Skip to content
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

Describe Loops that Transfer Heat via Heat Exchanger #266

Open
JacksonJ-KC opened this issue Jul 22, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Describe Loops that Transfer Heat via Heat Exchanger #266

JacksonJ-KC opened this issue Jul 22, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@JacksonJ-KC
Copy link
Collaborator

Scenario: A hot water loop serves various reheat coils, FCUs, DOAS heating coils. The hot water loop also serves a water-to-water heat exchanger to a WSHP loop.

How should this be described using the schema? It may not be necessary to evaluate 90.1 rulesets but it seems like it could be a common occurrence for proposed models that could be handled better by the schema.

@JasonGlazer
Copy link
Collaborator

An early decision about the schema was that it really needed to focus on baseline/budget/reference buildings and we knew there were all sorts of advanced configurations for the proposed design that weren't going to be supported.

@JacksonJ-KC
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK. There are RPD Test cases that use WSHP systems and I had described those test cases as having hot water loops. But it seems like the only way that we can describe it is by having the boilers serving the WSHP condenser loop directly. I will make that change for the next PPR.

Is it a safe assumption that all modeling tools used for 90.1 PRM will be capable of modeling boilers that serve the WSHP loop directly without a HW loop? I think so

@JasonGlazer
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm holding on addressing this issue until we decide if revising FluidLoops is going to happen.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants