Revision as of 21:36, 22 September 2018 edit Daniel.ruepp (talk \| contribs) 271 edits →Why ISO13790 is not considered as "simulation": new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:46, 22 September 2018 edit undo Daniel.ruepp (talk \| contribs) 271 edits m →Why ISO13790 is not considered as "simulation" Next edit →
Line 48: * [...] However, due to the simplicity of the method, dynamic effects (e.g. climatic conditions, user behaviour, time schedules, …) are only considered in a simplified way by time weighted averaged values and dynamic factors.<ref>{{cite journal \|last1=Wauman \|first1=B. \|last2=Breesch \|first2=H. \|last3=Saelens \|first3=D. \|title=Evaluation of the accuracy of the implementation of dynamic effects in the quasi steady-state calculation method for school buildings \|journal=Energy and Buildings \|date=October 2013 \|volume=65 \|pages=173–184 \|doi=10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.05.046}}</ref> Please provide evidence that this is actually a transient simulation before you change the article again. Otherwise please create an article about ISO13790 and include the relevant tools in that article. [[User:Daniel.ruepp\|Daniel.ruepp]] ([[User talk:Daniel.ruepp\|talk]]) 21:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Building performance simulation: Difference between revisions