Rds/kjw/rule 11 3 #1337

KarenWGard · 2024-04-30T15:54:05Z

No description provided.

JacksonJ-KC · 2024-05-08T17:58:35Z

I see commits in this pull request "Update 11-1.md". Were any of those changes intended to be incorporated into this branch/PR?

KarenWGard · 2024-05-08T19:01:38Z

no - I was using PyCharm & that was what was filled in from the previous commit on the other branch.

…

On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 1:58 PM Jackson Jarboe ***@***.***> wrote: I see commits in this pull request "Update 11-1.md". Were any of those changes intended to be incorporated into this branch/PR <#843>? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1337 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A3G3CLCQN7TQTD7AJR34SM3ZBJRWDAVCNFSM6AAAAABHARNRW2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBRGEYTIMZRGA> . You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

JacksonJ-KC · 2024-05-09T15:11:06Z

no - I was using PyCharm & that was what was filled in from the previous commit on the other branch.
…
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 1:58 PM Jackson Jarboe @.> wrote: I see commits in this pull request "Update 11-1.md". Were any of those changes intended to be incorporated into this branch/PR <#843>? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1337 (comment)>, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A3G3CLCQN7TQTD7AJR34SM3ZBJRWDAVCNFSM6AAAAABHARNRW2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBRGEYTIMZRGA . You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: @.>

I also use PyCharm. Let me know if you would like any tips to avoid these things.

JacksonJ-KC · 2024-05-09T15:14:05Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+
+**Rule Assertion:** Options are PASS/FAIL
+
+**Appendix G Section Reference:** Table G3.1 #11, proposed column, c


Table G3.1(11) Proposed Building Performance (c)

JacksonJ-KC · 2024-05-09T15:18:11Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+
+**Appendix G Section Reference:** Table G3.1 #11, proposed column, c
+
+**Evaluation Context:** P-RMD each SHW type


It seems weird to evaluate this for each SWH Building Area Type. I would expect to either a single evaluation for the whole project or have it be evaluated per SWH system. If there is a requirement for 1 baseline SWH system per BAT then that seems like it would be its own rule, not incorporated here.

It may be better to do by ServiceWaterHeatingDistributionSystem since this would encompass a SHW system as opposed to SHWHeatingEq where there could be mulitple SHWHeatingEq IDs per system. So it would be {"ServiceWaterHeatingDistributionSystem":{"SHWHeatingEq":["shwe1","shwe2"], "Building area types served":["Dormitory","Multifamlily"], "Pumps":["p1"], "Tanks":["t1"], "Piping":["piping1"], "SolarThermal":[], "Service_water_heating_uses":["swhuse1","shwuse2"]}} so all this information would be returned for each SHWHeatingEq ID.

this is now done by SWH distribution system

JacksonJ-KC · 2024-05-09T15:31:44Z

Unintended commit to .gitignore?

claperle · 2024-05-10T12:34:37Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+  - create the compare context string: `compare_context_str = "AppG 11-1 P_RMD Equals B_RMD"`
+  - get a dictionary of all SHW equipment connected to the SHW space type in the proposed model: `p_shw_equipment_dict = get_SHW_equipment_connected_to_use_type(P_RMD)[shw_space_type]`
+  - get a dictionary of all SHW equipment connected to the SHW space type in the user model: `b_shw_equipment_dict = get_SHW_equipment_connected_to_use_type(B_RMD)[shw_space_type]`
+  - create a list of all of the SHW equipment types that exist in both the proposed and user models: `shw_equipment_types = set(p_shw_equipment_dict.keys()) | set(b_shw_equipment_dict.keys())`


I am not sure what the | is doing exactly. Can you confirm this is creating a list of the the unique keys included across the two dictionaries?

Need to correct the description

claperle · 2024-05-10T12:35:39Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+  - create an error string: `error_str = ""`
+  - create the compare context string: `compare_context_str = "AppG 11-1 P_RMD Equals B_RMD"`
+  - get a dictionary of all SHW equipment connected to the SHW space type in the proposed model: `p_shw_equipment_dict = get_SHW_equipment_connected_to_use_type(P_RMD)[shw_space_type]`
+  - get a dictionary of all SHW equipment connected to the SHW space type in the user model: `b_shw_equipment_dict = get_SHW_equipment_connected_to_use_type(B_RMD)[shw_space_type]`


says user model, correct to baseline

claperle · 2024-05-10T12:36:11Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+  - create a list of all of the SHW equipment types that exist in both the proposed and user models: `shw_equipment_types = set(p_shw_equipment_dict.keys()) | set(b_shw_equipment_dict.keys())`
+  - loop through each of the equipment types: `for shw_equipment_type in shw_equipment_types:`
+    - continue if all_match is still true: `if all_match:`
+      - check if this equipment type matches between the proposed and user models.  First check whether there are the same number equipment: `if len(p_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]) == len(b_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]):`


Need to correct the description

claperle · 2024-05-10T12:36:21Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+  - loop through each of the equipment types: `for shw_equipment_type in shw_equipment_types:`
+    - continue if all_match is still true: `if all_match:`
+      - check if this equipment type matches between the proposed and user models.  First check whether there are the same number equipment: `if len(p_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]) == len(b_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]):`
+          - look at each equipment type system in the proposed model and see if there is one that is the same in the user model.  This check relies on the understanding that the RCT team has a method for comparing all elements within an object match (compare_context_pair): `for p_SHW_equip_id in p_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]:`


Need to correct the description

claperle · 2024-05-10T12:36:29Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+    - continue if all_match is still true: `if all_match:`
+      - check if this equipment type matches between the proposed and user models.  First check whether there are the same number equipment: `if len(p_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]) == len(b_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]):`
+          - look at each equipment type system in the proposed model and see if there is one that is the same in the user model.  This check relies on the understanding that the RCT team has a method for comparing all elements within an object match (compare_context_pair): `for p_SHW_equip_id in p_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]:`
+              - if this system is in U_RMD.service_water_heating_distribution_systems, compare the systems: `if p_SHW_equip_id in b_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]:`


Need to correct the description

claperle · 2024-05-10T12:37:08Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+      - check if this equipment type matches between the proposed and user models.  First check whether there are the same number equipment: `if len(p_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]) == len(b_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]):`
+          - look at each equipment type system in the proposed model and see if there is one that is the same in the user model.  This check relies on the understanding that the RCT team has a method for comparing all elements within an object match (compare_context_pair): `for p_SHW_equip_id in p_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]:`
+              - if this system is in U_RMD.service_water_heating_distribution_systems, compare the systems: `if p_SHW_equip_id in b_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]:`
+                  - use compare_context_pair to compare systems and set all_match to FALSE if the systems don't compare: `if !compare_context_pair(p_SHW_equip_id, p_SHW_equip_id, $, extra_schema_for_SHW_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, error_str): all_match = FALSE`


p_SHW_equip_id is input twice, second should be _b

claperle · 2024-06-03T18:13:12Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+**Function Call:** 
+- **get_component_by_id**
+- **compare_context_pair** - there is no RDS for this function, but it is a function developed for Rule 1-6 that compares two elements
+- **get_SHW_types_and_spaces**


I think this funciton is now called get_spaces_associated_with_each_SWH_bat

removed reference as the function is no longer used. Updated all function references so they're current.

claperle · 2024-06-03T18:13:41Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+- **get_component_by_id**
+- **compare_context_pair** - there is no RDS for this function, but it is a function developed for Rule 1-6 that compares two elements
+- **get_SHW_types_and_spaces**
+- **get_SHW_equipment_connected_to_use_type**


I think this function also has a different name now

claperle · 2024-06-03T18:14:51Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+- **get_SHW_equipment_connected_to_use_type**
+
+**Applicability Checks:**
+- check that the SHW type in the P_RMD has SHW loads


Recommend modifying language here for clarity. I think you mean "check that the SHW BAT in the P_RMD has SHW loads"?

claperle · 2024-06-03T18:17:49Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+    - get the distribution system: `p_distribution = get_component_by_id(P_RMD, distribution_id)`
+    - for each swh use in the dictionary, check to see that the swh use exists in the user model: `for swh_use_id in p_swh_system_and_equip_dict[distribution_id]["SPACE_USES"]:`
+        - get the user swh_use: `u_swh_use = get_component_by_id(U_RMD, swh_use_id)`
+        - if the u_swh_use exists, this rule is not applicable and 11-1 applies: `if(u_swh_use): NOT_APPLICABLE`


I suggest that we check equipment instead of the uses in the user model. Because some could model the uses when there is no equipment designed, right? I think this rule applies when there will be SHW loads in the user model but no system has been designed. I am concerned by looking at uses instead of User model equipment we maybe skip something when it should not be skipped.

