Automated Code Compliance Checking for Building Envelope Design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automating the checking of building envelope design according to design regulations is a complex process because these regulations consist of complicated logic sentences covering multiple functions. Existing mechanisms of building code computer-aided checking have some limitations dealing with design regulations. This paper presents a new integrated approach to automated code compliance checking for building envelope design based on simulation results and building codes. In this approach, building codes and simulation results are seamlessly linked with the compliance checking software. A hierarchical object-based representation of simulation results is proposed as an extended building information model (EBIM) to describe the attributes of a building and its subsystems. A representation of building codes based on decision tables and compatible with the EBIM is also proposed so that users can check the building envelope design against building codes based on the standardized simulation results. A prototype system is developed and a case study gives an example of evaluating the hygrothermal performance of an exterior wall.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it