Paper detail

On the comparison of three numerical methods applied to building simulation: finite-differences, RC circuit approximation and a spectral method

Predictions of physical phenomena in buildings are carried out by using physical models formulated as a mathematical problem and solved by means of numerical methods, aiming at evaluating, for instance, the building thermal or hygrothermal performance by calculating distributions and fluxes of heat and moisture transfer. Therefore, the choice of the numerical method is crucial since it is a compromise among (i) the solution accuracy, (ii) the computational cost to obtain the solution and (iii) the complexity of the method implementation. An efficient numerical method enables to compute an accurate solution with a minimum computational run time (CPU). On that account, this article brings an investigation on the performance of three numerical methods. The first one is the standard and widely used finite-difference approach, while the second one is the so-called RC approach, which is a particular method brought to the building physics area by means of an analogy of electric circuits. The third numerical method is the spectral one, which has been recently proposed to solve nonlinear diffusive problems in building physics. The three methods are evaluated in terms of accuracy on the assessment of the dependent variable (temperature or vapor pressure) or of density of fluxes for three different cases: i) heat diffusion through a concrete slab, ii) moisture diffusion through an aerated concrete slab and iii) heat diffusion using measured temperatures as boundary conditions. Results highlight the spectral approach as the most accurate method. The RC based model with a few number of resistances does not provide accurate results for temperature and vapor pressure distributions neither to flux densities nor conduction loads.

preprint2019arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.