Skip to content

2020 05 07 Task 3 Virtual break out session

Jump to bottom Edit New page
InaDJ edited this page May 11, 2020 · 15 revisions

Contents

Task 3 Coordination Meeting

Date: May 7, 2020, 5pm Brussels time (CET)

Agenda

  • Presentation of Tao
  • Current status
    • Building models
    • Network models
    • Results
      • Slides for every meeting
      • Common exercise definition?
      • Error calculation by Hicham
      • Where to store results?
  • Next steps

Link to the working document

Meeting information

This meeting will take place via ZOOM instead of via Skype for business.

The details to connect to the ZOOM meeting: Michael Mans lädt Sie zu einem geplanten Zoom-Meeting ein. Zoom-Meeting beitreten:

https://rwth.zoom.us/j/91726956772?pwd=MXU3Y3dyV0FWcG1ISk9ZZ0pZMmJZQT09

Meeting-ID: 917 2695 6772

Passwort: 027674

If there is something going wrong with the ZOOM meeting, there is still Skype for business as a back-up. Please, find below the details to connect there. This is only in case ZOOM would not work out.

Minutes

Present: Dirk Saelens, Ina De Jaeger (notes), Michael Mans, Tao Yang, Alessandro Maccarini, Arash Erfani, Hicham Johra, Konstantin Filonenko, Lien De Backer, Tohid Jafarinejad, Wangda Zuo, Yingli Lou (start), Jessica Stershic (start)

Excused: Enora Garreau, Katy Hinkelman

News

A working document has been created, you can find it at any time here. Please, always feel free to change/add.

Presentation - Tao Yang

Presentation available here

  • A university teaching building - OU44
    • Calibrated building model in Buildings library
      • Calibration > updated model (which is then used to quantify different energy flows)
    • Validated model of PCM-based ventilation cooling system (compared to measurements)
  • How can it contribute to WP3.1?
    • Proposal for common exercise (buildings)
      • Replace zone model + radiator by the DESTEST building model
      • Tune HVAC settings to fit each of the DESTEST demand curves
      • Report heating and cooling demand
    • Proposal for common exercise (network)
  • Questions
    • Alessandro: can the PCM model be shared? > The paper is not yet published, therefore can only be shared as FMU not as full Modelica model
    • Dirk: what were the initial model assumptions?
    • Dirk: the temperature goes down relatively quickly and to quite a substantial amount (21 degC to 15 degC or 10 degC), how come? It's a relatively new building. They assume that there is no heating at all during the weekends. That might not be a realistic assumption. It's manual calibration to match the measurements (electrical consumption of HVAC system).
    • Arash: Tzone: in the beginning, it seems like a thermostat and the zone temperature reaches 21 degC, however, at the end of the month, it doesn't reach 21 degC anymore (it's strange that it doesn't reach 21 degC, maybe due to a lack of power, but graph at the bottom shows that not the maximum power is used)
    • Hicham: how is the PCM model defined? A hysteresis curve is modeled (the actual latent heat is calculated when the material is solidifying)
  • Dirk: let's discuss about the proposed common exercises
    • Reliable interface between networks and buildings > interesting, would allow other buildings into an existing DESTEST network environment
    • Define DESTEST standards for HVAC models > it is a good idea (see how degree of complexity, ... are important), but could be a part of WP1.1
      • Why would you implement it in a DESTEST? Konstantin: the proposal originates from the first proposal (how much impact have the HVAC parameters on the building models?)
    • How can we assess different kind of controllers? Tuning the models to add controllers.
    • Who wants to contribute?

Networks subgroup - Michael Mans

  • For now, there are 2 other network layouts proposed.
  • Next steps:
    • Re-do first common exercise with the scaled networks (implement different heat demand profiles for the buildings). This changes the demands, but not necessarily the KPIs that they are comparing (if nothing else is changed). They are all changing their system in the same way. This is one option (other occupancy profiles, different renovation steps?).
    • A more free discussion: what are the next steps? What should we think about? We are more moving towards a new generation of networks. Is there some interest there? Maybe, agree on a very low temperature network with heat pumps. Agree on a rough scope and compare the results? Also simulation time and with the intention to get an idea how different are the modelling approaches between the modelers and how different are the results?
  • Commitments:
    • Konstantin would like to join (likes to direction to which this is going)
    • Alessandro would also like to join (probably a good idea to start from the 16 buildings, last time we compared stuff, is already some time ago)
    • Hicham would also like to join (for the upscaling and downscaling of the network, he often has problems, as his model crashes if he increases the scale)
    • Katy is currently working with first generation district heating networks (steam networks), but at the moment, it doesn't make much sense, as she is the only one working with steam. Another idea, she can also model cooling networks. We could think of a common exercise there. Wangda: they are working on a DH network for the campus, also other PhD
    • Tohid (look into response of buildings on aggregated buildings, so look into aggregated district simulations, try to dive into first common exercise, how can you generate results with that?) > do it in IDEAS
  • Dirk: logical to look into the upscaling and downscaling, but first define some simple steps, maybe start from 16 again. Then, go to 8 and 32, but keep all demands the same. Is it possible to linearize the upscaling and downscaling? Then, also define the heat demands in a different way, do the results differ a lot? To what extent does the heat demand impact the results? So, first, upscale and downscale with identical profiles; then with different demand profiles. It's simple and models are available. Then, we can see how to go from there. Is it a good plan?
  • Michael: 16 buildings is base case (compare between different modelers and libraries), then from there, how are the models able to upscale and downscale?
  • Dirk: this is the first stage, then it would also be interesting to have the network and the buildings coupled. Continue the work of Annelies? Developing such interfaces between the building descriptions and the networks should be looked into as well.
  • Dirk: it would also be a good idea to have something on cooling + if Katy wants to have the steam network, she could take our buildings and compare her steam network to the water network that we usually have it. This is a nice application of the DESTEST: compare your version to the reference. (In the US, there are some existing DHC networks, most of the university campuses has a heating and cooling network)
  • Dirk: @ Konstantin, how do you envisage the full coupling between buildings and networks? Everyone includes the model themselves to their building models, with the help of them. Maybe, discuss more in detail in a network meeting? > Good idea
  • Alessandro: still use Bram's substation? > different options are to be discussed (use specific model OR just specify the boundary conditions and let people model freely > are results robust to slight modeling changes?) > give more space to the modeler regarding the substation

