You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hey @nllong, I'm thinking of the Std 211 Level 1 audit, where we have the following:
If we think about this as a 'simple' HVAC system definition, then it would be useful to be able to define multiple primary system types (heating, cooling, ventilation). For example:
<auc:Systems>
<auc:HVACSystems>
<auc:HVACSystemID="HVACSystem-Simple">
<auc:PrimaryHVACSystemType>Packaged Rooftop Air Conditioner</auc:PrimaryHVACSystemType>
<auc:PrimaryHVACSystemType>Warm Air Furnace</auc:PrimaryHVACSystemType>
</auc:HVACSystem>
</auc:HVACSystems>
</auc:Systems>
What I'm thinking is that we should have 'equivalent' system types for a 'simple' vs. 'detailed' system implementation, where the 'simple' would map well to an audit Level 1, and a 'detailed' would map well to an audit Level 2. Obviously, the 'simple' doesn't allow us to specify:
efficiencies
capacities
delivery methods
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think this is a good idea. Basically we need an abstract way to identify an HVAC system and this makes sense. How about calling it HVACSystem-Level100? Even though level100 is arbitrary at the moment.
Sure - and then we can always change Level100 down the line? We can start creating mappings of 'sets' of HVACSystem-Level100 which map to system types, tackling the most common topologies first.
i.e. the above would be:
Set (Cooling, Heating, Ventilation)
Result
(Packaged Rooftop Air Conditioner, Warm Air Furnace, Single Zone)
Packaged Rooftop AC with Gas Fired Furnace CAV Single Zone
Hey @nllong, I'm thinking of the Std 211 Level 1 audit, where we have the following:
If we think about this as a 'simple' HVAC system definition, then it would be useful to be able to define multiple primary system types (heating, cooling, ventilation). For example:
What I'm thinking is that we should have 'equivalent' system types for a 'simple' vs. 'detailed' system implementation, where the 'simple' would map well to an audit Level 1, and a 'detailed' would map well to an audit Level 2. Obviously, the 'simple' doesn't allow us to specify:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: