Creating space and time for innovation - a methodology for building adaptation design appraisal using physics-based simulation tools and interactive multi-objective optimization
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
Purpose It is crucial to consider the multitude of possible building adaptation design strategies for improving the existing conditions of building stock as an alternative to demolition. Design/methodology/approach Integration of physics-based simulation tools and decision-making tools such as Multi-Attribute Utility (MAU) and Interactive Multi-objective Optimization (IMO) in the design process enable optimized design decision-making for high-performing buildings. A methodology is presented for improving building adaptation design decision making, specifically in the early-stage design feasibility analysis. Ten residential building adaptation strategies are selected and applied to one primary building system for eight performance metrics using physics-based simulation tools. These measures include energy use, thermal comfort, daylighting, natural ventilation, systems performance, life cycle, cost-benefit and constructability. The results are processed using MAU and IMO analysis and are validated through sensitivity analysis by testing one design strategy on three building systems. Findings Quantifiable comparison of building adaptation strategies based on multiple metrics derived from physics-based simulations can assist in the evaluation of overall environmental performance and economic feasibility for building adaptation projects. Research limitations/implications The current methodology presented is limited to the analysis of one decision-maker at a time. It can be improved to include multiple decision-makers and capture varying perspectives to reflect common practices in the industry. Practical implications The methodology presented supports affordable generation and analysis of a large number of design options for early-stage design optimization. Originality/value Given the practical implications, more space and time is created for exploration and innovation, resulting in potential for improved benefits.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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