-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RS/YJ/Rule 11-7 #1526
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
RS/YJ/Rule 11-7 #1526
Conversation
… into RCT/YJ/get_SWH_bats_and_SWH_use
… into RCT/YJ/get_building_segment_swh_bat
…going for section 11
Indentation fix
# Conflicts: # rct229/schema/ASHRAE229.schema.json
…ace for 11-6 rule test
…-checking-tool into RS/YJ/Rule_11-6
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a difficult rule and I think the evaluation shall happens at SWH_BAT
level, which requires customization.
Parameters | ||
---------- | ||
building_area_type: str | ||
building area type of the service water heating system |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Specify that this building_area_type
is ServiceWaterHeatingSpaceOptions2019ASHRAE901
{ | ||
"Baseline_Service_Water_Heating_System": [ | ||
{ | ||
"building_area_type": "Automotive facility", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think the str would be the description of the ServiceWaterHeatingSpaceOptions2019ASHRAE901
, but the enums.
So for example, the Automotive facility
here, should be AUTOMOTIVE_FACILITY
): | ||
return True | ||
else: | ||
return False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My general feeling is the RDS did not explain where the applicability/evaluation happens. The note says Applicability is determined at the building segment level, but the rule is evaluated for all SWH equipment serving the building segment.
However, the logic is on swh_bat
.
In that case, I suggest we use evaluate at swh_bat
level.
This would require restructure of the context to only include the returned value from get_SWH_components_associated_with_each_SWH_bat
. See Section5rule14 for the implementation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Confirmed with Karen, this rule should be evaluated at building area type level - we should update the note in the RDS to reflect this change.
…github.com/pnnl/ruleset-checking-tool into RCT/YJ/get_building_segment_swh_bat
… into RCT/YJ/get_building_segment_swh_bat
… into RCT/YJ/get_SWH_bats_and_SWH_use
…com/pnnl/ruleset-checking-tool into RCT/YJ/get_SWH_bats_and_SWH_use
… into RS/YJ/Rule_11-7
…-checking-tool into RS/YJ/Rule_11-7
This rule depends on the
get_swh_bats_and_swh_use
function development. Hence, it isn't ready to be reviewed.