RCT/YJ/Rule 12-3 #1409

yunjoonjung-PNNL · 2024-07-10T22:00:41Z

This rule hasn't been tested and I developed it in a hurry. I'll test it out thoroughly when the TCD is available. Thanks!

When this rule is ready to be reviewed, I'll put the ReadytoMerge mark. Thanks

…o account for "automatic_controlled_percentage"

…-checking-tool into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3

… into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3

…-checking-tool into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3

… into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3

yunjoonjung-PNNL · 2024-08-13T18:16:31Z

The rule was tested with Juan's PR and all the cases passed.

… into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3

weilixu · 2024-08-15T15:42:46Z

rct229/rulesets/ashrae9012019/section12/section12rule3.py

+            ):
+                lighting_space_type_p = getattr_(
+                    space_p, "spaces", "lighting_space_type"
+                )


Let's use space_p.get("lighting_space_type", None) instead of getattr_.
Main reason is this getattr_ will trigger UNDETERMINED outcome, which may cause this rule to be undetermined every time.

Also, None should be sufficient for lighting_space_type_p not in EXPECTED_RECEPTACLE_CONTROL_SPACE_TYPES logic.

Good point. Addressed.

weilixu · 2024-08-15T15:44:34Z

rct229/rulesets/ashrae9012019/section12/section12rule3.py

+                    ):
+                        if misc_equip_p.get("has_automatic_control"):
+                            spaces_with_receptacle_controls_beyond_req.append(
+                                misc_equip_p["id"]


I think this is ok to change from RDS, but the name of the parameter should be updated to misc_equip_receptacle_controls_beyond_req

weilixu · 2024-08-15T15:50:45Z

rct229/rulesets/ashrae9012019/section12/section12rule3.py

+                )
+            }
+
+            return {"schedule_b": schedule_b, "schedule_p": schedule_p}


You will need a list path to filter out the spaces in the expected receptacle control space types here.
space_type_p in EXPECTED_RECEPTACLE_CONTROL_SPACE_TYPES, skip evaluation since these cases are evaluated in Rule 12-2

Isn't this already considered in the is_applicable method above? I see if lighting_space_type_p not in EXPECTED_RECEPTACLE_CONTROL_SPACE_TYPES: in line 71.

The is_applicable checks if ANY spaces in the RPD has receptacle_controls_beyond_req. If there is none, then this rule is not applicable.

In here, the purpose to add list_path is to filter out the spaces that are not in EXPECTED_RECEPTACLE_CONTROL_SPACE_TYPES for the next step processing. Those spaces will be tested in Rule 12-2 anyway. If no list_path, those spaces will fail the evaluation.

Check it again, the list_path shall be under the RuleSetModelDescriptionRule class, not SpaceRule class.

weilixu · 2024-08-15T15:52:44Z

rct229/rulesets/ashrae9012019/section12/section12rule3.py

                return {
-                    "user_space_id": context.USER["id"],
+                    "space_type_p": getattr_(space_p, "spaces", "lighting_space_type")


with the list path function in the RMD class, in here you can directly use space_p["lighting_space_type"]

weilixu · 2024-08-15T15:57:20Z

rct229/rulesets/ashrae9012019/section12/section12rule3.py

+                        manual_check_required_msg="Credit for automatic receptacle controls was expected, but baseline and proposed miscellaneous equipment schedules are identical.",
+                    )
+
+                def get_calc_vals(self, context, data=None):


I think we should do a not applicable here.
The main reason to have not applicable is to filter out the misc equipment that has auto_receptacle_control_p = False
We can attach a not applicable message say Misc equipment {misc_equip_id} does not has automatic control in the model.

Good point! Addressed.

weilixu · 2024-08-15T15:59:51Z

rct229/rulesets/ashrae9012019/section12/section12rule3.py

+                    if (
+                        space_type_p not in EXPECTED_RECEPTACLE_CONTROL_SPACE_TYPES
+                        and misc_equip_p["has_automatic_control"]
+                    ):


Do list path and is applicable functions, then you do not need this if statement here anymore.

Good point. Addressed.

weilixu · 2024-08-15T16:05:22Z

rct229/rulesets/ashrae9012019/section12/section12rule3.py

+                        expected_hourly_values = [
+                            hour_value * (1 - expected_receptacle_power_credit)
+                            for hour_value in schedule_b[hourly_multiplier_schedule_b]
+                        ]


@JacksonJ-KC @KarenWGard
I do have a question here.
For a case when the hour_value in propose model is 1, how does it match to baseline case?
My suggestion would be flip the comparison in the RDS

expected_hourly_values_in_b = [ min(1, hour_value * (1 + expected_receptacle_power_credit)) for hour_value in schedule_p[hourly_multiplier_schedule_p] ] credit_comparison_data = compare_schedules( expected_hourly_values_in_p, schedule_b[hourly_multiplier_schedule_b], mask_schedule, is_leap_year, )["total_hours_matched"]

I am not following the question or the proposed change to the RDS. These are the 3 cases.

comparison of proposed hourly values and expected proposed hourly values. If all hours match - pass.

comparison of proposed hourly values and baseline hourly values. If all hours match - undetermined

fail

The expected proposed hourly values are the baseline values * (1 - expected_receptacle_power_credit)

@JacksonJ-KC
Typically, user develop proposed model first then baseline model - this process also applies to any baseline automation systems.

If the multiplier value is 1.0 in an hour on a day in the proposed model, then the baseline value would be proposed values / (1 - expected_receptacle_power_credit), this sets the multiplier in baseline over the 1.0 threshold. In this scenario, how does the modeler set the multiplier in baseline?

