Combining energy, indoor air quality and moisture models \nfor assessing the whole building performance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In most studies, energy efficiency, indoor air quality and moisture performance measures are considered separately as a criterion of the building performance. Comparing the results of the energy efficiency, indoor air quality and moisture performance measures simulated by single model tools can have positive and negative interactions with each other. To provide realistic and comprehensive solution that calculates the impact of energy efficiency, indoor air quality and moisture performance criteria on the whole building performance, it is necessary to use a combined model. Therefore, in this research, a new model has been developed that combines all three e.g. energy, indoor air quality and moisture models. The advantage of this combined model is that in addition to predicting the performances of the building in the three areas of energy, indoor air quality and moisture, it will also be able to consider the impact of positive and negative interactions of these three criteria on the output results. Therefore, in combined model the simulated results show the actual performance of the building. The accuracy of combined model is verified using the paired sample t-test method. The development of the combined model has been performed in three phases. In the first phase, the feasibility of coupling EnergyPlus with CONTAM has been analyzed. In the second phase, the feasibility of coupling CONTAM with WUFI has been evaluated, and in the third phase, the feasibility of combining EnergyPlus, CONTAM and WUFI has been concluded. To analyze the differences of the simulated results by the combined and single models methods, four scenarios are defined for a case study of the three-story house. These scenarios include: 1- airtight fanoff, 2- airtight fan-on, 3- leaky fan-off and 4- leaky fan-on. To select the optimal scenarios, the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for energy efficiency, ASHRAE Standard 62.1 for indoor air quality, ASHRAE Standard 160 and 55 for moisture performance and thermal comfort criteria have been used. Then, the results simulated by combined and single models for four scenarios are presented in the percentage differences with an acceptable level of ASHRAE Standards 90.1, 62.1, 160 and 55. The comparison of the results for the combined model with the single models have been performed for different climates of Montreal, Vancouver, and Miami. The results of this research show that the simulated measures by the combined model are different from the single models. The reason for this difference is that in single models, airflows, temperatures, and heating/cooling flow are defined as input data by the user but in the combined model, the control variables of airflows, temperatures and heating/cooling flows are exchanged in a cyclic loop between all three sub-models of EnergyPlus, CONTAM and WUFI. Since the accuracy of the combined model has been validated based on the paired sample t-test method, this new model can be used as a benchmark tool for the whole building performance analysis.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».