Buildings group - Ina De Jaeger

  • Discussion: see in this version of the Google presentation, questions or discussion points are addressed there in the red boxes
  • Didn't go into detail on the simulation results, rather on practical questions and agreements
  • Dirk: What will be the bar? How to evaluate the results? > Work of Hicham, to be presented at the end of meeting
  • Error calculation by Hicham
    • Lot of work has been done there, is currently implemented in Excel
    • Literature review
    • Really nice work and progress > will upgrade it to Python > Hicham, Konstantin and Ina can collaborate on getting it in Python
  • Dirk: it is really nice to see that we are not only generating results, but also comparing them :)

Action points

  • Buildings

    • Enora:

      • What's not right about the EPW format according to you? Others didn't experience problems
      • Could you share your resampled StROBe profiles? Send to Ina, she will upload to GitHub
      • Other libraries don't have problem of radiative vs convective heat gains. They can import via separate files and don't need to specify the ratio, okay for you to leave it like that?
      • Could you do Buildings CE 4 (office model) by beginning of July?

    • Arash:

      • Look into possible problems regarding the solar radiation > contact Ina + Jason
      • Do Buildings CE 4 (office model) by beginning of July

    • Alessandro:

      • Do Buildings CE 4 (office model) by beginning of July

    • Tohid:

      • Compare occupancy profiles that are used as an input for the different libraries. Everyone exports the occupant behaviour from their model (i.e. set-point temperature of day zone, set-point temperature of night zone, convective heat gains and radiative heat gains) and sends results to Tohid. He compares if it agrees among the models.

    • Ina:

      • Small updates on teaserXML files
      • Increase font size of all plots
      • Send data of solar radiation to Arash, so he can look into the problem
      • Update StROBe profiles on GitHub
      • Plot indoor temperature to check if the different occupants are the same for the different libraries

    • Lien:

      • Do Buildings CE 3

    • Hicham:

      • Do Buildings CE 1, CE 2, CE3
      • Do Buildings CE 4 (office model) by beginning of July
      • Convert error calculation to Python script with help of Ina and Konstantin

    • WHO?

      • Common exercises will be split up for buildings and for network
      • Split up first case report
      • Start next reports of common exercises
        • Buildings CE 2
        • Buildings CE 3 (stress that CE 3 contains 2 new envelope definitions, that should be combined with all previous occupants)
  • Network
    • Michael:
      • Re-do Network CE 2 (16 buildings with original single-family dwelling from 1980s - Ina thinks building energy demand profile should be updated on GitHub)
      • Specify set-up of Network CE 2 (8 buildings) and Network CE 3 (32 buildings) (which buildings + upload these building demand profiles (or ask Ina to), so they are available for everyone)
    • Konstantin:
      • Do Network CE 1, CE 2, CE3
    • Alessandro:
      • Do Network CE 1, CE 2, CE3
    • Hicham:
      • Do Network CE 1, CE 2, CE3
    • Tohid:
      • Do Network CE 1, CE 2, CE3
  • General
    • Michael:
      • Ask Michael W to create a new repository
      • Extend working document (Google presentation) with network results from network first common exercise
    • Ina:
      • Create structure for data on new repo (descriptions, models, results, scripts to compare results and make plots)
      • Contact Lieve Helsen regarding Annex 82
      • Contact Gerald Schweiger regarding uncertainty case (first, we need to define common exercise on uncertainty better, before people are on board)
      • Upload presentation of Tao to GitHub
      • Send around Doodle for next Coordination meeting

Doodles for next meetings

  • Coordination meeting: Ina will send around a Doodle beginning of June (for meeting beginning of July)
  • Buildings meeting: here
  • Networks meeting: here

Building modelling subgroup meeting

Date:

Agenda

Meeting information

Minutes

Present: Excused:

Network modelling subgroup meeting

Date:

Agenda

Meeting information

Minutes

Present: Excused:

Add a custom footer

Wiki

Main project site

https://ibpsa.github.io/project1

Clone this wiki locally