Add CHECKCODES and autogeneration for systems not present in actual buildings

[GoogleCodeExporter]

When the user's building does not have cooling in some zones, unmet load hour 
checks may not be passed.  We are instructing the user to then add cooling 
equipment to the model that is not present in the actual building.  We want 
this cooling equipment to match the baseline cooling system so that no energy 
credit is gained, nor do we want there to be any penalty.  

Ideally, the software would automatically generate the fictitious system.  If 
this is too much additional work, I think we need checkcode rules to ensure 
that the fictitious system has approximately the same efficiency as the 
baseline.  The main problem will be incompatibilities between the actual 
heating system and the baseline cooling system.  

Original issue reported on code.google.com by rhedr...@archenergy.com on 27 May 2014 at 9:29

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Is this related to the issue we talked about in the 5/27 call re: UMLHs in 
slave zones and indirectly conditioned spaces?  If so, I think we need to come 
up with a more wholistic approach on what the tool does vs modeling guidelines 
for these situations.

If this is a totally separate issue, a few alternates/questions to consider:

- The ACM has a heating only option for warehouse spaces.  Why not make this 
option available for other applications?  This would be relatively 
straight-forward to do. One idea is to limit the size of the building or amount 
of floor area that can take advantage of this alternate system type.

- This same issue came up in the context of natural ventilation.  I proposed to 
John that a separate, ZnSys cooling-only system be installed (say like a PTAC 
or some other minimally compliant, air-source E+ ZoneHVAC system).  This is 
easy, to do with what we have now, and we would have even more flexibility once 
we have NREL add support for SecAirCondgSysRef that is already outlined in the 
data model. John preferred that the user's system be modified to add a cooling 
coil, which I believe is more difficult since there are many permutations of 
what the user's system might look like, and then there is the added 
complication of how it is controlled.

Original comment by da...@360-analytics.com on 28 May 2014 at 2:14

• Changed state: Discussion

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This came out of the discussion on the 5/22 team call about buildings that do 
not include cooling equipment where the user must add cooling equipment to meet 
unmet load hour requirements.  The concern is about spaces that are normally 
air conditioned, e.g., offices or apartments. I like the second option that you 
outline above.  Can we use it for both the proposed and baseline models to 
approach energy neutrality?  

Original comment by rhedr...@archenergy.com on 28 May 2014 at 4:02

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Changing to low priority, as I believe this will be addressed in v2b

Original comment by da...@360-analytics.com on 6 Aug 2014 at 7:42

• Added labels: Priority-Low
• Removed labels: Priority-Medium

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Re #3: Meant v3b

Original comment by da...@360-analytics.com on 6 Aug 2014 at 7:45