I see your concern, however the architecture of the schema makes a ServiceWaterHeatingUse without a distribution_system problematic. On the last call (5/29/2024), we discussed (and agreed to) making ServiceWaterHeatingUse.served_by_distribution_system a required field, which would allow this logic.

claperle · 2024-06-03T18:18:46Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+- **compare_context_pair** - there is no RDS for this function, but it is a function developed for Rule 1-6 that compares two elements
+- **get_SHW_types_and_spaces**
+- **get_SHW_equipment_connected_to_use_type**
+


add get_SWH_equipment_associated_with_each_swh_distribution_system

claperle · 2024-06-03T18:20:31Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+            - look at each equipment type system in the proposed model and see if there is one that is the same in the baseline model.  This check relies on the understanding that the RCT team has a method for comparing all elements within an object match (compare_context_pair): `for p_SHW_equip_id in p_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]:`
+                - if this system is in B_RMD.service_water_heating_distribution_systems, compare the systems: `if p_SHW_equip_id in b_shw_equipment_dict[shw_equipment_type]:`
+                    - use compare_context_pair to compare systems and set all_match to FALSE if the systems don't compare: `if !compare_context_pair(p_SHW_equip_id, b_SHW_equip_id, $, extra_schema_for_SHW_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, error_str): all_match = FALSE`
+                - otherwise, set all_match to false: `else: all_match = FALSE`


I do not know where to see this function but trust that this works. Maybe Weili should check out this line.

Agreed, would like @weilixu to confirm that the recursive nature of the compare_context_pair function has been communicated properly in this RDS

JacksonJ-KC · 2024-06-12T14:29:52Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+
+**Appendix G Section Reference:** Table G3.1 #11, proposed column, c
+
+**Evaluation Context:** P-RMD each SHW bat  


Evaluated for each ServiceWaterHeatingDistributionSystem?

JacksonJ-KC · 2024-06-12T14:40:48Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+    - get the distribution system: `p_distribution = get_component_by_id(P_RMD, distribution_id)`
+    - for each swh use in the dictionary, check to see that the swh use exists in the user model: `for swh_use_id in p_swh_system_and_equip_dict[distribution_id]["SPACE_USES"]:`
+        - get the user swh_use: `u_swh_use = get_component_by_id(U_RMD, swh_use_id)`
+        - if the u_swh_use exists, this rule is not applicable and 11-1 applies: `if(u_swh_use): NOT_APPLICABLE`


This makes the rule not applicable if even 1 ServiceWaterHeatingUse is defined in the User model. What is supposed to happen if there are just certain spaces where the ServiceWaterHeatingUse is not defined?

if this rule is not applicable, rule 11-1 is applicable. This logic just checks whether the SWH use that exists in the proposed model exists in the user model. It allows for spaces without SWH uses

JacksonJ-KC · 2024-06-12T14:56:31Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+
+    ## Rule Assertion: 
+    - Case1: all elements are equal: PASS: `if all_match: PASS`
+    - Case2: all elements don't match, FAIL: if !all_match: FAIL`


missing ` prior to pseudo code

JacksonJ-KC · 2024-06-12T14:58:03Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+  - create the compare context string: `compare_context_str = "AppG 11-1 P_RMD Equals B_RMD"`
+  - get a dictionary of all SHW equipment connected to the SHW distribution system in the proposed model: `p_shw_equipment_dict = get_SWH_equipment_associated_with_each_swh_distribution_system(P_RMD)[distribution_id]`
+  - get a dictionary of all SHW equipment connected to the SHW distribution system in the baseline model: `b_shw_equipment_dict = get_SWH_equipment_associated_with_each_swh_distribution_system(B_RMD)[distribution_id]`
+  - check whether b_shw_equipment_dict is equal to null.  If it is, then set all_match is false and give the user an error indictating that the system doesn't exist in the baseline: `if b_shw_equipment_dict == NULL:  all_match = FALSE; error_str = "The SHW Distribution system " + distribution_id + " is not found in the baseline model."


missing ` after pseudo code

JacksonJ-KC · 2024-06-12T15:26:06Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# Service_Water_Heating - Rule 11-3
+**Schema Version:** 0.0.36  


Schema is currently on 0.0.37. Not sure if any of the updates impact this RDS.

claperle · 2024-07-17T15:04:46Z

docs/section11/11-3.md

+  - next, check Pumps - this will also recursively check PumpOutputValidationPointPumpOutputValidationPoint: `if len(p_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]) == len(b_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]):`
+    - look at each SWHEquipment in the proposed model: `for pump_id in p_swh_equipment_dict["Pumps"]:`
+      - compare the two pumps using compare_context_pair, if the result is false, set all_match equal to false.  We won't exit early if all_match is false as we allow the function to keep running so errors is fully populated and available to the user: `if !compare_context_pair(pump_id, pump_id, $, extra_schema_for_SWH_comparison.json, true, compare_context_str, error_str): all_match = false`
+


Defer to Weili due to complex, novel structure.

