Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update signal exchange block #49

Closed
4 tasks done
dhblum opened this issue Apr 2, 2019 · 12 comments
Closed
4 tasks done

Update signal exchange block #49

dhblum opened this issue Apr 2, 2019 · 12 comments

Comments

@dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator

dhblum commented Apr 2, 2019

This issue corresponds to the updating of the signal exchange block in ibpsa/modelica-ibpsa#1059 to:

@javiarrobas
Copy link
Contributor

@dhblum and @mwetter,
The enumeration of the KPI signals has been merged in ibpsa/modelica-ibpsa#1116. So far we are using entries for power and energy because we wanted the emulator developer to decide where to integrate: in the model or in the KPI calculator in python. However, I find that misleading and prone to errors in the tagging and the KPI calculation processes.
For instance the computation of cost and emissions requires power signals since prices and emission factors can vary over time whereas with an energy signal the information of when the energy was consumed is lost.
What do you think? should I leave the energy signals out and compute everything from powers?

@mwetter
Copy link
Contributor

mwetter commented Apr 11, 2019

It probably is better to consistently integrate all power outside of the Modelica model (I assume this is what you prefer) and hence remove the option to declare energy.

If there is a strong case to have energy as a KPI indicator in Modelica, then we can add it later. It is easier to add features than removing (and breaking models that rely on the feature).

@dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dhblum commented Apr 11, 2019

I agree with Michael on this.

@dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dhblum commented Apr 12, 2019

Enumeration looks good. One thing is that in Aachen, @icupeiro mentioned that he may still like to keep the ability to tag multiple keywords to a signal (as before, the tagging was a comma-delimited list in a string parameter). Although, I can't think of a use case for this anymore. @icupeiro, what would be your use case? The KPI tags so far are:

 type SignalsForKPIs = enumeration(
    None
      "Not used for KPI",
    ZoneTemperature
      "Zone temperature",
    ElectricPower
      "Electric power from grid",
    DistrictHeatingPower
      "Thermal power from district heating",
    GasPower
      "Thermal power from natural gas",
    BiomassPower
      "Thermal power from biomass",
    SolarThermalPower
      "Thermal power from solar thermal",
    Water
      "Water") "Signals used for the calculation of key performance indicators";

@mwetter
Copy link
Contributor

mwetter commented Apr 12, 2019

ZoneTemperature should be made clear as it can be air, radiative or operative temperature.
Relative humidity may also need to be added (to compute thermal comfort).
For Water, it is not clear if this is WaterFlowRate or the time integral of it. Moreover, we should distinguish FreshWater and GreyWater, or use for now only FreshWater so we can later add GreyWater.

@dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dhblum commented Apr 12, 2019

Thanks Michael. Also CO2 for IAQ as discussed in Aachen.

@javiarrobas
Copy link
Contributor

So that makes:

AirZoneTemperature
RadiativeZoneTemperature
OperativeZoneTemperature
RelativeHumidity
CO2Concentration
ElectricPower
DistrictHeatingPower
GasPower
BiomassPower
SolarThermalPower
FreshWaterFlowRate

Please confirm or suggest further changes and I'll make another pull request.

@dhblum and @icupeiro, I can't think of any case where it's required to tag more than one keyword to a signal. Actually I think that's not possible: a signal can be of only one type. For instance it could be either electric power or water, but they are mutually exclusive so cannot be both at the same time. It is then up to the KPI calculator to use the signals that are required for a specific KPI.

@dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dhblum commented Apr 12, 2019

In this commit ibpsa/modelica-ibpsa@e51759a I suggested a None type so that the Read block can be defaulted to having no KPI specified.

@icupeiro
Copy link

In principle I was thinking in a main tag 'power' and a sub-tag 'gas', 'biomass', 'solarthermal', etc... but with this kind of tagging the problem is solved

@dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dhblum commented Apr 15, 2019

Ok thanks. In the future, we may consider sub-tags, particularly for adding more meta-data to the signals.

@dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dhblum commented Jul 31, 2019

Fourth task implemented by #93.

@dhblum dhblum closed this as completed in d03d540 Aug 19, 2019
@dhblum
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dhblum commented Aug 19, 2019

Closed by #96 and ibpsa/modelica-ibpsa#1170.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants