Update of ASHRAE Standard 140 Section 5.2 and Related Sections (BESTEST Building Thermal Fabric Test Cases)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report documents new work intended to update the current building thermal fabric software-to-software comparative test specifications and example results of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2017, Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and related supporting sections. The Building Energy Simulation Test and Diagnostic Method (BESTEST) test specification and example results that provide the basis for these Standard 140 sections were originally published in 1995. The state of the art in building energy simulation modeling has advanced since then. Additionally, comments on the test specification over the years highlighted ambiguities, further necessitating the update to the original work. This new work was conducted for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), in collaboration with a working group of international experts associated with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standing Standard Project Committee (SSPC) 140. SSPC 140 is responsible for ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140. The new work, presented in this report, defined the test cases and specifications such that building energy simulation programs with time steps of one hour or less can perform the tests. Revisions to the test specification and update of example results follow the vetting process of iterative field trials established for previous BESTEST work that has been adapted for ASHRAE Standard 140.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".