KarenWGard and others added 7 commits March 21, 2024 14:00

Create Rule11-3

b3d3b3b

Create 11-1.md

3e73554

Update 11-1.md

b6cfa31

Delete docs/Section 11 directory

d2c3c5f

Rule_11-3 evaluate all equipment for the SHW equipment space type

7019221

Rule_11-3 evaluate all equipment for the SHW equipment space type

3c43737

Rule_11-3 evaluate all equipment for the SHW equipment space type

f372789

KarenWGard added rds section11 labels Apr 30, 2024

KarenWGard requested review from JasonGlazer, supriyagoel, weilixu, claperle and JacksonJ-KC April 30, 2024 15:54

KarenWGard self-assigned this Apr 30, 2024

KarenWGard added 2 commits May 1, 2024 15:43

Update 11-3.md

eb034e8

Update 11-3.md

95d93f6

JacksonJ-KC reviewed May 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

claperle reviewed May 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Update 11-3.md

06d1a64

KarenWGard added 4 commits May 29, 2024 09:29

Delete .gitignore

de82506

Update 11-3.md

03a9f48

Update 11-3.md

7801bae

Update 11-3.md

421f852

claperle reviewed Jun 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

KarenWGard added 2 commits June 3, 2024 15:40

Update 11-3.md

43e3fc5

Update 11-3.md

f8e20ec

JacksonJ-KC reviewed Jun 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

KarenWGard added 3 commits June 19, 2024 14:22

Update 11-3.md

f87ec56

Update 11-3.md

058f7a4

Update 11-3.md

60391fe

claperle reviewed Jul 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

KarenWGard added 2 commits October 9, 2024 14:30

Update 11-3.md

c47f205

Update 11-3.md

78d61b9

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Rds/kjw/rule 11 3 #1337

Rds/kjw/rule 11 3 #1337

KarenWGard commented Apr 30, 2024

JacksonJ-KC commented May 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

KarenWGard commented May 8, 2024 via email

JacksonJ-KC commented May 9, 2024

JacksonJ-KC May 9, 2024

JacksonJ-KC May 9, 2024

claperle May 10, 2024

KarenWGard May 29, 2024

JacksonJ-KC commented May 9, 2024

claperle May 10, 2024

claperle May 10, 2024

claperle May 10, 2024

claperle May 10, 2024

claperle May 10, 2024

claperle May 10, 2024

claperle May 10, 2024

claperle Jun 3, 2024

KarenWGard Jun 3, 2024

claperle Jun 3, 2024

claperle Jun 3, 2024

claperle Jun 3, 2024

KarenWGard Jun 3, 2024

claperle Jun 3, 2024

claperle Jun 3, 2024

JacksonJ-KC Jun 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JacksonJ-KC Jun 12, 2024

JacksonJ-KC Jun 12, 2024

KarenWGard Jul 10, 2024

JacksonJ-KC Jun 12, 2024

JacksonJ-KC Jun 12, 2024

JacksonJ-KC Jun 12, 2024

claperle Jul 17, 2024


		Rule Assertion: Options are PASS/FAIL

		Appendix G Section Reference: Table G3.1 #11, proposed column, c


		Appendix G Section Reference: Table G3.1 #11, proposed column, c

		Evaluation Context: P-RMD each SHW type


		Appendix G Section Reference: Table G3.1 #11, proposed column, c

		Evaluation Context: P-RMD each SHW bat

		@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
		# Service_Water_Heating - Rule 11-3
		Schema Version: 0.0.36

Rds/kjw/rule 11 3 #1337

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Rds/kjw/rule 11 3 #1337

Conversation

KarenWGard commented Apr 30, 2024

JacksonJ-KC commented May 8, 2024 • edited Loading

KarenWGard commented May 8, 2024 via email

JacksonJ-KC commented May 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JacksonJ-KC commented May 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JacksonJ-KC Jun 12, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JacksonJ-KC commented May 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JacksonJ-KC Jun 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading