You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
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.
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
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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: