#110 energy consumption building HW

[Juergen Fluch]

If you could help us concerning the DHW process for the buildings (production and office) - file sent by mail

1. wrong calculation
   e.g. for the production: We defined a daily consumption of DHW by 2.5 m³ - the process is erected with inlet temp of the water at 10°C and the process temp at 50°C leading to a daily energy consumption (40 * 2.5/3600*1000 * 4.2) of 116 kWh. 365 days of operation or occupation in this case lead to an annual consumption of 42.5 MWh.
   The results after the CCheck are 116 kWh for the annual consumption (116kWh are only the daily one!) - so we guess there is a problem with the yearly calculation. And it is the same for the office building. Could you please have a look at it.

we tried to check what is the problem and recognised that directly after deleting a building, generating it once again and performing the CCheck the calculation is correct. Also for the second building that has not been deleted and generated once again (strange!). But after some other changes (e.g. changing the volume of daily needed DHW) and performing the CCheck again the results are wrong again. Think this information is helpful.

1. wrong occupation
   if we change the occupation time of the building to 280 days what should influence the yearly energy consumption (as we think) the energy consumption is still based on 365 days what is also the operation time of the boiler - so is the boiler the driving parameter therefore? Should it be?

Thanks in advance for your help and feedback.

[Jan Ries]

1. Found and fixed. Thank you, that only happened if you had no holidays for the building. That case was seldom used.

2. That has a deeper problem:
   In former times building were primitive and had a fixed number of occupation days. Now with the detailed schedules a questions arises: On which days is the building used?
   I'll elaborate that in an private e-mail.

[energyXperts.NET]

Test with BUI-01 example in 2.1.93 development version gives 0 MWh -> seems severe bug, switched to high priority