-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
2017 11 02 team meeting agenda
Participation at this meeting is by invitation only.
Date: Nov 2, 2017, 9:00 to 10:30 Pacific Time
Location: LBNL, building 90, room 1099. Attendance can be by web conference, but if anyone likes to join in person, please send email to Shaylah ([email protected]) by Monday 10/30 COB. Please let her know your citizenship and whether you will arrive by bus or need parking.
Slides will be posted at https://github.com/lbl-srg/obc/tree/master/meetings/2017-11-02-team
Dial-in information: https://lbnl.zoom.us/j/6614042296
Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +14086380968,6614042296# or +16465588656,6614042296#
Or Telephone:
Dial: +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll)
Meeting ID: 661 404 2296
International numbers: https://lbnl.zoom.us/zoomconference?m=_h5BuJ686mPy3rWEyKf4NROxLaeOV5J8
Or an H.323/SIP room system:
H.323:
162.255.37.11 (US West)
162.255.36.11 (US East)
221.122.88.195 (China)
115.114.131.7 (India)
213.19.144.110 (EMEA)
Meeting ID: 661 404 2296
SIP: [email protected]
- Structure of Guideline 36 implementation. See slides. 9:00-9:10 (Jianjun & Milica)
- Discussion of case study. See pdf report. 9:10-9:55. (Michael)
- Updates to CDL. See slides. 9:55-10:00 (Michael)
- Upcoming deadlines. See below. 10:00-10:10 (Michael)
-
M3.1 By Q5, demonstrate with an emulated control response that the controls verification can signal satisfied, undecided, and violated test results.
-
M3.2 By Q6, demonstrate with an actual measured control response that the controls verification can signal satisfied, undecided, and violated test results.
-
Go/no-go 2: By Q6, successful comparison of the energy and comfort performance of two ASHRAE GPC 36 control sequences with a Modelica HVAC and control model linked to EnergyPlus. The technical criteria are that the energy performance of two GPC 36 sequences can be compared in a closed-loop simulation and that a first version of its CDL representation can be shown.
-
Task 3.3: By Q7, release first version of the controls verification test module.
-
Task 3.4: By Q8, release first version of the GUI.
-
Task 4: By Q8, write case study report as above, but for primary HVAC system.
-
Task 5: By Q8, write first version of commercialization and market transformation plan with the goal to show value and obtain commitment from large owners and design firms for the process.
-
Next steps (Michael) 10:10-10:25
- CDL export by Q6
- Library of verification tests. See slides. (Required for M3.1 and M3.2, some can be used from Guideline 36. Need prioritization.)
- Sequences for primary systems (to be aligned for next case study)
-
Other feedback/discussion 10:25-10:30
- Michael Wetter: LBNL
- Gerry Hamilton: Stanford
- Phil Haves: LBNL
- David Pritchard: Arup
- Paul Ehrlich: PNNL
- Amy Shen: Arup
- Mattiew Dahlhausen: Integral Group
- Brent Eubanks: Integral Group
- Mark Hydeman: Google
- Jon Schoenfeld: Kodaro
- David Blum: LBNL
- Thierry Nouidui: LBNL
- Milica Grahovac: LBNL
- Jianjun Hu: LBNL
Jay Santos and Steve Taylor were not able to attend.
Phil mentioned that in Table 8.1 of the report, it would be good to differentiate the mechanical components and control components that need user effort. We should find an appropriate way to measure the complexity of implementing the new control.
Phil also wants to understand why there is energy saving from G36 sequences implementation. He suggested to have an internal discussion for a project regarding sequence validation. For this, Michael mentioned that it needs further resources or funding to conduct more complex analysis and validations. About the primary system control, Phil asked David Pritchard to see if it is possible to set up a phone call to discuss.
Mark mentioned that G36 now has an official version for public review and comments. He would like to collect issues and comments, like the freeze protection problem showing from the study. He would want people send e-mail to him, for G36 PPR3. Paul mentioned that G36 may or may not treat freeze protection quite appropriate. Brent suggested to have someone from cold climate to raise the issue. Mark also wanted the case study results and conclusions, to distribute them to larger interested groups and G36 committee. He also mentioned that there is one committee member have implemented some G36 sequence in his own projects. Michael suggested to have short slot during G36 meeting in Chicago to show this work. Regarding the commission info for sequences verification, Mark suggested Michael to contact with Jay Santos.
Paul wants to see if it is possible to implement the comparison (baseline vs. G36 sequences) on-site. He also mentioned we can conduct a side-project to bring some of work Jessica is doing in PNNL. One complaint about G36 is its complexity. One interesting study would be that we can intentionally bring in some fault into control, and watch to see how baseline and G36 react. We can investigate both optimum and fault situations. The study can also show why the CDL tool is so valuable. Paul wants to see it is possible to differentiate system operation problems, if it is caused by mechanical equipment problem or control sequence problem.
Paul suggested to reformat the flow chart in the slide, to make it easier to follow.
Brent wanted to understand how the error message regarding wrong connection works is generated. He is also quite curious to see that there is no much difference when there is load shift between zones. Michael explained that the control sequences might be able to compensate the disturbances from the non-uniform internal heat gain distribution.
Brent suggested that it would be better to add the occupied shade to all plots.
Michael sends e-mail to Jay Santos asking for commission info, for sequences verification.
Michael to schedule a TAG meeting.
Phil to set up call with David regarding primary sequences.