search

Project-OMOTES / user_feedback

Repository to hold all feedback (bugs and feature request) from users
1 stars 0 forks source link

Add twinpipe as a possible pipe in teh Design Toolkit #16

Open RonaldBerk opened 8 months ago

RonaldBerk commented 8 months ago

Is there an existing issue for this?

What would your feature do ?

Adding the products of the LOGSTOR catalogue in Toolkit, specifically the Twinpipe. Twinpipes have less heat loss and are more compact, whilst more expensive. It's a very useful pipe, which we can't currently select in the toolkit.

Proposed workflow

  1. Go to EDR assets
  2. Select Logstor twinpipe (DN...)
  3. Dwaw twin pipes with costs from the catalogue

Additional information

No response

samvanderzwan commented 8 months ago

Good point. This would require discussion on the following levels:

  1. GUI (@WouterSpaak and @edwinmatthijssen) How can the user draw this and connect this?
  2. ESDL, (@edwinmatthijssen) What is a good way to store it in the ESDL?
  3. Optimizer (@jimrojerTNO) How can the optimizer cope with this?
  4. Simulator (@samvanderzwan) How can the simulator cope with this?

Please let me hear all of your though on this.

jimrojerTNO commented 8 months ago

the implementation on our side would mainly depend on how esdl would implement this. If it would be a new ESDL asset class or whether it would draw two single pipes. Either way we would require two ports per physical pipe, meaning that we would need 4 ports for a twin pipe.

edwinmat commented 8 months ago

There are multiple possible solutions for this and I need to check the impact of each of them and have some discussion with @ewoudwerkman.

Options are (not every option is a good one):

  1. just draw two single pipes and use twinpipe isolation values from the EDR. Advantage: no software changes
  2. give the current esdl.Pipe an InPort and OurPort on both sides. No ESDL changes, some impact for the MapEditor. Not sure if users like this (connecting joints (T-stukken) would not become very intuitive I assume). Still have doubts about the use of different carriers for both pipes (and how easily this can be dealt with in the MapEditor)
  3. Introduce an esdl.TwinPipe: for sure not my preferable solution: has the same issues as nr. 2
  4. use esdl.CompoundAsset with two esdl.Pipes inside. Has impact on the MapEditor (especially for CompoundAssets being drawn as a line), probably little effect on simulators/optimizes, as just two separate pipes are present in the model (only software needs to understand the concept of a CompoundAsset and look inside it).

A relevant question would be: the CompoundAsset was also considered for (as an example) putting a GeothermalSource, a Pump and a HeatExchanger together in one 'asset'. Is this still desirable?

PS. I think this relates to a discussion we had in Warming Up (maybe good to find the issue there, because I remember a long thread with pros and cons of different options).

samvanderzwan commented 8 months ago

This is the issue from warmingUp I think: https://ci.tno.nl/gitlab/warmingup/wise-issue-tracking/-/issues/93 which relates to this issue on drawing a single pipe or double pipe system. Sorry not everybody can view this. I will see If I can download it and attach it here.