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

90.1-2016 and 90.1-2019 lighting EMS code #1446

Closed
mdahlhausen opened this issue Mar 14, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1447
Closed

90.1-2016 and 90.1-2019 lighting EMS code #1446

mdahlhausen opened this issue Mar 14, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1447

Comments

@mdahlhausen
Copy link
Collaborator

mdahlhausen commented Mar 14, 2023

This is issue is already discussed somewhat as issue 1 in #1395.

In OpenStudio v3.3.0 and above, most 90.1-2016 and 90.1-2019 models will fail at runtime with an error like this:
`Invalid Actuated Component Unique Name =CAFETERIA_ZN_1_FLR_1 ZN PRIMARYSCHOOL CAFETERIA LIGHTS Entered in EnergyManagementSystem:Actuator=CAFETERIA_ZN_1_FLR_1ZN_LIGHT1_ACTUATOR Component Unique key name not found Use Output:EnergyManagementSystem object to create .edd file for valid component names.\

It's from the way EMS actuators are translated in the forward translator from OS to E+. The relevant code is here and here.

Initially, this appeared as an OpenStudio issue. But as I describe in this comment, EnergyPlus is actually right in it's failure, as the code in early versions were actuating the same component.

The issue is that the lights object is defined at the SpaceType level and shared among many spaces / zones. The EMS control needs to operate on one unique lights object per zone/space.

@lymereJ @weilixu I'll take a shot at addressing this and @ you when I've got it refactored within the next day or so.

@mdahlhausen mdahlhausen added this to the 0.3.1 milestone Mar 14, 2023
@lymereJ
Copy link
Collaborator

lymereJ commented Mar 14, 2023

That's sounds okay to me. @leijerry888 developed that EMS. @leijerry888 do you foresee any issue with that approach?

@leijerry888
Copy link
Collaborator

@lymereJ I think the approach is good. Just reviewed the PR. Looks good too.

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants