RS/YJ/Rule 22-44 (2022)#1879
Conversation
yunjoonjung-PNNL
changed the base branch from
develop
to
feature/ashrae-9012022
| "section22rule44", | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
||
| SHORT_NAME = "HVAC-HW" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it HVAC-HW? I thought this is CHW?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Addressed.
| ] | ||
| design_entering_condenser_temperature_p = chiller_p[ | ||
| "design_entering_condenser_temperature" | ||
| ] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wrap them around with getattr_
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Addressed.
|
|
||
| if chiller_p.get("condensing_loop") is None: | ||
| if rated_capacity_p < 150 * ureg("ton"): | ||
| curve_set_list_p = ["A", "K"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function is_chiller_performance_app_j use curve enums - change here to enums
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Addressed.
| ] | ||
|
|
||
| return any( | ||
| does_chiller_performance_match_curve(chiller_p, curve_set) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function name is is_chiller_performance_app_j or does_chiller_performance_match_curve?
I saw this function is ready merged: is_chiller_performance_app_j
Should you change to is_chiller_performance_app_j function?
Also, the PR contains does_chiller_performance_match_curve, should we remove this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed during the standup, the is_chiller_performance_app_j function name was changed to does_chiller_performance_match_curve.
…y rather than rated capacity in PLR calculation. Also updated the description to reflect we're using Set-H not Set-R
…not get the right curve set. Also, fixed an issue where 22-44 rule tests had issues with rounding. For now, i have made them exactly right (despite only small rounding errors) in order to get 22-44 out. We will need to address precision equality to fix this correctly.
Rule Test JSON 22-44 for ASHRAE 90.1-2022
3 participants
I haven't tested this rule yet.