ResStock. house9 includes 2 DuctLeakageMeasurement elements -- one for the supply and one for the return ducts. It appears that our workflow is not able to handle it properly. I don't know if it would make sense to calculate the area weighted duct leakage by DuctSurfaceArea. Please advise. @shorowit @nmerket

[shorowit]

@bpark1327 I think we should support separate supply/return leakage values. Just need to add them together and then it's identical to the existing DuctLeakageMeasurement/DuctLeakage[TotalOrToOutside="to outside"]/Value input.

[bpark1327]

@bpark1327 I think we should support separate supply/return leakage values. Just need to add them together and then it's identical to the existing DuctLeakageMeasurement/DuctLeakage[TotalOrToOutside="to outside"]/Value input.

Got it. I have a follow-up question. Do we always expect to get leakage values of CFM25? Or, do we need to support the values in other units (e.g., CFM50, Percent (CFM25/sqft), etc.)? @shorowit @nmerket

[shorowit]

Just supporting CFM25 seems reasonable. We should definitely change DuctLeakageMeasurement/DuctLeakage[TotalOrToOutside="to outside"]/Value to DuctLeakageMeasurement/DuctLeakage[TotalOrToOutside="to outside" and Units="CFM25"]/Value, for example, so that we don't misuse the provided value.

[bpark1327]

@shorowit Duct blaster measurement will be updated in #183

[bpark1327]

@nmerket I think it's ready for your review. This PR should wait until #183 gets merged in.

[nmerket]

I think this is looking really good. Just a few notes.

[bpark1327]

@nmerket I addressed your comments. I moved some functions for walls to hpxml2 and hpxml3.py to be consistent. Please let me know what you think.

[nmerket]

Looks good to me. I think I've put you through enough on this. Let's merge it. I can't approve this because I originally opened the PR. Maybe @yzhou601 could give it a once over?