If the proposed model used 1 as the multiplier value then that means that they forgot to apply the credit and they should fail the rule unless every hourly values matches the baseline and case 2 is met so they get undetermined.

Note this can still lead to expected values that are greater than 1 and you should not replace the expected values greater than 1 with 1. If an expected value is greater than 1 then either Case 2 is met or Fail.

I think this would be a problem since it relates to software capabilities and circular reference in the standard.
I would suggest adding an undetermined for scenario where when resetting multiplier > 1.0 to 1.0 matches to proposed and add a message such as "Hours matched only when resetting greater than 1.0 hourly multipliers to 1.0"
This case is different from CASE 2 since a good chunk of hours would be matching the credit_comparison_data but only a portion of those are over 1.0.

Note to discuss at the next RDS meeting

The next RDS meeting won't happen in two weeks so I opened an issue #1510 for the discussion later.

I'll address this issue when the issue is resolved.

weilixu · 2024-08-15T16:24:00Z

rct229/rulesets/ashrae9012019/section12/section12rule3.py

+
+                    return {
+                        "expected_hourly_values_len": len(expected_hourly_values),
+                        "credit_comparison_data": credit_comparison_data,


this is confusing - use credit_comparison_total_hours_matched and no_credit_comparison_total_hours_matched

…hecking-tool into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3 # Conflicts: # rct229/rulesets/ashrae9012019/section12/section12rule3.py

yunjoonjung-PNNL added section12 rule_definition labels Jul 10, 2024

yunjoonjung-PNNL self-assigned this Jul 10, 2024

yunjoonjung-PNNL marked this pull request as draft July 10, 2024 22:00

yunjoonjung-PNNL and others added 10 commits July 26, 2024 14:45

Replaced with RuleSetModelDescriptionRule

d744aa7

First cut at 12-3 rule test JSON. Also required updating the schema t…

b61f494

…o account for "automatic_controlled_percentage"

Merge branch 'RT/JG/ruletest_12_3' of https://github.com/pnnl/ruleset…

04cb834

…-checking-tool into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3

Updated the rule 12-3

f934658

Merge branch 'develop' of https://github.com/pnnl/ruleset-checking-tool…

f9ff99d

… into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3

Merge branch 'RT/JG/ruletest_12_4' into RT/JG/ruletest_12_3

90ff732

Updated 12-3 per Yun Joon's recommendations. Missing a few parameters.

6a47ed6

Merge branch 'RT/JG/ruletest_12_3' of https://github.com/pnnl/ruleset…

b0879ae

…-checking-tool into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3

Fix rule 12-3 after testing

fca10e8

Merge branch 'develop' of https://github.com/pnnl/ruleset-checking-tool…

6720d29

… into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3

yunjoonjung-PNNL requested review from weilixu, Jiarongx-Xie and JacksonJ-KC August 13, 2024 18:15

yunjoonjung-PNNL added the ReadytoMerge label Aug 13, 2024

yunjoonjung-PNNL marked this pull request as ready for review August 13, 2024 18:15

Merge branch 'develop' of https://github.com/pnnl/ruleset-checking-tool…

c3b6634

… into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3

weilixu reviewed Aug 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

weilixu mentioned this pull request Aug 16, 2024

Receptacle exceptions (Rule 12-4) #1510

Open

weilixu changed the base branch from develop to feature/section12 August 20, 2024 17:17

weilixu added 2 commits August 21, 2024 08:49

Merge branch 'feature/section12' of https://github.com/pnnl/ruleset-c…

e3d62bf

…hecking-tool into RS/YJ/Rule_12-3 # Conflicts: # rct229/rulesets/ashrae9012019/section12/section12rule3.py

update format

6c25996

weilixu merged commit 1600bb6 into feature/section12 Aug 21, 2024
1 of 2 checks passed

yunjoonjung-PNNL deleted the RS/YJ/Rule_12-3 branch August 23, 2024 23:25

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

RCT/YJ/Rule 12-3 #1409

RCT/YJ/Rule 12-3 #1409

yunjoonjung-PNNL commented Jul 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

yunjoonjung-PNNL commented Aug 13, 2024

weilixu Aug 15, 2024

yunjoonjung-PNNL Aug 20, 2024

weilixu Aug 15, 2024

yunjoonjung-PNNL Aug 20, 2024

weilixu Aug 15, 2024

yunjoonjung-PNNL Aug 20, 2024

weilixu Aug 21, 2024

weilixu Aug 15, 2024

yunjoonjung-PNNL Aug 20, 2024

weilixu Aug 15, 2024

yunjoonjung-PNNL Aug 20, 2024

weilixu Aug 15, 2024

yunjoonjung-PNNL Aug 20, 2024

weilixu Aug 15, 2024

JacksonJ-KC Aug 15, 2024

weilixu Aug 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JacksonJ-KC Aug 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JacksonJ-KC Aug 15, 2024

JacksonJ-KC Aug 15, 2024

weilixu Aug 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JacksonJ-KC Aug 16, 2024

weilixu Aug 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

yunjoonjung-PNNL Aug 20, 2024

weilixu Aug 15, 2024

yunjoonjung-PNNL Aug 20, 2024

RCT/YJ/Rule 12-3 #1409

RCT/YJ/Rule 12-3 #1409

Conversation

yunjoonjung-PNNL commented Jul 10, 2024 • edited Loading

yunjoonjung-PNNL commented Aug 13, 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

weilixu Aug 15, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JacksonJ-KC Aug 15, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

weilixu Aug 16, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

weilixu Aug 16, 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

yunjoonjung-PNNL commented Jul 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

weilixu Aug 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JacksonJ-KC Aug 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

weilixu Aug 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

weilixu Aug 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading