MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6997202003

Using surrogate models to analyze the impact of geometry on the energy efficiency of buildings

2021· dissertation· en· W6997202003 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowBuilding envelopeBuilding energy simulationEnvelope (radar)Efficient energy usePlan (archaeology)Energy (signal processing)Model building
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent times data-driven approaches to parametrically optimize and explore building geometry has been proven to be a powerful tool that can replace computationally expensive and time-consuming simulations for energy prediction in the early design process. In this research, we explore the use of surrogate models, i.e. efficient statistical approximations of expensive physics-based building simulation models, to lower the computational burden of large-scale building geometry analysis. We try different approaches and techniques to train a machine learning model using multiple datasets to analyze the impact of geometry and envelope features on the energy efficiency of buildings. These contributions are presented in the form of two conference papers and one journal paper (being prepared for submission) that iteratively build up the underlying methodology. The first conference paper contains preliminary experiments using 4 manually generated building geometries for office buildings. Data were generated by simulating various building samples in EnergyPlus for different geometries. We used the generated data to train a machine learning model using support vector regression. We trained two separate models for predicting heating and cooling loads. The lesson learned from this first experiment was that the prediction of the models was not great due to insufficient geometric features explaining the variability in geometry and the lack of sufficient data for varied geometries. The second conference paper developed a novel dataset of 38,000 building energy models for varied geometry using 2D images of real-world residences. We developed a workflow in the Grasshopper/Rhino environment which can convert 2D images of a floor plan into a vector format then into a building energy model ready to be simulated in EnergyPlus. The workflow can also extract up to 20 geometric features from the model, to be used as features in the machine learning process. We used these features and the simulation results to train a neural network-based surrogate model. A sensitivity analysis was performed to understand the impact and importance of each feature to the energy use of the building. From the results of the experiment, we found that off-the-shelf neural network-based surrogates provided with engineered features can very well emulate the desired simulation outputs. We also repeated the experiment for 6 different climatic zones across Canada to understand the impact of geometric features across various climates; these findings are presented in an appendix. iv In the journal paper, we explored two different methodologies to train surrogate models: monolithic and component-based. We explored the component-based modeling technique as it allows the model to be more versatile if we need to add more components to it, ultimately increasing the usability of the model. We conducted further experiments by adding complexity to the geometry surrogate model. We introduced 10 envelope features as an input to the surrogate along with the 20 geometric features. We trained 6 different surrogate models using different datasets by varying geometric and envelope features. From the results of the experiment, we found that the monolithic model performs the best but the component-based surrogate also falls into an acceptable range of accuracy. From the overall results across the three papers, we see that simple neural network-based surrogate models perform really well to emulate simulation outcomes over a wide variety of geometries and envelope features

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Same topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207