Revision to Sizing:Zone Error Message#8855
Conversation
Fixes a problem with the Sizing:Zone where there was an unwritten limit that the temperatures could not be less than zero. Correction includes code changes, new subroutine, unit test, and documentation edits.
Forgot to run the clang-format thing before pushing the code.
| \paragraph{Field: Zone Cooling Design Supply Air Temperature}\label{field-zone-cooling-design-supply-air-temperature} | ||
|
|
||
| The supply air temperature in degrees Celsius for the zone cooling design air flow rate calculation. Air is supplied to the zone at this temperature during the cooling design day simulation, The zone load is met by varying the zone air flow rate. The maximum zone flow rate is saved as the~ zone cooling design air flow rate. This field is only used when Zone Cooling Design Supply Air Temperature Input Method = \textbf{SupplyAirTemperature}. | ||
| The supply air temperature in degrees Celsius for the zone cooling design air flow rate calculation. Air is supplied to the zone at this temperature during the cooling design day simulation. The zone load is met by varying the zone air flow rate. The maximum zone flow rate is saved as the~ zone cooling design air flow rate. This field is only used when Zone Cooling Design Supply Air Temperature Input Method = \textbf{SupplyAirTemperature}. If the value entered for this parameter is less than zero, a warning message is produced so that the user will double check the input to make sure it is correct. |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| void ReportTemperatureInputError( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At first I wasn't quite sure why you were passing a zero in here, but this makes good sense now. Nice reuse of the new worker function.
| " ** ~~~ ** ... incorrect Zone Heating Design Supply Air Temperature=[-2.00] is less than " | ||
| "Zone Cooling Design Supply Air Temperature=[-1.00]", | ||
| " ** ~~~ ** This is not allowed. Please check and revise your input."}))); | ||
| } |
|
I didn't see a defect file on the PR, the issue, or in DevSupport. The unit tests provide very good coverage, however, and the functionality being pulled into a small worker function makes it easy to understand the changes. This is good stuff. I pulled in develop and ran the full test suite, all good. CI is all happy as well. This is merging. Thanks @RKStrand |
| EnergyPlusData &state, std::string cObjectName, int const paramNum, Real64 comparisonTemperature, bool const shouldFlagSevere, bool &ErrorsFound) | ||
| { | ||
| if (state.dataIPShortCut->rNumericArgs(1) < comparisonTemperature) { | ||
| if (shouldFlagSevere) { // heating supply air temperature is lower than cooling supply air temperature--not allowed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RKStrand I just encountered this error with a user's file. This seems overly strict. A warning would be fine, but halting the simulation seems overly strict. The only important thing is that the heating supply temp is greater than the heating setpoint. And likewise for cooling.
** Severe ** Sizing:Zone="C00138" has invalid data.
** ~~~ ** ... incorrect Zone Heating Design Supply Air Temperature=[21.00] is less than Zone Cooling Design Supply Air Temperature=[24.00]
** ~~~ ** This is not allowed. Please check and revise your input.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmm...I don't remember the specifics anymore as to why this was made a severe. In looking back at the issue, it seems like you advocated making this a warning. There are some other cases that are warnings. I'm not sure why this was made a "severe" except that it seems illogical to have a heating supply air temperature that is less than a cooling supply air temperature. I must not have foreseen this as a possibility. @Myoldmopar how should we proceed here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@RKStrand Given that the original issues was about supply temps < 0, this check of heating > cooling supply temp added an additional constraint. I agree it typically might not make sense, so I would be fine with a warning. I will post a new issue for this.
7 participants
Pull request overview
NOTE: ENHANCEMENTS MUST FOLLOW A SUBMISSION PROCESS INCLUDING A FEATURE PROPOSAL AND DESIGN DOCUMENT PRIOR TO SUBMITTING CODE
Pull Request Author
Add to this list or remove from it as applicable. This is a simple templated set of guidelines.
Reviewer
This will not be exhaustively relevant to every PR.