MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6986793186

Quantifying the effects of uncertainty in building simulation

2002· dissertation· en· W6986793186 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueNPARC · 2002
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMonte Carlo methodUncertainty analysisFactorialUncertainty quantificationFunction (biology)Design of experimentsSensitivity analysisWork (physics)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Uncertainty affects all aspects of building simulation: from the development of algorithms, through the implementation of software, to the use of the resulting systems. This work has focused on the problem of quantifying the effect of uncertainty on the predictions made by simulation tools. Two approaches to quantifying this effect are pursued in this thesis: external and internal methods. The external approach treats the simulation engine as a `black box' and alters only the input model. Methods within this approach require multiple simulations of systematically altered models and the subsequent analysis of the differences in the predictions in order to draw conclusions on the effect of uncertainty. Three methods were identified for use in the present work: differential, factorial and Monte Carlo. The differential method alters one parameter at a time to quantify the effect of each parameter and requires 2N+1 simulations for N uncertain parameters. The factorial method alters groups of parameters simultaneously to determine interactions between effects and requires 2N simulations. The Monte Carlo method alters all parameters simultaneously to quantify the overall effect of uncertainty. The number of simulations required for the Monte Carlo method is independent of the number of parameters and is typically 80. Each of these methods require a significant number of simulations. To quantify the individual contributions, the interactions between these contributions and the effects overall would require the use of all three methods. The internal approach represents parameters as a function of uncertainty and alters the underlying algorithms of the simulation tool so that uncertainty is included at all computational stages. Methods within this approach require only a single simulation to quantify the individual and overall effects. Three methods were studied: interval, fuzzy and affine arithmetic. It was found when forming the energy balance equation set, correlations between the source of uncertainty and the equation terms should be maintained. This is necessary so that uncertain parameters have the same value when used in different terms in the equation set. For example, the uncertainty in conduction into and out of a homogeneous control volume will be correlated because the uncertainty is for the materials properties. Only affine arithmetic accounts for these correlations. To achieve this, uncertainty considerations are embodied within the underlying conservation equations using a first order polynomial representation of uncertainty. This polynomial is formed from the mean value of the parameter with the individual uncertainties defined as separate terms. Each uncertainty term is represented by an interval number. The resulting predictions (state variables) are likewise represented by first order polynomials. The measure of individual effects are the coefficients of these polynomials and the overall effect is the sum of the coefficients. Specific performance instances can then be created in a post-simulation analysis by specifying an exact value for each of the uncertainty terms. To test the applicability of the two approaches the theory was implemented within the ESP-r system, with the internal approach applied to ESP-r's core thermal model. The advantages and disadvantages of each approach are examined. It is shown that the results of a single internal simulation compare well with the outcomes from the external methods. Although the affine approach does not always produce a converged calculation of the effects of uncertainty, the application represents a novel and integrated approach to the assessment of uncertainty in building simulation. Reasons for the failure are given and approaches to overcoming these are described. To support the definition of uncertainty at the time of model creation, the uncertainty in key parameters has been quantified. These parameters comprise thermophysical properties, casual heat gains and infiltration rates. The impact of uncertainty assessment on the design process is explored via three case studies. These examine the use of simulation at the early and detailed design stages and when used to compare design variants. The implications of uncertainty in each case are elaborated. Finally, recommendations for further research are made. These cover the application of the internal approach to other technical domains, for example air flow modelling, and the quantification of uncertainty in relation to additional parameters such as occupant behaviour.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,019
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,100

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0190,102
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0030,005
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,085
Tête enseignante GPT0,367
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations46
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNPARCMême sujetProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignTravaux en français237 207