-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 461
Followup VRF warning about solveRoot of Te at small load condition #11000
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
Conversation
|
| } else { | ||
| SmallLoadTe = MinOutdoorUnitTe; | ||
| } | ||
| T_suction + 6); // SmallLoadTe is the updated Te' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- Why is this SolveRoot call, lines 13960 and 13961, still here? It doesn't do anything.
- If you are going to execute line 13968 anyway, then you may as well make this an
if () { } else { }to eliminate the extra equivalence. - I would still like to see a warning for SolFla == -2 and let the code coverage tell us it's never used than to possibly miss a coding mistake. At the very least put an assert there so a developer might stumble across an issue.
- What happened to the recurring warning?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rraustad Thanks for the comments.
for 1. I think might have forgot to change it back. Now the upper bound is changed back to T_suction.
2. I changed it to if else logic
3. I added back the warnings for the SolFla = -2 case
4. Also added back recurring warnings in the SolFla = -2
| int LowLoadTeError2PosTsuc = 0; | ||
| int LowLoadTeError2PosTsucIndex = 0; // warning message index | ||
| int LowLoadTeError2PosOUTe = 0; | ||
| int LowLoadTeError2PosOUTeIndex = 0; // warning message index |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you planning to use these?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, added back the warnings
|
|
|
@Myoldmopar @yujiex @Myoldmopar it has been 29 days since this pull request was last updated. |
|
@Myoldmopar @yujiex @Myoldmopar it has been 35 days since this pull request was last updated. |
|
This reverts commit 3399351.
|
|
|
|
@Myoldmopar @yujiex @Myoldmopar it has been 28 days since this pull request was last updated. |
|
|
||
| General::SolveRoot(state, 1.0e-3, MaxIter, SolFla, SmallLoadTe, f, MinOutdoorUnitTe, | ||
| T_suction); // SmallLoadTe is the updated Te' | ||
| if (SolFla == -1) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Line 14219 was moved to new line 14232, right? If so, the call to SolveRoot at 14219 can be deleted.
| SmallLoadTe); | ||
| } else { | ||
| // demand > capacity at both endpoints of the Te range, take the end point x where f(x) is closer to zero | ||
| if (f_xmin > f_xmax) { // f(T_suction > 0, not equal as SolFla will not be -2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this comment SolFla will not be -2 correct? because this code is in the } else if (SolFla == -2) { block.
|
@yujiex this is about ready. Just take a look at these last comments. |
|
@yujiex @Myoldmopar it has been 28 days since this pull request was last updated. |
2 similar comments
|
@yujiex @Myoldmopar it has been 28 days since this pull request was last updated. |
|
@yujiex @Myoldmopar it has been 28 days since this pull request was last updated. |
|
Testing a comment. I can see the repo but cannot push this branch. |
rraustad
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good now.
|
I did look at the defect file for issues (I tracked back through PRs for a defect file). I am not sure what COP should result from this "VRF configuration" but I don't see any oddities, i.e., step functions in performance because of these changes (except for a cooling COP > 8, that does seem rather high but out of scope). High cooling COP could be a follow up, if necessary, and does not relate to these changes. 11000-US+SF+CZ5B+hp+slab+IECC_2021_VRFPhysics_v2_hrdsize_V2420.idf.txt |
| } | ||
| ShowRecurringWarningErrorAtEnd( | ||
| state, | ||
| "Low load calculation Te solution not found as load is smaller than min-speed capacity for the whole range", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what the warning is trying to convey. Is "Te" something you'd expect the user to understand?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This warning seems more like a diagnostic message for developers, rather than a user-friendly explanation. We might consider making it more user-oriented.
|
This looks good to me as-is, and the extra handling for |
|
Thanks all. We'll merge this. If in hindsight there's more clarity that can be added to those messages, please considers submitting a follow-up. |

Pull request overview
Description of the purpose of this PR
Pull Request Author
Reviewer